What a superb hour of TV just finishing. Nowhere near long enough.

I've always thought they were superior to the Stones and the Beatles and this confirms it. They are miles better than them combined.

They definitely had the best songs all-round (words + music) but I appreciate all 3 groups equally in their own way. At the risk of sounding like a 'Nam veteran, you had to be around at the time to realise just how much they reinvigorated popular music. Those are days I'll remember all my life. I used to listen to them all day and all of the night, especially at sunset. I used to go ape, man LOL (a).

Not forgetting The Animals.

In our house when we were kids it was

The Kinks
The Hollies
The Move


Then, far further down, The Beatles and The Stones.

Was it on BBC2 or 4, I missed it? Hopefully can watch on catch up. I remember when I was younger (a bairn) my parents had a Kinks LP. However it was a different LP to the cover, they'd been to a party* and when got home realised the mix up too late though! On the plus side IMHO my parents got the better songs!

*Before anyone gets excited it wasn't one of those parties!

On BBC4. Will be on the well-aye player for a bit.

I missed the programme last night, but if it was a repeat I may have seen it before. Those BBC music programmes are brilliant and when I record any of them I can't bring myself to wipe them afterwards.

The ones on the Everly Brothers and on Roy Orbison were great, too, as was the one on French singers from the 'Juliet Greco era'.

I agree with PiN...the Kinks would be top of my list, too, from that era. (Never was keen on the Stones, so no contest there.

I really liked the Stones, me dad had all their albums up to the 70s and some of them are proper quality (Beggars Banquet my favourite). But they only really had one line of patter, which they did brilliantly I have to say.

I've never got the Beatles, they undoubtedly made some great pop.songs, but when they got to a certain status they could have released an album of John Lennon farting into a watering can and people would still be fawning over it now. I think they just started taking the piss - 'we all live in a yellow submarine', 'I am the eggman' etc.

The Kinks were proper storytellers, with loads of different styles that they were masters of.

Well, I cannae agree, PiN. You mention 'Yellow Submarine' (which admittedly is pretty dreadful), but that song is only one from 'Revolver', and all the others on that album are impressive for one reason or another, I'd say. Some are gorgeous. Anyway, it's all subjective, innit...... up to a point anyway?

What interests me is that people (not necessarily you, but lots of people who slam the Beatles) always choose the iffy songs, to illustrate their point, and choose to ignore the many very good songs. You know who you are

Cheers Mr PIN I'm watching the Kinks at the BBC now.

As for the Beatles I agree with Ms Grabec. The more songs you write and release the more chance of an iffy one. People do seem to remember the iffy ones.

Far be it to denigrate the chosen four but in my view they were utter overrated shite. Shite, shite and more shite. If I had to listen to them, I'd be negotiating with any passing tramp.

I thought the thread was about the DJ`s from the 70/80s

i loved the kinks,i also loved the small faces

I went to HMV and asked what they had by the Doors, she said " A fire extinguisher"

In that case I reckon you'd have got your just deserts, Mr I.
The only shite Beatles song you've ever quoted is Love me Do. And you're not 100% wrong. Now quote us the very first single of all these better groups.

I'll start with anything by Black Lace or Stars on 45. Joe Dolce's back collection along with Peters and Lee sing rugby songs also get a distinguished mention.

I saw what you did there Mr I. You quoted some really nice titles.
I've never heard of Stars on 45, so I guess I'll have to concede that one to you.

https://youtu.be/hgU6foVr-wY

Watch this clip of The Fab Four rip the piss out of, a somewhat hostile, U.S. press. They were British, Northern and cool - and that is before they sang a note. Whether you like them or not, condemning them as "overrated shite" is a tad over the top.
The Kinks were a great band but, like The Stones etc, followed a path blazed by the Beatles. As for "Yellow Submarine" they usually threw in a novelty song just for Ringo to sing, it's not bad (Octopus's Garden/Maxwell's Silver Hammer though ... oh dear - blame Paul!).

