I vote Monkees, no contest.

The Monkees had the expressive & tuneful Micky Dolenz, the reserved but thoughtful Mike Nesmith, the wacky but quite deep Peter Tork, & the beautiful Davey Jones (who later turned into a walking nose, but was genuinely very cute in the Monkees heyday)

Sure, the Beatles wrote most of their own stuff, but most of it was crap.

The Monkees rule, & the Beatles never made the grade, in the Thockit scheme of things.

Hmm.. Apart from the manufactured band to compete against those Limey's aspect of the argument - how many people can sing more than one Monkee's track (I'm obviously excluding their title track!).

Whereas, how many people would have to take their socks off to continue their counting of Beatles tracks they know and could sing to?

But that's quantity - qualitywise, the Monkees had about three decent tracks to their name and they were reasonable singers, but relied on Davy Jones mostly.

Beatles - apart from the It behind the drums... They could all belt out a tune, write songs that could melt glass, and be worldly known as both lyricists and multinational purveyors of music beyond a guitar.


So, Mon... Beatles it is. :)

monkee's would win because they have fingers, and could crush the beetles.

Okay, seriously, Beatles, they are more universally know, although daydream believer rocks.

S'like comparing value sausages to finest cumberland.

Monkees win... hands down

(j/k)

*sigh* Both bands don't really do anything for me. I've tried to like the Beatles, really I have. Apparently they're a band you have to like, but I just can't bring myself to. They bore me. Both bands have a few songs I'll listen to, but mostly they just bore me.

I'll say the Beach Boys

The Beatles probably wrote about 6000+ songs ,of these i like about 7 ,and love about 3.
The monkees never wrote any , sung about 200 ,I love about 100 of those.

The Monkees created manufactured bands.
The Beatles created boy bands.

Its a hard call ,but i shall go with my instincts and say The Monkees.

your forgetting John Lennon - the Monkees had no one like him I dont care what u say. Lennon is a god in my eyes.

I remember watching the Beatles on Sunday Night at the London Palladium around 1963 I must have been about 7, and my mam would have been about 28. She started crying with emotion, so I did too.

Later on, when the Monkees 'came out' I remember feeling as if I was betraying Lennon by buying Monkees bubbly cards. For those of you too young, you got a square packet with some rough cardboard pic of the monkees in (49 to collect) and a square of vile pink bubble gum. We were allowed them at school to do swops, but the best cards were American Civil War bubbly cards, with soldiers spiked by bayonets and loads of guts on, but we werent allowed those. It was a village school.

*sigh* Both bands don't really do anything for me. I've tried to like the Beatles, really I have. Apparently they're a band you have to like, but I just can't bring myself to. They bore me. Both bands have a few songs I'll listen to, but mostly they just bore me.

:stupid:

If I HAD to choose, it would be The Beatles.............just.


However, The Stones beat them both hands down \m/

How can you even compare Mickey Dolenz with John Lennon.
John Lennon alkways struck me as abit of the school bully when younger , it was only through fame ,fortune ,fyoko,and fdrugs he became an icon.
Give me Mickey any day of the week . Down to earth .

Davey Jones, sigh


Monkees every time

Like them or loathe them, The Beatles tilted the world on its axis....

....whereas The Monkees went on to make a television series of no greater cultural merit than The Banana Splits.

Yes, tough call.

banana splits - yay

la la la la-la la la
la la la la-la la la

That just increases the Monkees prominence.
Banana Splits can be contributed to the Monkees. What TV programm have the Beatles contributed to siinse their demise?

The Beatles were always feuding & bickering, but The Monkees were too busy singing to put anybody down. They were just trying to be friendly. You could go & watch them sing & play, & it would soon become clear that they were the young generation, & they had something to say.

The Beatles didn't even have a proper theme song. So I've written this one for them:

We're the Beatles,
Yeah yeah yeah!
We play guitars
& have long hair.

