lefter (lefter) wrote in dylan_vs_waits,
lefter
lefter
dylan_vs_waits

The kinks are just a bad rip on the beatles. That is all there is to it.
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 7 comments
the kinks are way better then the beatles. anything else is blasphemy.
Umm... I mean, I thought this would go uncontested. I really don't know what to say other then...


"Oh demon alcohol,
Sad memories I cannot recall,
Who thought I would say,
Damn it all and blow it all,
Oh demon alcohol,
Memories I cannot recall,
Who thought I would fall a slave to demon alcohol.
Sad memories I cannot recall,
Who thought I would fall a slave to demon alcohol."


hehe.
Its faulty to even compare them in that respect. They offer two totally different approaches to rock. Just becuse they both came from Britian at the same time doesn't make them ripoff artists. The Stones emerged at the same time as well. Are they rips on the Beatles?
Blah balh
what a fucking idiot statement
I defy you to prove that any of the Beatles would ever have taken a jack knife to an amp speaker cone to make their guitar sound less polished (hence the sound of the original "You really Got Me")
Well, I can understand how one could in fact say that The Kinks are Beatle knock-offs...It stems from a lack of understanding of the social and musical events of the period. Read on. Early Rock was basically either jazzed up blues or silly teen songs. One thing most music from this period has in common is that: a)The artist usually didn't write their own material and...b)They didn't actually play instruments, but relied on a group of studio musicians. This was the accepted norm until the Beatles started recording Please, Please Me in late '62 (yes it was released in '63 but the actual recording started in '62). The Beatles were noticably different in that they wrote a lot of their own material and all played instruments (2 guitars, bass and drums + vocals, all in a self-contained unit- really unheard of at the time). Unlike America where the youth were being bombarded with a deluge of idiotic nonsense, the Brits were collecting rare records by Amereican jazz, blues artists, plus a few cool early rock and rollers. Most of the early bands such as the Beatles, Kinks, Stones, Who, Zombies, etc played white guy versions of African-American music styles. So while yes the Beatles were the first real big group to break through with this style, all of the afore mentioned bands did as well. Really that's where the similarties end. The Kinks were much edgeier @ 1st (distortion, power chords, etc). However around '65 when songwriting and artistry became more prominent the Kinks took a much different direction than the Beatles. The Kinks specialized in character studies and more of a tin-pan alley feel and unlike the Beatles (who didn't really sound all that British when they sang), the Kinks sounded ENGLISH to the core, and sang about English subjects: tea, village greens, smoking fags (cigs), the empire, etc, etc. In this they were less commercial than most of the other British Invasion bands, since most Americans couldn't really relate to the subject matter. Also, to restate a earlier point, the Kinks had a more tin-pan alley feel, much different from the progressive tendicies of the fab 4. So to say the Kinks are a bad rip of the Beatles is not only untrue, but shows a true lack of understanding of the music of the period...Cheers.