Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Monkees were better than the Beatles - agree/disagree?

The Monkees were better than the Beatles - agree/disagree?


  • Total voters
    86
It can only be about the musical legacy for me. Not being a teenager back in the 60's (not being at all actually until I popped into the world when I'm A Believer was number 1) I can't really relate to the Beatles realness and Monkees artificiality.

I have lots of Monkees tunes I would miss greatly if I lost them. I have a couple of Beatles tunes that I could live without quite happily.
 
Bluestreak: I was rather pedantically only giving 'em half a point if there was a song that they wrote in conjunction with somebody outside of the band. :D

Still, even doing it your way, it's only 50% at best on a couple of their albums, no? :)

Not much more to say from me really: regardless of who wrote what, I love a lot of The Monkees' stuff.

And lots by The Beatles. And The Kinks. And The Millennium. And The Zombies. And The Clique. And The Byrds. And Love. And Count Five. And The Seeds. And blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... :D :o
 
Dubversion said:
well that's my 'soul-selling-pension-plan' buggered then.

Don't give up on it baby. It might be worth a fortune one day. How many people can boast a pristine collection of Hutch's finest on blue vinyl?
 
ohmyliver said:
If you think thats bad, there is only one jagger richards number on the first stones album!

True. :D

The difference there was that Andrew Loog Oldham actively encouraged them to write their own material (-if the old tales are true, he locked Jagger and Richards in a room 'til they'd written something!), whereas The Monkees' management weren't at all keen on them writing their own stuff. :D
 
goldenecitrone said:
Don't give up on it baby. It might be worth a fortune one day. How many people can boast a pristine collection of Hutch's finest on blue vinyl?

<froths rabidly> :eek: :cool:
 
bluestreak said:
Head soundtrack

Opening Ceremony
"Porpoise Song (Theme from Head)" (Goffin/King)
"Ditty Diego-War Chant" (Nicholson/Rafelson)
"Circle Sky" (Nesmith)
Supplicio
"Can You Dig It" (Tork)
Gravy
Superstitious
"As We Go Along" (King/Stern)
Dandruff?
"Daddy's Song" (Nilsson)
Poll
"Long Title: Do I Have to Do This All Over Again" (Tork)
Swami-Plus Strings (Ken Thorne), Etc.

*

Whats the one that Davey does in the top hat? That's freaking great! Fab stereo too.
 
goldenecitrone said:
Let's face it, the whole trajectory of the Beatles from the Quarrymen, through the Hamburg nights fueled by amphetamine and German hookers to conquering America pisses all over the manufactured bullshit of the Monkees. And if you can't see that then I'm afraid that you have no soul. :(
Hmm, The Beatles were a pub cover band in Hamburg and only wrote 8 of the 14 songs on their first (really awful) album.

Carole King wrote songs for The Monkees and The Beatles and loads of others. She's great.
 
Sunspots said:
Bluestreak: I was rather pedantically only giving 'em half a point if there was a song that they wrote in conjunction with somebody outside of the band. :D

Still, even doing it your way, it's only 50% at best on a couple of their albums, no? :)

Not much more to say from me really: regardless of who wrote what, I love a lot of The Monkees' stuff.

fair enough, personally i don't really care enough about who wrote what to argue any value attached to that. i'm far too old to believe in the whole artist's mythos thing when attached to pop music. simply put, the monkees made great pop music. the beatles, on the other hand, made the sort of pop music that make me want to kick things... it's hard to explain. i was brought up on both and yet haven't rated the beatles since my late teens when my music tastes started getting a bit more widespread, but the monkees have stayed with me.... i mean, the sheer pretentious loathsomeness of SPLHCB should make it a shoe-in really sbhouldn't it? and the monkees never did anything so fucking pip-squeak twee and teenypop dollar panty-moistening bullshit as "i wanna hold your hand". or as fucking sanctimoniously dull as eleanour rigby. and anyone who can remain calm in the face of the plodding stadium neanderthal chanting of hey jude is a better man than me. and now i'm gonna miss my fucking train cos of this rant :(
 
bluestreak said:
i'm far too old to believe in the whole artist's mythos thing when attached to pop music.