Our songs are crap
But they keep us fed,
If you play them backwards
You'll hear, "Paul is dead"

Ringo All The Way

If I think back to all the fantastic in the 60s and 70s, I can't imagine why the Beatles (and their following solo careers) got the lion's share of the fame. I'll bet the music was a minor factor. The Rolling Stones, Thin Lizzy, David Bowie, Jefferson Airplane, Cream, The Who, Led Zepellin, The Moody Blues, Deep Purple, T. Rex, The Doors, Alice Cooper, The Hollies, The Troggs, Steppenwolf, Joe Cocker, The Shadows, The Byrds, Bill Joel, Meat Loaf, The Yardbirds, Don McLean, Bob Marley & The Wailers and Queen all do more for me than the Beatles do.

Maybe I got a little overexcited on that list... I found myself thinking over the holes in my music collection this very day and all these names came up (and more) through the course of my mental wanderings.

I can't imagine why the Beatles (and their following solo careers) got the lion's share of the fame..

The Beatles were the first example of a commercial "supergroup", heavily & cleverly promoted across a wide range of media. To give them their due, Lennon & McCartney were quite innovative songwriters in the context of early 60s pop & rock n' roll, & knew how to craft “hits” for that market.

They were mediocre musicians, though. The sound on the early Beatles records, before they got studio musicians to do much of their backing, was very amateurish. Most high school bands sound tighter & more confident & adventurous.

(Ironically, one of the main criticisms of The Monkees was that they didn’t play their own backings on their first records. But in fact they were competent musicians & when they finally got to play the instruments themselves, they sounded more professional than the early Beatles).

:stupid:

If I HAD to choose, it would be The Beatles.............just.

However, The Stones beat them both hands down \m/


I'd agree. But the Kinks and The Who are better than all of 'em.

Beatles? Monkees? Couldn't any bugger spell in the 60s?

I vote Monkees and I lick windows.

I thought joke threads were for Flambe only!

I can't tell if some of you are joking or not. The Monkees were actors first and foremost.. that they had any musical talent whatsoever was coincidental.

The Beatles never relied heavily on studio musicians (at least not on guitars and drums). The later records sounded more professional, but that had more to do with advances in recording technology. The early Beatles recordings were often one and done jobs. On Please Please Me, they basically went down to the studio one day and played through their stage show and left.

Kormiics list is laughable. And what's with Britain's infatuation with Queen? It's all pretentious, overly theatrical fluff.

I guess it's cool to not like the Beatles? I guess it goes along with the model of the sad hipster who raves about some underground band... but once that band hits it big, they revile them for having 'sold out'.

Kormiics list is laughable. And what's with Britain's infatuation with Queen? It's all pretentious, overly theatrical fluff.

I guess it's cool to not like the Beatles?

That's the reason I like Queen. Don't take it so seriously and it's just dumb and fun. Despite this, I'd take Bohemian Rhapsody over Love Me Do any time.

And as for it being trendy to dislike the Beatles, I've never met that one before. Infact, I've refrained from voicing my opinion on the Beatles before because it was bet with a universal response. "Your tastes in music aren't sophisticated enough for the Beatles," and "You just don't understand what they were all about." I'm surprised anybody has backed me in my opinion that they were strictly mediocre.

Confesses Greasy Art:

I can't tell if some of you are joking or not.

As is often my wont, I'm not being terribly serious (I'm actually a classical music snob & wouldn't put any pop group on a pedestal :)).

But it is true that with the passage of time, the reputation of "minor" bands like The Monkees has tended to increase, while The Beatles have tended to be recognized for the slickly-packaged commercial product that they were. (The Monkees, in contrast, were a fairly shabbily-packaged commercial product, with more intrinsic charm).

I can't say I'm impressed by much on Kormiic's list. Never much liked the Rolling Stones - they've always seemed to rely on Mick Jagger's supposedly "sexy" persona as front man, but I've always found him repulsive. Led Zeppelin were mostly an industrial noise band. Joe Cocker's voice was one of the ugliest in the industry. The Moody Blues were middle-of-the-road hippy Christian types.

But the Trogs did some fun numbers, & T Rex were one of the more amusing rock outfits.

