|
Post by doodahdiaries on Dec 14, 2007 12:57:46 GMT
I saw The Beatles when I was a kid. Saw their films with my sister (who was in love with George). Never liked them - far too nice for me. My mum even liked them. (Pretty Things and Stones were better heroes for a rebellious teenager, until the Bonzos came along.) My son has grown up with me playing The Rutles, (who I do like), and whenever he hears a Beatles track on the radio etc, he always makes the same comment: "Not half as good as The Rutles." I know most of the Bonzos admired the Beatles, particularly Neil Innes, Legs Larry Smith and Vivian Stanshall, but am I alone among Bonzo fans with not being a fan of the "Fab Four"? So who do you think is the best - The Rutles or The Beatles?
|
|
|
Post by moosehead on Dec 14, 2007 14:06:42 GMT
Sorry, life-long fan of the Fab Four here.
But the Rutles are better, being a distilled and perfected version - a fine cognac to the Beatles' vintage wine.
|
|
|
Post by Beautiful Zelda on Dec 14, 2007 14:35:57 GMT
Never been a Beatles fan despite my aunt's attempts at persuading me, so it would be the Rutles for me ;D
|
|
|
Post by Nancy on Dec 14, 2007 16:05:03 GMT
I do like some of the Beatles later stuff though I think their early stuff was a bit over rated and I enjoyed "Help" though I was born in 1981 so the by the time I saw it it had become dated. I didn't think Magical Mystery Tour really worked as a film though it had some great people in it including Ivor Cutler and of course the Bonzo's.
I don't really think of the Rutles as a band like the Beatles as they were created for a film (and probably featured in the television show "Rutland weekend Television" though I'm not sure of that). So to say they are better than Beatles wouldn't really be accurate, I think the film "The Rutles" was far better than any film the Beatles ever made and the songs were fantastic parodies of the Beatles songs, and the fact George Harrison appeared in the film shows there was no offense meant or taken.
I actually spoke to the producer of the film Craig Kellam (by email) he's a nice guy and helps screenwriters make their screenplays more successful (he was in charge of a big TV network for years so he knows what he's on about). I spoke to him about the film apparently he was in charge of the network that showed "Rutland weekend Television" and that's how he became involved in the movie.
|
|
|
Post by moosehead on Dec 14, 2007 16:42:04 GMT
The movie was a direct (often scene for scene) takeoff of a Beatles documentary that had been shown a few months earlier. The story goes that George Harrison had an advance copy which he lent to Eric Idle/Neil and it just exploded from there.
"I know most of the Bonzos admired the Beatles" I'd always heard it the other way round - John, Paul and George are all quoted as being Bonzo's fans (and envious of their musical freedom).
|
|
|
Post by graytart on Dec 14, 2007 22:27:47 GMT
Actually the documentary in question wasn't officially released until Anthology came out. Eric and (I believe) Neil screened it at George's, but that was only after they knew they would be making the show. They originally did it as a one-off skit on Rutland Weekend Television, and it was only after Eric hosted Saturday Night Live that Lorne Michaels offered to fund it as a TV special. There is a lot of good info on the genesis of the Rutles out there; check neilinnes.org for a start. The other thing to keep in mind is that Neil did produce the Rutles' music as though they were a real band. He, John Halsey, Ollie Halsall and Rikki Fataar became a real functioning band to create the soundtrack (Eric Idle only lip synched; he does play guitar but not left-handed bass). Alas, Ollie is no longer with us, and only appears briefly in the film in a photo of Leppo, the fifth Rutle, in Hamburg. Interestingly the original line-up for the Rutles on RWT included actor David Battley, and Eric was Stig. www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBK5NyRdWsY(A bit long - the skit in front is included. If you don't want to watch the whole thing let it load and then skip to 5:22) Much as I respect Neil's songwriting skills, I suspect that the unsung hero of the Rutles is arranger John Altman. I think he could make The Marseillaise sound like a Beatles song.
|
|
|
Post by vinylman on Dec 17, 2007 8:04:44 GMT
I saw The Beatles when I was a kid. Saw their films with my sister (who was in love with George). Never liked them - far too nice for me. Ah, the old 'nice Beatles' one. Do you know the difference between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones? The Stones used to get caught.
|
|
piggybank
Shirt Shaker
Not now! I've got my homework to do!
