So, who else is up there with the Beatles?
In terms of sheer pop genius I doubt there can't be much more than a coat of paint separating Abba and the Beatles. Of course, it’s comparing apples and oranges here to some degree because of the different eras involved. However, just taking the songs as measurement, I think Abba are definitely up there. There is a clamour to see them reunite often and it’s reminiscent of the constant Beatle reunion nonsense which dogs Paul and Ringo even to this day. It was whilst watching the recent television coverage of the Mamma Mia movie premiers across Europe that it became obvious to me that Abba had joined the ranks as major major artists. Abba fans would already know this anyway. The sight of the four members of Abba together (albeit at opposite ends of the balcony) made me think what a shame it was that The Beatles didn’t take the chance to do something similar before they started popping their clogs and heading to the great studio session in the sky. The quality of songwriting within the Abba repertoire is super slick. Songs like S.O.S, Mamma Mia, The Name of the Game, Knowing Me, Knowing You and a whole host of others are certainly (well in my mind anyway) up there with almost any of the Beatles material in terms of writing ability, performance and production.
So who else is worthy then?
For me the line which measures the seismic changes, the line which defines the fault lines goes something like this, Frank Sinatra, Elvis, The Beatles, The Sex Pistols, then maybe The Smiths. Now, that’s not to negate many of the other incredible artists we’ve been fortunate enough to have in our memories…people like Brian Wilson, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye (and a host of others) because their music is important, strong and it helps to define the eras they were from. Abba are like “new money” within this club. They seem to have captured something which has continued to grow beyond themselves and their era – a sure sign that standards have been written. The band broke up in the early 1980’s and you would have thought that was that. In my memory, they were an extremely uncool band, and although they sold millions and millions of records, I didn’t know a single Abba fan at the time. These days that’s changed. They've probably sold more records now than they did then and there seems to be an Abba fan in every doorway. The difference between a band like Abba and a band like the Beatles though is that just about everything the Beatles did took the music world up another notch; to another level. Abba didn't really do that. They tended to polish up what was already around and just didn’t have the gravitas nor the consistency of back catalogue that the Beatles did. That said though, they’re a right good listen pop-pickers I’ll tell you and well worth digging out the hits albums for a spin, but er..maybe leave the clothes out though eh?
Monday, 14 July 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I've been with you on all your blogs until now.
Abba?
This is a joke, right?
Or is it April 1st?
ABBA was a fun group and it moved a lot of product.
But that's it.
Let me ask.
Was ABBA revolutionary?
No.
Did ABBA define its times?
No.
Did ABBA have a 'Sgt. Pepper?'
No.
How then, could ABBA be mentioned in the same breath as not just the Fabs, but Frank and Elvis too?
And are we seriously going to put the Sex Pistols and the Smiths on this list?
Why not Madonna, Michael Jackson, and Metallica?
Wait a minute, I get it now.
Nevermind. Back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Not a joke I'm afraid! I started by asking who else is up there with the Beatles? what I was saying was that Abba, "in terms of sheer pop genius" are up there with the very best as writers and producers, which is why I feel they can be mentioned in the same breath. They wrote killer songs which will probably last as long as people listen to songs. You're right, they were a fun group and brilliant "super slick" songwriters at the same time which is what the comparison is about and where it ends. It's not saying that they were in the same league in a cultural sense, it's saying that they were up there as writers. You're also right to say that they weren't revolutionary and nor did they need to be. Did Abba define its time? Certainly not on their own, but it would be difficult to imagine the 1970's without them. And did they have a Sgt Pepper? obviously not...but that doesn't preclude you from greatness in my mind. Elvis didn't have one either, nor did Frank. The Pistols did though. Never Mind The Bollocks is an iconic album which is why I mention them. They are one of the fault lines I was referring to. They made the music world sit and take notice. I hated the Pistols at the time, but looking back at their impact, they're difficult to ignore. They brought an edge back to music which was missing in action due to the overblown excess of prog rock and the like. They made music important again and gave a voice and influence to a whole generation of people who just didn't identify with music anymore. Much like Elvis fans like the Beatles themselves had felt. The Smiths are in there because they brought an intellectual sensibility back to songwriting. Granted though, they're not everyone's cup of tea, but they are certainly worthy in my opinion. They have a timeless sound and will go on influencing new writers for years to come. There is one act I should have put in there where a new fault line had been drawn and that was Nirvana. Again, not perhaps everyones cup of tea but in my personal opinion - worthy, strong, vital and original.
I'm not claiming that Abba created a fault line of any description, I am saying that as writers? they were up there for sure. I also said, "The difference between a band like Abba and a band like the Beatles though is that just about everything the Beatles did took the music world up another notch; to another level. Abba didn't really do that. They tended to polish up what was already around and just didn’t have the gravitas nor the consistency of back catalogue that the Beatles did" which I think is gist of what you were saying yourself. In summing up, the main thrust of the article was really to ask the question of who else is up there with the Beatles?
I agree with you and I don't think anyone else can compare with the Beatles creatively, but don't forget the Bee Gees.
The Bee Gees weren't revolutionary and they didn't record a 'Sgt. Pepper', but they did help to define the times when they came in and out of style during several decades.
The Gibb Brothers (mainly Barry) wrote a lot of hits for themselves and others.
The Bee Gees are up there with the Beatles and surpass Abba.
Abba, well hmmm !
Yes I suppose you have a point. If the measurement is what is popular long after a group has had it's day. Abba are certainly up there. We now live in a world where even pensioners have their favourite pop songs. And yes Abba are popular with younger generations and perhaps like the Beatles have had spells were they were considered naff and old hat. I would throw Queen into that category in the UK. Could we say Genesis ? A band nobody admits to liking but still managed a tour this year. The Police ? U2 . No U" are just a band who ripped off the Alarm and then made it big at their Welsh counterparts expense....
Post a Comment