The Kinks and for 'Poppy' stuff The Dave Clark Five!!!!

You're saying this about the one and only Ray Davies?? Shame on you, Bossa. He'd have been a top class songwriter in any era.

@Mutley

"The Kinks and for 'Poppy' stuff The Dave Clark Five!!!!"

For me the 'poppy stuff' list is endless, from that era. Wouldn't know where to start.

Going to see E.L.O on Thursday night, only waited 37 years!

I'm not remotely saying he wouldn't have been. What I am saying is he may not have got the chance if The Beatles had not made self contained, song-writing bands not only acceptable, but also successful. The pop music landscape in Britain pre-Beatles was, generally, a very bleak place.

They hardly 'ripped the piss out of them' and the questions were hardly taxing either. It was a few sarcastic replies to a few dumb questions. I expected more after the build up.

To me they were a boy band, nothing more. A 60's Bay City Rollers or One Direction. They just had much better publicists and a far less developed market. I'm sure its me but I really don't see anything special in them.

You need to look at it in the context of that era. Have you ever seen interviews with the likes of Adam Faith and Cliff Richard? All plummy voices and yes sir no sir - and they were considered quite risque and cool. I grew up with the Beatles musically so they'll always be the best for me, although I rarely listen to them now, but I also know what passed for "popular" music before them

Of course, musical taste is extremely subjective and there are no 'rights' and wrongs' - but anyone who can't recognise that Lennon, McCartney and Harrison wrote some absolute classic songs has cloth ears! I'd rather have their royalties than the Bay City Rollers!

The cultural significance of what the Beatles and the Stones was immense - the House of Love thought so and they were pretty cool too! (link please)

You could try reading Revolution In The Head for what the Beatles meant in the 1960s.

The Stones weren't that far behind - I have a crap memory in general, but remember the Trimdon Grange Junior School Christmas Party like it was 52 years ago. Us 10 year olds were talking about how Charlie Watts was having a sex change to marry Mick Jagger, and trying to get our heads round 'Little Red Rooster' - none of us had heard a Blues song before!

Let alone an Eleven-Bar-every-other-verse Blues Song!

"Revolution In The Head" is probably one of the best Rock books I've ever read. Mind, I've just finished "Reckless" by Chrissie Hynde and so is that!!

That wasn't quite what you said in the first place. But let's not argue about it.

Anyway, I think there was just a kind of 'time-slot' waiting for English 60s bands. No-one in particular invented or started it. And of course the Beatles work didn't happen out of nothing either. To a large extent it relied on the influence of the Everlys, Buddy Holly, Orbison and other Americans.

Here for you Mr Malcolm.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIKpkjlptNY

Thanks - always a pleasure to hear that, but they've got a song called Beatles and the Stones...

No problem Mr Malcolm. Do what I do sometimes, take a Youtube Magical Mystery Tour. Put a song/band/singer in and see where it takes you!

As for the House of Love, they were my sort of era.

I know how to do that, it's just that every time I try to put a link on here it's dead.

McCartney. He has never apologised for the Frog Chorus. That puts him one down from Savile in my book. Oh and Mull of Kintyre! stick it right up your socket, it blighted my childhood. Oh and Yoko Ono. Oh, and every friggin Busker is armed with their songbook.

They just ripped off the Monkees. Charles Manson loved the Beatles which says it all!
They should get ten years for oh-bla-di, oh bla -da
Wings and Linda McCartney. No Beatles, no Wings. Thats a good enough reason to hate them.
"Semolina pilchard dripping from a dead dogs eye" WFT is that all about?
Yellow Submarine. Piss off you daft bastards.
They gave us Cilla friggin Black.

Not true. Mr and Mrs Black gave us Cilla friggin Black.

