I love lists. I love lists more for the debates they
often spawn, than for the lists themselves. However I really hate when some
dumbass thinks that they are being clever and they compile a list purely to
tick people off and raise hackles. The contrived controversy that they often
shoot for ends up not working anyway, because more often than not the theory
behind the list can be flicked away like an annoying bug, because most don’t
take them seriously.
One such list appeared on the Fox News website from
writer Mike Mettler in the form of his piece entitled, 11
Bands Better Than the Beatles. With all of the hubbub
and focus on the Beatles appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show and their first
visit to our shore some 50 years ago, Mettler clearly thought he could stir the
pot by kicking a sacred cow in the shins.
The problem…most, if not all of Mettler’s list is laughable
at best. Let me be perfectly clear; I am not a fan of the Beatles. In case that
wasn’t completely clear…I AM NOT A FAN OF THE BEATLES! Yet I still find Mr.
Mettler’s list absolutely without merit.
So who’s on the list? Here you go:
1.
Led Zeppelin
2.
The Rolling Stones
3.
The Velvet Underground
4.
U2
5.
Radiohead
6.
Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers
7.
Rush
8.
The Band
9.
The Clash
10.
Bruce Springsteen & The E Street
Band
11.
The Replacements
While many of the bands on the list are among my favorites, I’m not
certain that any of them would qualify for the title of “Better Than the
Beatles.” For me U2 comes the closet, with their continually evolving style,
monster live shows and influential impact on generations of musicians to come.
Zeppelin? Sorry to Zep fans, but overblown bombast, Tolkien-like lyrics
and recycling the blues just doesn’t get it done for me. The Stones? Certainly
this is a time honored debate and the timing is right because the Beatles and
the Stones came about at the same time. I certainly think the case can be made
for the bad boy Stones being better than the good guy Beatles.
Velvet Underground? Laughable at best. The darlings of music critics
everywhere and often cited as an influence to curry favor with music critics,
does anyone really listen to this bilge? Sorry, but I may be among the few who
don’t really think Lou Reed was a genius and that the Velvets are basically
unlistenable. Radiohead? See comments on critics above...sorry just don’t hear
it.
Love Tom Petty and listen often...but really? Rush? I like the band, but
my only reaction to them being included here is...HA! The Band? See Rush. The
Clash? They among my favorite bands, but these guys really were more about the
raw edge they brought to their music than for their song craft. Keep in mind;
they could barely play when they first started.
Bruce Springsteen? Great songwriter, awesome live performer, simply not
in the same league with the Beatles. The Replacements? Similar comments to
those about Velvet Underground and Radiohead regarding critics, but at least
the Mats where entertaining to listen to.
While I certainly think that the fawning attitude that many have about
the Beatles is more than a little overblown, I really think that Mettler is
trying too hard to stir controversy and fails miserably in trying to make his
case.
No comments:
Post a Comment