Posts: 69
|
Post by piggybank on Dec 22, 2007 20:05:58 GMT
Well, well well, what have we got here?
Absolutely agree with vinylman - the Beatles were much better back then in keeping things under wraps. Can't be totally objective about this one, as the Beatles are the number 1 love of my life - with Bonzos being a very close second. However, I love the Rutles. Many people tried to rewrite some of the Beatles' songs, but for me nobody does it better than Neil Innes!
|
|
|
Post by doodahdiaries on Dec 23, 2007 10:11:09 GMT
Sorry Vinylman, you don't convince me with your "The Stones used to get caught" line. It's not just about the drugs, it was about their attitude and manner. I acknowledge the significance of the Beatles music, but go and listen to the first albums of The Beatles and the Stones. One is brilliant R'n'B and one is banal pop. I rest me case me lord. (And hopefully stir up some more debate!)
|
|
piggybank
Shirt Shaker
Not now! I've got my homework to do!
Posts: 69
|
Post by piggybank on Dec 23, 2007 19:17:03 GMT
Of course it's a matter of taste doodahdiaries, so I'm not inclined start a Beatles vs Stones debate but then again I feel too strongly about this... if I'm not mistaken, the first number 1 song for Rolling Stones was a Beatles song? Or not to mention that the Stones were inspired to collaborate after they saw how John and Paul worked on this particular song (namely, I Want To Be Your Man; the Beatles version was in With the Beatles and sung by Ringo). That's me resting my case Banal pop?? Hmm, the whole of UK, Europe and USA were brought to their knees by banal pop. That should tell us something about the people's taste back then...
|
|
|
Post by gwood on Dec 24, 2007 15:17:40 GMT
John got caught, and Paul got caught (Wings period).
The Beatles were the first music that really spoke to me. 1964, I was about 10. My friend Jacky's sister was raving mad about them, one day she asked me if I'd heard them. I hadn't. I was more into playing Army in the fields and building tree forts and kid stuff like that, than I was in listening to music. She played Meet The Beatles (US release of With The Beatles) and I was right into it. Started combing my hair different. That girl changed my life! About a year later, she died. Dove into shallow water on vacation in Florida and broke her neck. Jacky's family moved away and I never saw him again.
Beatles vs. Stones? A while ago, my brother and I were talking about songwriting (we both do it) and it occurred to me that there are two kinds of songwriters: Lennon/McCartney and Jagger/Richards. Yin Yang, I guess. They were a perfect compliment.
Beatles vs. Rutles? Neil is very heavily influenced by The Beatles. It was always apparent. There would be no Rutles without Beatles. I see no way to say this or that.
|
|
|
Post by doodahdiaries on Jan 3, 2008 17:07:21 GMT
Of course The Rutles were a parody of The Beatles and would never have existed without the those naughty Liverpool boys, (just pandering to the audience now.) But what I think is interesting is that some of us (and I am not alone) prefer the music of The Rutles to that of The Beatles, even if Neil created it as a parody. Obviously no music is "better" than any other - it is just a matter of taste. (Although I still think the first Beatles album was full of light-weight pop. But as I said, it is just a matter of taste...) Keep debating David
|
|
|
Post by gwood on Jan 4, 2008 0:18:37 GMT
Although I still think the first Beatles album was full of light-weight pop. Well, it's lightweight pop now, but back then it was raw, loud and savage. I think if you spent some time listening to what was hitting the top of the charts then, Bobby's Girl, Doo-wop, Peggy Lee and Roger Williams type stuff, and then put on "...Hand," the difference would jump right out at you. I mean...unless you were black and had been listening to Wynnone Harris, Cleanhead, Peppermint, Hooker, and all that "Chicago" jump blues stuff...you know, the sound Elvis pirated, then you would have said, "Hrrmph. Lightweight pop."