Me too. It's pop music, and it sounds great! :)

bluestreak said:
and now i'm gonna miss my fucking train cos of this rant :(

But now you can stand on that platform, quietly knowing that no matter how long 'til the next train, you ranted when it counted. Gawd bless yer. :cool:

bubblegum.jpg
 
Sunspots said:
True. :D

The difference there was that Andrew Loog Oldham actively encouraged them to write their own material (-if the old tales are true, he locked Jagger and Richards in a room 'til they'd written something!), whereas The Monkees' management weren't at all keen on them writing their own stuff. :D

I was teasing, I should have added more !!!!s or something
 
I enjoyed the second half of that programme last night (I didn't see the first half!), and I loved the Monkees as a kid (I fancied Davy Jones (who, at that stage, was taller than me!)) but I voted to disagree because the Beatles were not a manufactured band, and did write their own stuff :)
 
Guineveretoo said:
I enjoyed the second half of that programme last night (I didn't see the first half!), and I loved the Monkees as a kid (I fancied Davy Jones (who, at that stage, was taller than me!)) but I voted to disagree because the Beatles were not a manufactured band, and did write their own stuff :)
I don't understand why being a manufactured band make you less worthy as a band who writes their own stuff? :confused:
 
Orang Utan said:
I don't understand why being a manufactured band make you less worthy as a band who writes their own stuff? :confused:
well i can sort of see it... it's like the difference between doing something and NOT doing something! otherwise there would be no difference between a tribute band and the original. but "worthy" doesn't equal "good"
 
Guineveretoo said:
I enjoyed the second half of that programme last night (I didn't see the first half!), and I loved the Monkees as a kid (I fancied Davy Jones (who, at that stage, was taller than me!)) but I voted to disagree because the Beatles were not a manufactured band, and did write their own stuff :)

Let's use the old pizza analogy.

Do you go into a place that pizza is made up in kit form and it tastes great or go to some little cafe that make them from scratch but they're all dough and use cheap cheese??

Therefore Pizza Express are the Monkees and that shithole round the corner from me is The Beatles (stodgy cheesey crap).

I claim my Sloppy Guiseppe.
 
'the girl that i knew somewhere' is a classic nesmith monkees song. i have it on a greatest comp - not sure where it appeared originally.

one thing that's clear from reading this thread - boyce/hart were a genius songwriting team.
 
twisted said:
Let's use the old pizza analogy.

Do you go into a place that pizza is made up in kit form and it tastes great or go to some little cafe that make them from scratch but they're all dough and use cheap cheese??

Therefore Pizza Express are the Monkees and that shithole round the corner from me is The Beatles (stodgy cheesey crap).

I claim my Sloppy Guiseppe.

I don't eat pizza :D
 
Orang Utan said:
I don't understand why being a manufactured band make you less worthy as a band who writes their own stuff? :confused:

Neither do I, really.

It's just that the Monkees consisted of 4 actors who auditioned successfully for an acting job that had a bit of singing in it.

It reminded me of the Partridge Family, which came later, and where, originally at least, the actors were not even employed to sing. At least the Monkees sang.

I don't know why, but I find the notion of actors who become famous singers as a consequence of a kid's tv programme being better than musicians/singers who work together as a band a bit strange.

Actually, I think both bands have lots of singalong songs, that everyone on these boards would know. But I still voted for the Beatles :)
 
The Monkees were fucking twee candy pop American shite at its complete and utter worst. :mad: :mad: And don't get me started on the vastly overrated sickly Beach Boys dross.:mad: :mad:

















:mad:
 
Guineveretoo said:
It's just that the Monkees consisted of 4 actors who auditioned successfully for an acting job that had a bit of singing in it.

actually, three professional musicians and an actor!
 
bluestreak said:
actually, three professional musicians and an actor!

I thought they were hired as actors who could sing? Admittedly, I missed the first part of the programme last night, but I thought that is what it said? :confused:

Someone or other said that they learnt to play during the run of the show, so that, eventually, they were playing along, but they were still not allowed to play on the recordings....
 
I want the Monkees What Am I Doing Hangin' Round played at my funeral.

I don't want anything by the Beatles played at it, even though I won't be able to hear it anyway.
 
Odd that the vote disagrees with the majority of comments made
I suspect that the celebration of the mediocre espoused here actually means that this thread is primarily popular with Sun readers/Monkey lovers
Stands to reason really :D :D
 
ianw said:
one thing that's clear from reading this thread - boyce/hart were a genius songwriting team.

They did a couple of albums with Dolenz and Jones in the mid-eighties. It had the unremarkable title of Dolenz, Jones, Boyce, and Hart, but it was decent enough. It also contained it share of bad jokes:

"and now, for the dolphin joke of the day:

KEE, KEEEEEE, KEEE, KEEEE, KEEEE"
 
Dubversion said:
no.

Last Train To Clarksville pwns anything by the beatles. :)

When the tv studio formed the Monkees in order to cast the show, they basically didn't know how to play musical instruments.


...except for Michael Nesmith.
 
Back
Top Bottom