Bustduster wrote:
Objectively, the Beatles were better and certainly far more innovative. Their albums - at least from "Help" onwards - were generally more consistent with fewer filler tracks (I know some folks reckon "The White Album" is patchy, but I like pretty much everything on it, including Ringo's song and "Revolution 9").
Yet, for some reason I can't quite fathom, I listen to the Monkees more often - although I'm not a fan of Davy's sickly ballads. In the days when I was still young and immature enough to believe in the concept of role models, I thought Mike Nesmith would have been a cool person to be. his songwriting talent, independent spirit and the sardonic sense of humour he conveyed in the TV show always appealed to me.
I can't really watch the first series of the TV show now as it just feels too juvenile. But in some of the later episodes from the second series you could already tell they were spreading their wings and venturing into more psychedelic territory (which of course reached full fruition on "Head").
Revolution 9 is nothing but sound effects. To me, innovation doesn't necessarily make something better or enjoyable. I am all about aesthetics I don't care about "innovative". Frankly I dont think they were at all innovative. I prefer good singing and songwriting and solid performances. I don't get that from the beatles. Innovative is just a term used by people who like music that lacks good performances. Its not necessarily inspirational to listen to the Beetles. that is for sure. But I don't hate the Beetles. They just don't make me feel warm inside. The Monkees inspire me more.
However, I do like Let It Be, and possibly Hey Jude. They are okay......
06 Sep 2014, 6:46 am
