You titled it as an admission of possible controversy.
So what did you actually want this thread to be?
Holy crap. I never realized how similar those songs were. It seems so friggin obvious now, but somehow, I never came across this comparison before.
I’m pretty sure I made the answer to that clear.
I don’t know enough musical theory to explain the difference between the Beatles and other bands properly, but Beatles rhythms are much tighter and give far fewer options to the dancer. There’s not really much more I can say than suggest dancing to ‘A Hard Day’s Night’ and then the Kingsmens’ version of Louie Louie and see how different they feel.
As I’ve been trying to say all along, I don’t think this is a flaw in the Beatles. It’s intentional and I’m intrigued about why they did it (eg was it to do with amphetamines?) and how it helped them become so popular.
Your comment about how ‘The Monkees were designed simply to copy The Beatles success in any way possible’ is a strange one. Obviously that does not include copying their music, since that would be illegal. And, as we’ve been saying since the start of the thread, they did not set out to even play exactly the same style as the Beatles. So it’s no surprise that the technicalities of their music would be different.
You’re getting boring. I did not say the Beatles were a downer and neither did the OP.
Apparently, this preference is controversial enough to warrant two pages on this thread so far.
In my minds ear, they are in the same key? I dunno. Interesting observation.
The Beatles put out a LOT of mindless dreck, they did have some very popular songs. A “happy” danceable tune (sort of) might be The Word; I think the heavy drug use put John Lennon in particular seriously out of his senses, unfortunately. He didn’t put out anything listenable after the Revolver album. Harrison went off on his sappy, preachy cosmic kick etc. No thanks. The Stones had their “issues”, but I think Keith had a point in calling the “Pepper” album rubbish.
I recall watching the Monkees TV show as a lad, I watched a few episodes on YT and was surprised at how sophisticated it was, for a show aimed at kids. Not saying it was watcheable or good for kids or anything, but a lot of thought went into it. What they were thinking is anyones guess.
They are pretty similar. Both hang on a G7 chord for much of the verse, and share similar chords, but PW is in G and LTTC is in C. But, listening to them in my head, I seem to be able to move freely between one and the other.
Where did it become an opinion about why the monkees were formed and the TV show went on? Look at Wiki. If they weren’t modeled on the beatles success then what is your less “strange” theory? So they didn’t plagiarize…That means they were not copying? There is no stylistic difference in the two groups except for ones they couldn’t help like where they were from, that the beatles were self composing, and that the monkees were a direct derivative of the others success. No element of the monkees sound was unique to them and absent from the beatles.
If they had one of the beatles songs to do don’t you think they would have done it, or would it have gone in the wastebasket cause it didn’t fit their style enough? Kirschner would have killed for a beatles song to do.
The Beatles have been described in this thread, not by you, as “not a feel good band” which I found a height of irony.
As for a theory about their rhythms and drugs, I don’t even know what to say. I’ll stay out of that one.
Did you mean to post it in MPSIMS? I don’t get the pushback.
What is your vision of the thread? I’ll be accommodating but you have to say.
The Pleasant Valley Sunday riff is even closer to paperback writer. It’s in A, but you can capo up and play G figures.
The monkees have such great intro riffs in their catalogue. I think it’s their strongest claim to fame.
I’m with the OP. While I value the contributions the Beatles made to music history, it’s mostly because their innovations were picked up on by other artists and made better. There’s really not that much of their output that I care to listen to, though they have the added disadvantage that all of their best stuff has been played to death these many decades later. I still get a kick out of a lot of the Monkees songs, though.
I liked the Monkees before I liked the Beatles. I think for what were, the Monkees were a good group. The Beatles were certainly better. But there’s a couple things to remember about the Monkees.
[ul]
[li]1. Headquarters was #1 until Sgt. Pepper was released.[/li][li]B. They hired the Jimi Hendrix Experience as an opening act on tour.[/li][li]III. Frank Zappa appeared on their TV show.[/li][li]4th. One of the first bands to use a Moog Synthesiser. [/li][/ul]
I loved their TV show in 5th and 6th grade when it was new. between then and when I rewatched it last year, it got
not good. I bet someone re-edited it. Probably that Kirshner fellow.
Now you’re talking. 
What would be an example, please?
I’ve always suspected that The Monkees had, at least as individuals, more depth than they generally get credit for.
A friend has urged me to watch this film starring the Monkees, which I gather has a cult following. I haven’t seen it yet, though - is there anyone here who has watched it and can comment?
Head’s a terrible movie. It has no plot, makes no sense, and ignores everything that makes the Monkees appealing.
There are a couple of decent songs on the soundtrack.
It’s a boring, clichéd, half-baked attempt at surrealism meant to seem like it’s addressing some deep concept.
I’ve heard it said that Head was Bob Rafelson’s attempt to make the Monkees so unappealing that he wouldn’t have to do it any more.
thanks for the, um, Head’s up. I don’t think I’ll prioritize watching it then.
The script was by Jack Nicholson. It has a couple of good Goffin/King songs, and Frank Zappa makes an appearance.
There was a script?
Sorry. Actually, I’ve attempted to get through it a few times but found it virtually unwatchable.
No, you don’t, do you. Fine by me.