Bands Better than the Beatles?

westen44 · February 12, 2014, 05:54:25 PM

I've listened to the first minute of about five songs by the Replacements on YouTube now. I'm not sure if that's enough to be objective. But I think it's safe to say I'll never become a fan. Certainly doesn't seem to be something I'd ever be interested in, although I may be even more puzzled now why this band would be put on a list as being better than the Beatles.

Dave W · February 12, 2014, 08:23:17 PM

That's okay, to each his own. I can't listen to more than a minute of any U2 song. But there were and still are a lot of people obsessed with the Replacements. Love 'em or hate 'em, they were alt-rock pioneers.

Nocturnal · February 12, 2014, 08:29:49 PM

The Replacements were not a "hipster" band in their day, at least not from my experience. They were probably known more for Paul's songwriting and their drunken performances than anything else. I place them in the same position as Husker Du. Influential to many of the successful alternative artists that followed but didn't gain as much popularity as they probably should have. I enjoy them for what they were. Better than the Beatles?? Not at all. Important in their own right? Yes they are.

westen44 · February 12, 2014, 09:13:29 PM

Quote from: Dave W on February 12, 2014, 08:23:17 PM
That's okay, to each his own. I can't listen to more than a minute of any U2 song. But there were and still are a lot of people obsessed with the Replacements. Love 'em or hate 'em, they were alt-rock pioneers.

Not long after posting my comments about the Replacements, some large tree branches smashed into my truck doing quite a lot of damage. (Heavy snow out there.) Maybe criticizing the Replacements wasn't such a good idea. As far as I'm concerned, I'm moving them from number 11 to number 3, right under the Rolling Stones. Hopefully, the rest of the night will be a little safer for me now, and maybe the house itself will be spared. On a more serious note, judging from the comments and even the fact that they were on the list at all, I can only gather that the Replacements have had way more of an impact than I could have possibly realized.

uwe · February 13, 2014, 07:46:13 AM

"I'm moving them from number 11 to number 3, right under the Rolling Stones."

Dear prudence!

Didn't I bring this elegantly back on Beatles track?

westen44 · February 13, 2014, 08:12:43 AM

A friend sent me this "Dear Prudence" isolated bass track a few days ago.

westen44 · February 13, 2014, 08:23:23 AM

I just found "Little Rita."

Pilgrim · February 13, 2014, 08:58:31 AM

Quote from: westen44 on February 13, 2014, 08:12:43 AM
A friend sent me this "Dear Prudence" isolated bass track a few days ago.

I listened to that and was amazed by how much string buzz there is. Almost every note, you can hear the strings moving on the board. At 3:00 and going on from there, I can hear a "ponk" on just about every note as the string hits the board.

I guess it's evidence that a fair amount of string buzz can disappear in the mix.

uwe · February 13, 2014, 10:30:33 AM

Sure it can, even in a live situation. To me, string buzz is not so much aurally unpleasant, but how you feel when fretting. That bugs me more than the sound. There are a lot of bassists with buzzy set-ups: Steve Harris, JAE, Billy Sheehan ... it all goes under in the mix.

copacetic · February 13, 2014, 02:07:22 PM

Interesting those isolated tracks there. Seems like the Rick on both, or a Jazz on the Prudence..

slinkp · February 20, 2014, 01:22:59 AM

I think the term for the "better bands" article is "trolling". Seriously guys, who gives a shit which bands some random doofus ranks higher?

All of those bands on there have some merit to somebody or other, but the whole thing is so laughable on the face of it.

As long as we're arguing though

Uwe.... tunes are one thing the VU did have. They had no technique whatsoever... well, maybe Cale learned some at some point and then tried to forget it ... and you either find that appealing or horrific depending on your proclivities... and they were a bit ahead of the avant-noise curve ... but from track one of album one, "Sunday Morning", they had some really good melodies. Not always, and I personally wouldn't rank them in Lennon/McCartney territory, but that would be just a bizarre comparison in the first place.

uwe · February 20, 2014, 04:14:04 AM

I have nothing against Lou Reed, John Cale and the VU whatsoever. I like their morbid charm. I even liked Lulu as the only person on earth. But they are all off-mainstream artists and in a contest/context like this popularity/mass appeal does count.

My put-downs of some of the nominated bands were largely satire/dead-panning!

Dave W · February 22, 2014, 05:56:28 PM

Back to the Replacements: their fans are happier but poorer than REM's fans.

I can't imagine who would fund this research, or why.

OldManC · February 22, 2014, 10:27:07 PM

I had a sister that worked as a secretary at Capitol after graduating high school in 1966. Nobody in my family was much of a music fan, so the stacks of records and singles she brought home were just piled in the closet where I discovered them at the age of three in '68 or so. Saturdays were "cleaning day," so to keep me out of their hair my sisters let me put records on the giant console stereo/TV and rock out in my booster chair in front of it (my dad would have had a heart attack if he knew they let me touch that thing). My number one favorite was Hey Jude, then Don't Cry Daddy, More Today Than Yesterday... and I really liked Peter and Gordon (but that may have been due to Lady Godiva on the cover of that album). So my love for the Beatles and Elvis came without any outside influence or encouragement. They may not have been the best instrumentalists on the Rock scene (even then) but, like Elvis before them, they made everything that followed possible, and have always been among my favorites regardless of their perceived popularity or non-popularity among the contrarians.

I came to like the Replacements later than a lot of their rabid fans, as All Shook Down was the album that finally got me to listen to them. Being more a fan of everything after Tim probably makes me suspect as well, but this song is right up there with any other favorite song I ever had. That being said, they're not in any Beatles category to me.

westen44 · February 25, 2014, 12:58:22 AM

Quote from: 4stringer77 on February 12, 2014, 06:45:03 AM
The Kinks were great and started around the same time as the Beatles. They also had good longevity and fairly substantial recorded output. Don't nearly get the same amount of press. I like the Animals and the Zombies too.

The Kinks, Animals, and Zombies are all important in my book. The first real band I was in covered songs by all three bands.