So, which was the better band? Whilst my heart belongs to LPL, I'd have to go with ABBA.
Every song a winner, marvelous compositions & pretty good vocals. Whilst the Beatles evolved over time, ABBA pretty much kept to a formula but I think they maintained a standard much better.
I admit to being around when the Beatles first hit the scene, the first public airing of 'Love Me Do' on Juke Box Jury left me with the feeling of wow - something important has just happened.
The Beatles constantly opened up new territory, with quality bands filling the space behind them. Maybe they lost their way towards the end, but so what, they had already achieved so much.
It wasn't just the showpiece numbers, in my opinion the 'album-filler' songs on Help and Rubber Soul are the absolute pinnacle of pop-music craftsmanship.
The question should have been, perhaps, Beatles vs Stones. In the heyday, you were one or the other. The Beatles always reigned for me for the pure originality and lyrical music. The Stones did some good tracks but harder stuff and more sporatic. Of course, working with the genius of George Martin certainly helped things along. While Abba did a few good tunes they paled in comparison and they did not understand what they were singing in English giving things a somewhat stilted tone. A minor blip on the horizon.
Location: South of the North Pole, north of the South Pole...
Posts: 303
Though impossible today, I think if Abba had ever done an album of Beatles' songs and vice-versa, it would have been great. You can imagine (it's easy if you try really hard), John Lennon's rendition of Gimme Gimme Gimme (A Man After Midnight)...
Stayed in a hotel in Obertauern in Austria called the Eidelweiss, there are pictures of the Beatles everywhere, it turned out that they stayed there when filming part of Help. There is also a bar dedicated to them up on one of the higher ski slopes., it is owned by one of the locals who doubled for the Beatles when the ski scenes were shot, the Beatles insurers wouldn't let them do any ski malarkey themselves. Forty years or so on the music still sends a shiver down occasionally. RIP John and George. Sadly missed. Micky
Absolutely Binos, its not "apples with apples" as 737guru would say, but whilst I enjoy the Beatles immensley, I don't see my kids dancing to them as much as Abba.
I have both sets of collections and Abba gets brought out more often than The Beatles. Both bands get a run on the airwaves occasionally, but I guess time will tell who gets a run in 30 years & beyond.
Having said that, personal taste does not dictate the quality of the music. Enjoyment is based upon personal preferences and sometimes what emotions or memories the music evokes. I know that, as a kid, I hated "Fernando", but I don't mind it so much now. As a kid, I loved "Obla di, Obla da"(?) but now it seems a little like something you'd hear the American Idol winner singing! So how do you define a good song, if not for sales volume or airplay? How can you objectively determine quality over shite?
ABBA - a collection of very talented songwriters & performers writing "product" for immediate commercial gain based upon a decade or more of previous popular song and its potential for fiscal development
The Beatles - a trio of very talented songwriters & performers, plus a drummer, writing original songs for immediate personal satisfaction, based upon obscure roots, and a singular purpose to bring a wider appreciation of those rootss to the great unwashed.
There would have been no ABBA, without the Beatles..... cause and effect, really
sureley a classic piece of contemporary songwriting, that pushed the boundaries and laid a path for other greats like the Smurfs, Wombles and Bob the Builder?
