Kinks a sgood as the beatles?

Cafe Society
141

I don’t need to put down the Beatles to praise the Kinks, or diminish the Kinks to praise the Beatles. The Kinks, from what I have observed and believe, were instrumental in creating “hard rock” or “heavy metal” with their first two hits. Dave Davies reportedly discovered/stumbled upon the crunch distorted guitar sound and the world noticed. Ray Davies is a songwriting genius. In fact, I would put his songwriting on par with John and Paul, and better than George.

But… the title of this thread isn’t best songwriter, or best lyricist. The Beatles had three great songwriters, but even more, they had the best team in Lennon/McCartney. The best Beatles songs were team written by those two, and the sum was definitely greater than the parts. Then, you get to singing. Lennon/McCartney melodies, and especially harmonies, are still sublime. The Beatles had two or three (or perhaps even four) talented singers as good as or better than Davies.

I regularly listen to both The Kinks and The Beatles, but I just don’t see how you can listen to the albums Hard Days Night, Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver, St. Peppers, Abbey Road and Let It Be and not see the tremendous progression… or think “boy band”.

And, yes, George Martin deserves (and generally gets) as much credit for the band’s creativity, skills and success as the four band members.

142

Nice! Yes Dave innovated on a grungy tone, but he wasn’t close to the first. The song held out commonly as the first rock n roll son is Rocket 88 recorded at Sun by Ike Turner’s band, but the single was credited to his singer, Jackie Brenston - it is considered first because they dropped an amp on the way to the studio but recorded it anyway. That tone is why it is considered first. Also, Johnny Burnette and the Rock n’ Roll Trio had the same thing happen when the recorded the incredibly badass singles Train Kept a Rollin’ and Honey Hush in the late 50’s.

George Martin was more important at first in teaching them songcraft - how to intro into the first verse, how to structure a middle eight. He was also experienced working with comedians at Parlophone and learned to be very open to their studio shenanigans as they recorded their routines. The Boys (how George referred to them), once they realized this, were off to the races. Books like Geoff Emerick’s memoir, are really fun ways to hear about this.

No, I am not providing cites - this stuff is burned into my skull and easily verifiable.

143

I think the proposition that the Kinks’ lyrics were better overall than the Beatles’ is something that deserves consideration, if anyone were to make a case for it.

As for the music, I’d first point to the fact that many college courses have been devoted to scholarly analysis of the Beatles’ compositions, arrangements, innovations, and influence. If that means making an appeal to authority, I’m comfortable with that - I have to make the same concession on Global Climate Change, not being versed in Climatology. I’ve got enough evidence only to say that the people who really know this stuff are of a near-unanimous opinion.

This video, though, makes a pretty good introduction to why their compositions are considered exceptional:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQS91wVdvYc

144

Not many did, actually. Most rock performers before them were solos backed by anonymous players: Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry etc. Anyone could play on these guys’ records and nobody cared. At best, you might see groups the Crickets and the Shadows, still very much second to their charismatic front men (Buddy Holly and Cliff Richard, respectively). Other than that, there were no “rock groups” as we understand the term today (instrumental combos with a fixed membership); most rock and pop recordings were made with session players. The Beatles were not John Lennon and the Beatles, or Paul McCartney and the Beatles — they considered themselves a self-contained musical unit, each of them ostensibly equal, and they were lucky enough to find a producer who recognized that as one of their strengths. Since you like citations, Jonathan Gould’s Can’t Buy Me Love does a good job of explaining this.

And if you think the Beatles are solely a product of slick marketing, you really don’t know what you’re talking about. The Beatles’ fame was the organic result of their own charisma as performers, combined with some lucky accidents of timing. If you really want to understand how the Beatles broke into America, this lengthy articlewill help. The title, “How the Beatles Went Viral,” is apt — the Capitol bigwigs who would go on to make so much money off the group initially wanted nothing to do with them. It was the audience that forced their hand.

145

Agreed. The fact that the Beatles’ lyrics are less idiosyncratic (and thus more approachable) than Davies’ is one of the factors that helped make the Beatles so popular around the world.

