The Beatles with a snippet of the Shadows

[dave robinson]

There y'all go again turning everything into a contest. There isn't one, The Beatles worldwide have outsold The Shadows in every area so why go down this route when The Shads are on a loser? The Beatles are massive.

Fair enough, say that you 'prefer' The Shadows as musicians, but please don't make rash statements like 'Hank Marvin is superior to George Harrison etc . . . . how many million solo singles did Hank have compared to George ? . . . . . erm . . . . that would be none!

I like both bands for what they are and what they brought to the table. As musicians they are equal and it should be obvious that some will make a better job of certain numbers than others and vice-versa. Warren once told me that Brian Bennett had said to him that Ringo was easily his superior FOR THAT JOB - as Brian is more jazz orientated in his background and he recognises that.

No doubt that The Shads are superb at what they do, but may I suggest that we don't go making ridiculous statements about one musician being superior to another, especially when you don't really know it to be fact. Each of these bands have respect for each other, which I would have thought should be carried on through the fan base.

[AlanMcKillop]

As Bruce has said repeatedly, "It's the sum of the parts" and that applies to both bands.

[iefje]

There y'all go again turning everything into a contest. There isn't one, The Beatles worldwide have outsold The Shadows in every area so why go down this route when The Shads are on a loser? The Beatles are massive.

Fair enough, say that you 'prefer' The Shadows as musicians, but please don't make rash statements like 'Hank Marvin is superior to George Harrison etc . . . . how many million solo singles did Hank have compared to George ? . . . . . erm . . . . that would be none!

I like both bands for what they are and what they brought to the table. As musicians they are equal and it should be obvious that some will make a better job of certain numbers than others and vice-versa. Warren once told me that Brian Bennett had said to him that Ringo was easily his superior FOR THAT JOB - as Brian is more jazz orientated in his background and he recognises that.

No doubt that The Shads are superb at what they do, but please don't go making ridiculous statements about one musician being superior to another, especially when you don't really know it to be fact. Each of these bands have respect for each other, which I would have thought should be carried on through the fan base.

I don't think 'ridiculous' is the right word. Whether an artist has sold more solo singles than the other, says nothing or little about musicianship, again in my humble opinion. But I guess we should better end this discussion. In the end, what Alan says about the sum of the parts is quite right.

[dave robinson]

OK then I'll settle for 'inaccurate' instead of 'ridiculous' and agree with Alan.

[Mike Honey]

It's a sad fact that today music scene success has very little to do with musicianship (and possibly never has done!)

mike

[Bojan]

There y'all go again turning everything into a contest. There isn't one, The Beatles worldwide have outsold The Shadows in every area so why go down this route when The Shads are on a loser? The Beatles are massive.

Fair enough, say that you 'prefer' The Shadows as musicians, but please don't make rash statements like 'Hank Marvin is superior to George Harrison etc . . . . how many million solo singles did Hank have compared to George ? . . . . . erm . . . . that would be none!

I like both bands for what they are and what they brought to the table. As musicians they are equal and it should be obvious that some will make a better job of certain numbers than others and vice-versa. Warren once told me that Brian Bennett had said to him that Ringo was easily his superior FOR THAT JOB - as Brian is more jazz orientated in his background and he recognises that.

No doubt that The Shads are superb at what they do, but please don't go making ridiculous statements about one musician being superior to another, especially when you don't really know it to be fact. Each of these bands have respect for each other, which I would have thought should be carried on through the fan base.

I don't think 'ridiculous' is the right word. Whether an artist has sold more solo singles than the other, says nothing or little about musicianship, again in my humble opinion. But I guess we should better end this discussion. In the end, what Alan says about the sum of the parts is quite right.

Even though I agree that comparisons are pointless, I don't think there is anything bad or wrong in talking about this, as long as we observe the basic rules of a fair and democratic discussion. Iefje, if you don't think that sale of solo singles says anything about musicianship, or the popularity of a band and /or its members, and if you don't think "best of" lists are anything to go by, then, except for your personal opinion, what are your criteria for making your claims?

[neil2726]

On last nights ITV programme "1962 - Love Me Do" - Wonderful Land was used as background music! It also stated that George Martin was not happy with Pete Best's style of drumming and so he was replaced by Ringo! Goearge Martin didnt think he was much better and got Any White to drum on Love Me Do and a few other releases!

[iefje]

Alright, then I'll settle for: sometimes one musician is better in one aspect than the other musician and vice versa, in other words they are each others equal. Don't get me wrong, I think The Beatles are one of the best bands the world has ever seen and their achievements are outstanding. I still wish (obviously) that mr. Chapman had looked for psychological help, so John would still be with us.

To Bojan: well, it does not say everything. For example, artists have made recordings in the past, which are fantastic (like Hank's "Sacha"), but those haven't had the chart success they deserved. Another example, I don't think the track "Wannabe" by The Spice Girls has an exceptional accompaniment, but the single has reached platinum status. That's what I mean by that it does not say everything, it does to a degree, but not everything. Of course, this is my opinion.

[dave robinson]

If we are talking Spice Girls here then I'm out - I thought we were discussing music?

George Harrison's hits and compositions were massive, melodic, powerful songs, not the teeny bop fodder of The Spice Girls, someone will always produce stuff like that, but I was talking about quality. His contribution to the music scene was pure class, right from his earliest efforts ( e.g. I Need You, Here Come's The Sun / Something etc) through to The Travelling Wilburys.

By contrast, Hank's contribution to music for me was more in his playing, as accompaniment for Cliff as well as The Shadows sound, rather than his writing. Each have their place in rock & roll history and are as important as each other.

[iefje]

If we are talking Spice Girls here then I'm out - I thought we were discussing music?

George Harrison's hits and compositions were massive, melodic, powerful songs, not the teeny bop fodder of The Spice Girls, someone will always produce stuff like that, but I was talking about quality. His contribution to the music scene was pure class, right from his earliest efforts ( e.g. I Need You, Here Come's The Sun / Something etc) through to The Travelling Wilburys.

By contrast, Hank's contribution to music for me was more in his playing, as accompaniment for Cliff as well as The Shadows sound, rather than his writing. Each have their place in rock & roll history and are as important as each other.

Well, it was just an example, though quite outrageous, I agree. The Spice Girls' music is absolutely not my cup of tea either.