Mr I you have chosen the not very good Beatles songs as an example, and TBF former Beatles solo/next band songs, so not really representative of the Beatles. Oh I'll retaliate with Pipes of Peace, which is a good song.
"If anybody had a heart" they would forgive for Cilla Black (see what I did there).
Yoko Ono I concur, but in response Linda McCartney's sausages! I win
I love the Monkees but for balance they were manufactured, and their songs written for them. It was when they wanted to write their own/artistic integrity it went pear shaped ( a bit like errrrrr). remember the record companies etc for both Bands were out for a certain look and Market to make money.

I've no problem with bands making a few shit songs, but to have them blindly feted and played incessantly really does my napper in.

I'm not a Queen fan but I understand why some people love them. How anyone thinks 'Bicycle' is anything other than then arsing about is beyond me.

I'm not a Queen fan either. They are probably the biggest band/artist that I have the least records by, bearing in mind they were massive when I was spending a lot of money on records especially chart singles. I own "Now I'm Here".

Their biggest hit, the dreadful overblown operatic one, grates on me and I've never heard it knowingly all the way through. Didn't like it when I was a teenage record buyer...I wanted Abba to knock it off number one for weeks...Christ, I even wanted Telly Savalas to do it too!

It's not me that's arguing. I said "The Kinks were a great band", how you could misconstrue that as a criticism of Ray Davies song-writing talents I have no idea.

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about time travel being another string to their bow.
Mr I, you have just beat the world record for the number of irrelevant arguments in one post. Though now I think of it, your original nom-de-plume was indeed Mr Irrelevant.

Bob Dylan did The Mighty Quinn and Everybody Must Get Stoned. What were they all about?
David Bowie did Over the Wall We Go and the Laughing Gnome.
Chuck Berry did My Ding-a-Ling.
REM did Shiny Happy People.
The Clash did Should I Stay or Should I go (if I go there will be trouble an' if I stay it will be double - give me a break).
Supertramp did It's Raining Again (come on you little fighter, no need to be uptighter - sheer poetry eh?).
And Lulu did Boom-Bang-a-frigging-Bang.

So sure, let's all pick on the Beatles.

You actually said: "The Kinks were a great band BUT, like The Stones etc, followed a path blazed by the Beatles."
So, that's what I replied to. Nothing to do with RD's song writing talents, but with whether or not he'd have made it without (and whether he was following the path of ) the Beatles. The answers to that are first 'yes' and then 'no'. In my opinion.

I watched the programme and like the kinks music.

I didnt realise though that Davies was that fucking camp during the earlier days. He did appear to be something of a dickhead.

Great songs though, and far far better than anything the Beatles did, and I am not talking about the usual stuff people refer to.

One other thing about the Beatles that has always got to be is this:

Most of their fans always seem to be big Lennon fans yet decry McCartney.

But I would rather listen to anything, incl Frog Chorus, that McCartney did over any of the utter bilg Lennon did.

The worst thing that ever happened in music was when Lennon died.

Not because he died, but because every shitfest he ever made, invaded the pop charts for fucking months.

I agree also with ECG. I absolutely hate queen, especially Bohemian rhapsody, or however its spelt.

I'm gonna kick your head in.

If only.....!

Let's agree to, sort of, agree.

I don't know why people get so over-heated about music they don't like. I, generally, don't like Queen (especially Bloody Bohemian Rhapsody) - but I know they were talented musicians and wrote good stuff even if it's not to my taste. Same for ABBA - great pop songs, just not my kind of pop songs.
Lennon and McCartney were yin and yang, far better together than they were apart. McCartney could be cloyingly sweet - Lennon bitterly sour, together they got it (mostly) right. In my opinion of course!!!

Cheers!

Paul McCartney wasted most of his life desperate for a lump of sirloin.

Thats not nice.

We should all stand together.

I'm gonna kick your head in.

posting.php?mode=quote&f=2&p=758527#
Forget the music discussion. This must be the best reply ever.

Don't know what happened to the smilie there. I must be thick or something.

Awwww

Here's one for you.