Agreed again. I love that video (although I hate it when that guy sings).

146

Most of that stuff on that page is going to go into the musical details of the music, so it’s extremely analytical from that point of view. It’s more geared towards those who already have some musical knowledge than a casual reader, and who want to get into the nitty gritty of what the Beatles were doing compositionally in their songs. But if you already know a few chords and have tried writing a few songs or something like that (have even casual musical knowledge), there should be content there that is meaningful and interesting to you.

147

Its not even a fair discussion…even Ringos contributions beat the Kinks!! :smiley:

What would the Beatles have been like with Ray Davies in the band would be an interesting discussion though.

148

By the way, for others (and perhaps Zeke, but this may be a little too music geeky), there’s a great guy on Youtube who deconstructs Beatles vocals in excruciating detail (as well as some guitar parts), and I’ve come to appreciate the vocal harmonies of Lennon and McCartney even more than I already do by having the nuances and ornaments of their vocal lines demonstrated. Here’s a segment from his deconstruction of “I Wanna Hold Your Hand”, and the simple-sounding, yet subtle variations on the three repetitions of “I can’t hide,” as well as the final harmonies in “I wanna hold your ha-a-a-a-a-and.”

All his videos go into this granular detail, and I’ve found it rewarding as a casual Beatles fan to discover new things and re-appreciate songs that I’ve heard hundreds of times before. It truly speaks to the richness and quality of their music.

149

Donald you really need to pay less attention to this and focus on your campaign for president. It’s a disaster.

150

You don’t have to like them. You can actively hate them. No one has a problem with this. Different tastes and all. I get that.

But likening them to a marketed Boy Band makes you sound willfully and obstinately ignorant.

No you can’t. You simply like one better than the other. It’s subjective. You get what that means right? The fact that you don’t like it doesn’t make it suck. The fact that you like it doesn’t make it good.

You present opinion as if it were fact. It is your opinion that the Kinks were better than the Beatles. Which is just a way of saying that you enjoy the work of the Kinks more than that of the Beatles. And no one has a problem with this.

Bestest? No. Most culturally significant? Yes. It has inspired generations to both great and unspeakable things. People in this country are trying to base laws on it to this day. Much like the Qur’an in other places. It means it cannot be dismissed as unimportant simply because you don’t like it.

Your position sounds a lot like “The Bible sucks. The Qur’an is soooooo much better.”

You speak as if popularity has no place in a discussion like this. It certainly does. What matters in a discussion of what band was better (which still boils down to opinion) is popularity, sales, influence on peers, longevity. Everything else is entirely subjective.

Armada may be the most technically proficient band of all times. There lyrical prowess may bring a grown man to tears. Their melodies, unparalleled. But since no one listens to them, they don’t get to be in the discussion.

BTW, I love the Kinks. Always have.

151

In my opinion The Kinks are better. Period.

As has been suggested I’m starting a new threadhere to discuss the supremacy of the Beatles.

152

As a songwriter, I suppose, or lyricist, like Robert Hunter’s work with Garcia for the Grateful Dead.

I don’t think the Beatles needed a third guitar, and Ray couldn’t match George or John as a picker/strummer. Lead vocalist, no. I love to hear Ray sing, but not as much as John or Paul.

Ray, how’s your piano playing? I’d love to get you up on that stage somehow.

153

IF they Kinks were never banned and Dave Davis shared writing credit and Pete quayfe their original bassist wrote songs would that help them get as popular as the Beatles?

154

No?

155

Well, they would have been MORE popular (in America), but not as popular as the Beatles or the Stones.

I’d like to think that Ray would be as rich as Sir Paul, but he’s probably rich enough. He’s happy in his little Shangri La.

156

Neither the Beatles nor the kinks were a sgood. This is a myth. The Kinks were a sgreat. The Beatles were a sstickofdynamite.

157

funny tho I I knew the kinks from two songs the one in the 60s and come dancing … I didn’t even know they had that much out

I should take a listen ,

158

Congratulations! You have just been born.