Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I just listened to some of the Kinks' late 70's stuff.
look at how shit the beatles were solo. imagine if they'd been releasing stuff together.. it'd be a whole pile of shitness...
Looking at The Beatles solo isn't looking at The Beatles. Its looking at four men, who, when they worked together, created genius, and when they worked alone, created some disgusting sounds.
though by the end they were working autonomously which accounts for how patchy Let It Be is, in my opinion.
That and Lennon's bitch-fest of a production job with Spector.
any of the Beatles stuff pre Sgt Peppers.
All that mop haired pop shite doesn't stand up anywhere near as well as the Kinks of the same era.
Still, the Beatles did improve in their late 60s period.
If you listen to their hits, they are infinitely better than The Kinks'. 'You Really Got Me' and 'All Day' are practically the same song.
The Beatles laid down the blueprints, and the Kinks just followed.
I'm not saying they were the first to do everything, because they weren't. 'Genius steals', as Paul McCartney says. But what makes the Beatles the greatest band of all time, is the fact they did things better than anyone else, which is why they're so successful.
and what you said above to imagechange (excepting the bit about the beatles being 'infinitely' better), listening to the kinks late 70s stuff isnt at all representative of how good they are as a band, all of the albums from a kink kontroversy to arthur are great and can and are arguably as good as what the beatles produced in their glory days...
Whilst I wouldn't deny that the Beatles were probably more experimental and cutting edge, the Kinks had far far far more to say.
Billy Bragg had a lot to say. Nick Drake didn't. Can you even talk about them in the same sentence? No.
But I can be let off just this once.
the kinks and the beatles can't be compared just as Nick Drake and Billy Bragg can't be?
Now listen to some of McCartney's late 70s stuff.
seem to argue against points that haven't been made?
Are you all actually really stupid?
it's a bit unfair to compare that with the beatles across their career. If that's what you were doing.
If it wasnt: then, yes, I would definitely agree that the beatles were much better. Even than the kinks at their best.
one of them does seem to be that this period should somehow define how good the band are though, maybe you need to clarify youre point a bit to enlighten people?
i love the kinks, and think the beatles are overrated.
I think they will be huge!!
Beatles are poo jab and won't be around next year.
however you weren't there, man. you weren't there! you don't know what it was like!
listen to the Beatles' '70s stuff.
cos they are so the best
but it's also unfair to compare a 15-20 year career to one lasting less than a decade.
it's like saying aren't the rolling stones shit based on their 80s output.
a band can't sustain general aceness over the course of decades. we can only compare peak for peak really. the beatles win that too.
only just. i think a million times better is a bit much.
as you did somewhere else on the thread.
You Really Got Me doesn't sound anything like the Beatles or, I believe, much else around at the time (alright, All Day and All the Night is exactly the same song but moving on...)
I've always liked the Kinks as a singles band and they unquestionably had an identity of their own.
I don't get the point of this thread. Why does it matter which was better? They're two different bands and, whilst working in a similar genre at a similar time, are hardly in direct competition.
Anyway I'm bored of this "so-and-so is much better than so-and-so" thing. Can't people enjoy bands for what they are without trying to set them up in competition against each other all the time*
*Please note I'm 100% guaranteed to be a complete hyprocrite about this within the next 7 days - feel free to call me on it when I do...
Why add to the discussion at all?
But I prefer the Kinks. By quite a distance. I prefer their lyrics, and they're a lot more fun. I know fun isn't everything, but in this case it is.
I do like The Beatles though.
are in my opinion one of the best singles bands of all time, and quite under-rated. Listen to one of their comps
as being merely a singles band in my opinion....
trying to say is that the run of singles that they had in the sixties is probably unsurpassed in terms of originality and quality.
A number of very very good albums as well.
but i do question the motives of anyone who says the kinks are better.
a few people have told me 'the kinks were far better', and upon asking why they usually reply something like '....well.. it's just the beatles are so overrated' which isn't the same thing.
ive never had it happen to me, but it sounds likely. I probably prefer the kinks but im not sure id have much justification one way or the other as to who was better
Most songwriters will, over their career, write a few or more wonderful songs.
Some artists manage to write more than a dozen wonderful songs, such as Bowie.
The beatles wrote about a hundred.
The Kinks wrote about 25. So the Beatles are better with a 2:1 hit ratio. BOWSER
do that makes them twice as good as The Beatles and four times as good as The Kinks.