Blue Moon Top 100 Bands Artists - Full List of Artists (pg 287)

Mad Eyed Screamer said:
The Smiths were prolific (or Morrissey & Marr were) writing 74 songs over a 5 year period. And unlike The Beatles non were throwaway sugar coated love songs (early Beatles) and none were written heavily influenced by drugs (latter day Beatles.)

I was lucky to see The Smiths 5 times and happy that they have never reformed - their legacy will never be tarnished by a dreadful comeback tour all though I'd be first in line for a ticket.....
Click to expand...

Ooooh, you’ve reeled me back in. The Beatles managed 203 (unless my maths is off) in just over 7 years, virtually all lyrics back in 62/63 were simple “I love you, do you love me” jobbers and should not detract from the fact that the tunes were absolutely belting, and what difference does it make (see what I did there?!) if a song was written under the influence of drugs or not?
 
Last edited:
OB1 said:
A very good friend, who makes Exeter Blue look like an amateur Beatles fan, bought me Sgt Pepper on cd c. 20 years ago. I played it once and thought it was pretty awful. A fews years back I played if for my daughter on the way to a match as we were working our way through Beatles albums as part of her musical education and I decided that I did in fact like the album and then played it quite a lot. It has fallen out of favour a bit but I think that is a bit misguided. What is not in doubt, is its importance - as you lay out.

Probably the most important album ever and that makes it a contender for greatest (although not my pick).
Click to expand...
Yup, huge importance, but the proliferation of bells, dog whistles and backward tape loops, etc, haven’t seen it age particularly well. In that regard Rubber Soul, Revolver, Abbey Road and even A Hard Day’s Night leave it far behind. Probably more songs on Pepper that I’d ‘skip‘ when listening to than on any other Beatles album (Good Morning, Lovely Rita, Within You Without You, Mr Kite and even the title track - I prefer the reprise on side 2).
Still got She’s Leaving Home on it though, which I’d argue is McCartney’s 2nd greatest ever track after Hey Jude
 
Coatigan said:
I've been out of this since the top 50 really, but have to say, would have rather seen the smiths top it than the beatles. On a Manchester based forum, nothing wrong with that.

For all the praise and reviews the Beatles get (obviously, I recognize they had some excellent songs), I am yet to meet anyone that actually listens to them. And by that I mean not claim to listen to them, or name their songs, or hum along whem they come on the radio, but actually consciously chooses to put an album on and immerse themselves in it.

I wonder how much the recent Disney documentary swayed those few votes sd well.
Click to expand...
I do but I think many a person has listened to them to death, its hard to casually like them I think, agree the new documentary may have helped however
 
Exeter Blue I am here said:
Ooooh, you’ve reeled me back in. The Beatles managed 203 (unless my maths is off) in just over 7 years, virtually all lyrics back in 62/63 were simple “I love you, do you love me” jobbers and should not detract from the fact that the tunes were absolutely belting, and what difference does it make (see what I did there?!) if a song was written under the influence of drugs or not?
Click to expand...
It makes none.... (see what I did there) but I guess my questioning is could they have written Lucy in the sky or strawberry fields had they not been under the influence?
Morrissey wrote from the heart not the mind (or mind blowing chemicals....)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.