I’m old enough to even know who they are talking about in “Simple,” but I think it is whiny and not funny. And insecure - what were they doing dissing Dylan? Compare it to “I Shall be Free” on Dylan’s second album.
I would hope that an early song like “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” was not the Beatles’ best, but it is a great song anyhow - simple, direct, and a great example of the sublimation of teenage lust into hand holding. It is no accident that it was an awesome hit, one of the early iconic songs like “She Loves You.” It would have been the best song for many groups at the time.
You’re right–they never quite achieved the stratospheric heights any of the artists you mentioned did. It’s a pity, though, as I think they come to closest in terms of songwriting talent to the Beatles in that era.
I listen to Simon & Garfunkel, or just Paul Simon, far more often than I listen to The Beatles when I’m programming my own music selections. I remember when both groups broke up, and I was most saddened by the S&G breakup (I was only 6 or 7 years old, though).
But I voted for The Beatles. They had a greater impact on music, they had a wider variety of song styles, and they were all composers of good music. Paul Simon might be able to go toe-to-toe with any individual Beatle (though Simon would lose in some of those match-ups), but add Art to his side and any other Beatle on the other and it’s a sure loss for S&G. If you had all of the Fab Four against them, no contest.
Though I have to say that Art Garfunkel is the best vocalist of the six men we’re discussing. But that didn’t seem to be very important in their musical period.
The Kinks were always more critical darlings than popular ones; it was a sign of a pretentious rock critic in the 60s to praise them at the expense of the Beatles.
But they were never anywhere near as popular or influential. Still, like the Beatles, they composed in many different musical styles (even disco!) and tried to be as ambitious as they could instead of playing safe. They led the way in some areas – “You Really Got Me” is proto heavy metal – but in side areas as opposed to mainstream rock like the Beatles.
Yes. However, I’m also trying to look at it objectively, so much as matters of artistic taste can be looked at objectively. There’s plenty of artists so or songs or whatnot I can’t stand or don’t “get”, but I don’t dismiss as “terrible”, because there’s obviously something in their music or art that simply doesn’t connect with me.
I think the key factor to the Beatles’ success was that they didn’t have a dominant creative center. Most bands do - a Pete Townshend, a Ray Davies, a Paul Simon, a Brian Wilson, a David Byrne. There may be other band members who contribute but it’s clear who the band’s center is. But the Beatles had John Lennon and Paul McCartney.
It’s not just a matter than two creators are twice as good as one. It’s that the presense of a competing creator drives both creators to be better than they otherwise would be if they worked alone. The competition drives each creator to push themselves - without it they grow complacent. It’s probably not a coincidence that the Rolling Stones, the band most often compared to the Beatles, are also a two creator band.
This is the reason a lot of creators seem to do the best work early in their career - that’s when they feel the need to push themselves up out of the crowd. They are effectively competing with every other band out there. But once they’ve become known and established, they relax and their work falls off. It’s also the reason why two creators can do work together (like Lennon and McCartney or Jagger and Richards) that’s better than the work they do on their own.
Ah, but at least Eleanor Rigby is something totally original, whereas what Simon did was rewrite something that had been written by American Poet Edward Arlington Robinson in 1897, and then put it to a tune, or perhaps even rewrite it to fit a tune he had already.
That’s not to say that Richard Cory is bad – Hell, even McCartney’s later group performed it in concert during the Wings Over America tour of 1976 – but I don’t think you can really compare it to Eleanor Rigby, let alone pick it over that song.
I don’t know that that’s odd. There are artists out there that I don’t really connect with that I nonetheless recognize are talented. But I simply cannot take the opinion that “Yesterday” is a good song very seriously. The lyrics are like something a twelve-year-old aspiring songwriter would write. Musically it’s okay, I guess, but not particularly special. “Eleanor Rigby”, despite being, imho, really boring, is a much better song.
Maybe I am inconsistent and biased. It’s possible.
“Where’s my harmonica, Albert?” And implying people who listen to Dylan don’t know who Dylan Thomas was, unlike the poetry readers who listen to S&G? MMV.
I did see Simon and Dylan together on their tour. Dylan, even in his near dotage, was much better. He was still playing guitar then.
I have to admit–I was being a bit of devil’s advocate in my posts. I find the song itself a bit sappy and sentimental, although with a nice melody. It wouldn’t be in my personal “best of the Beatles” playlist (although “Eleanor Rigby” would make that list.) That said, it’s hard for me to dismiss it as a bad song when so many people from various perspectives find value in it.
It really depends on the context of the question. The Funkel brothers, Simon and Gar, were definitely better folk artists than the Beatles, so if you restrict the question that way, they come out on top. And I personally happen to like folk music enough that for me, personally, I’ll prefer Simon and Garfunkel. But the Beatles did so much else besides, that outside of that context, there’s no question.
And I don’t think that the Beach Boys had nearly enough breadth to make the comparison. You play me a cover band doing a Beach Boys song I’ve never heard before, and I’d be able to tell you it was the Beach Boys. By contrast, play for me a Beatles song I’ve never heard before, performed by the Beatles themselves, and I might still be surprised. They were good at what they did, but what they did was so narrow.
Well, that’s a bit of a philosophical question, don’t you think? I mean, people like all kinds of things that I don’t. Apparently, a lot of people like Ke$ha. I think she’s beyond awful. Can I dismiss their opinions as meaningless because I disgree? IMVHO, I think that all it proves is that my tastes diverge from whoever put “Yesterday” on that Rolling Stone Greatest Songs List. And that’s okay - but I still feel okay about saying that I think it’s a terrible song. I’m not going to say “this is a great song because so many people like it even though it makes me want to jab my eardrums out.”
Maybe it’s worth ponting out that one thing that sets the Beatles apart from so many other artists mentioned is that they gave up performing live in order to focus on recording, an approach that few other artists, then or since, have taken. This means that during the period of arguably their greatest creative genius, all of that creative genius was focused on making the best recordings they could, and getting as much as possible out of the recording studio.
Carry on.