|
|
|
Post by doodahdiaries on Jan 4, 2008 8:15:26 GMT
Yes I agree there was a lot of old-fashioned balad singers around when the Beatles first emerged. I guess it is all down to personal experiences. I had an older brother who was into music and I did hear a lot of American music (mostly via Radio Luxembourg on an old radio with a poker as an aerial) so, as I've said, to me at the time it was pop similar to Cliff and The Shadows. (definately not "raw, lod and savage" for me.) I was frankly never a Beatles fan, although I do appreciate the influence they had, (I think sometimes over-stated these days), and some of their later albums did break new ground. (Although I believe George Martin had a big role in that.) I heard yesterday that all their recordings are now up for auction for commercial use, so no doubt we will be hearing Beatles song on all kinds of adverts in the future. I don't mean to upset all you Beatles fans, just think it is good to debate. Cheers David
|
|
piggybank
Shirt Shaker
Not now! I've got my homework to do!
Posts: 69
|
Post by piggybank on Jan 4, 2008 10:33:27 GMT
Hello again David, To begin with, no hard feelings; after all, Dad is a Stones and Beatles fan (strictly with this order), Mum is a Beatles and Bob Dylan fan hating Stones, so I grew up listening to loads of 60s music, loving most and hating some. Interestingly, both me and my brother are huge Beatles fans, and my brother doesn't mind a bit of Stones either. I only like a few of Stones songs that sound like Beatles early stuff, but there... Although I agree that both the Beatles and the Stones have been hugely influential throughout pop music history, I just can't accept the conviction by many Stones fans that the Stones are a musically better group. I know it's all a matter of taste, but my problem is that since the "I want to be your man" experience certainly enhanced the Stones songwriting, the fact is that the Stones were influenced by the Beatles. Even in a minor way. As for the Beatles in their early years being similar musically to Cliff and the Shadows ... well, I didn't see Cliff and the Shadows topping the charts in the UK and the States every time they had a single out throughout their career, or even bothering to compose the stuff they sang. And if you bother to read books about the Beatles, you'll find out that after a point, George Martin did the best to make the Beatles' ideas possible - he didn't influence their music, he just made it happen. Not to mention that their most new-ground-in-music-breaking album for me (that is the white album) was not produced by George Martin but by the Beatles themselves. And ok, maybe the first two Beatles albums were not as good as the rest - they still were great sellers and included two #1 singles in the UK and eventually in the States (what irony - one of them a #1 single by the Stones!). Would, I wonder, "I want to be your man" ever become a #1 single if it wasn't a Beatles song? Nah, even you didn't think so... And another thing that makes me mightily irritated; it's always the Beatles and the Stones. Not the Beatles and the Bonzos, or the Beatles and the Kinks, or the Beatles and the Who. And please, Stones fans, don't throw this argument on my face by saying it should be the Stones and whoever - I've already made it obvious that I don't like the Stones. As a result, I am irritated that the worthy groups mentioned above don't get the recognition they deserve because of the Stones. And last but not least, Neil Innes felt inclined to do a loving, tongue-in-cheek Beatles parody, which the Beatles adored (apart from Paul McCartney - what a spoilsport!). Did he do a Stones parody? NO! I love the Rutles, and I for one think that if Neil Innes had done "Love" he would have done a much better job than George Martin. Well, there are some Beatles notes in Rutles songs that are instantly recognisable, but some are so subtle I only discovered after listening to the Rutles albums for the tenth (or maybe fifteenth) time... And to show there's still not hard feelings; Mick Jagger was adorable in "All You Need Is Cash"
|
|