But it is true that with the passage of time, the reputation of "minor" bands like The Monkees has tended to increase, while The Beatles have tended to be recognized for the slickly-packaged commercial product that they were. (The Monkees, in contrast, were a fairly shabbily-packaged commercial product, with more intrinsic charm).

Slickly packaged? So what?

People will argue the toss over The Beatles true musical worth probably forever (which is telling in itself), but this still doesn't degrade their impact and legacy. As far as cultural significance is concerned few acts have them in spitting distance. On that level, The Monkees don't even come close.

btw - how many acts cite The Monkees as an influence?

the Rutles > the Monkees

btw - how many acts cite The Monkees as an influence?

What's this got to do with anything? How many people cite the Beatles as an influence just 'cause there's a popular concensus regarding their impact and influence in rock-n-roll.

Seems I need to defend my list. I wasn't saying all those acts on there were fantastic, what I was saying is I'd choose any of them over the Beatles any time.

The Rolling Stones, while not distinguished by any manner, still had a substance I don't find in Beatles music. Thin Lizzy didn't do much that was great. Infact, a lot of their stuff was a bite drone, but occasionally there was a masterpeice sewn into the fabric. David Bowie had a refreshing mix of eclectic politics and shallow fun. Jefferson Airplane boasted one of the most convincing female vocalists to ever be recorded. The Moody Blues great by many definitions, but their music does help promote a certain mood I enjoy. Deep Purple... I dunno, they just have a good sound that seems flow well. The Hollies were a very polished, very 'together' act... amongst the biggest musical talents of the 60s. Steppenwolf helped birth Heavy Metal, for which I'll be eternally greatful. I like Joe Cocker's voice, but you can't argue with the subjectivity of the matter. The Shadows' music, despite being almost all instrumental, managed to reflect the titles of the song so perfectly they didn't need words. Their music is great to play along with on your guitar while tapping your foot. Meat Loaf's blend of hard rock and romance is a welcome blend.

All the bands in my list had a quality I just cannot find in Beatles music. Their stuff just seems very generic and very shallow to me.

The reason I said your list is laughable is because all of those bands (including the Rolling Stones) were fundamentally influenced by what the Beatles did.. and I mean musically. I seriously doubt that any of the artists/bands you named (except maybe the Stones) would dare claim that their catalogue could compare to the Beatles catalogue. Sure, some of the groups you named made some great songs.. but not with the consistency that the Beatles did. Perhaps the Beatles sound 'generic' to you because after they were through, they had set the standard against which all other popular music is measured.

An interesting abstract from some seminar (re: early v. late Beatles or how they revolutionized popular music and song writing):
"From Craft to Art: Formal Structure in the Music of the Beatles."

Most histories of rock music cite early February 1964 as an important date in American popular music-the appearance of the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show on two consecutive Sunday evenings initiated a craze for British-invasion pop that had a dramatic effect on the development of rock music and caught the American music business entirely by surprise. Reading from most accounts, one might conclude that early BeatleÕs music was very different from the American pop that it so effectively displaced. But analysis reveals that the music of the Beatles engages in a much more complicated relationship with the American pop that preceded it than most writers have thus far detected.

The current paper explores the music of the Beatles and argues that early John Lennon-Paul McCartney songs are very closely dependent on models drawn from American pop of the 50s and early 60s. Songs such as "From Me to You" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand" employ the AABA formal structure that can be found in much Tin Pan Alley and Brill Building pop. Arrangement strategies are also drawn from this tradition. During this early stage, Lennon and McCartney think of themselves as "craftsmen"--writing songs according to patterns that have proved successful without worrying much about repeating such pafferns. But as the group begins to enjoy its first world-wide success, Lennon and McCartney each begin to move away from the craftsperson model and towards an "artist model." Increasingly, what is most distinctive about a song's structure tends not to be repeated in subsequent songs, as Lennon and McCartney begin engaging particular kinds of formal and harmonic issues.

This presentation will present several examples that chronicle this development in the Beatles music. Musical examples will be demonstrated from the guitar as well as played on tape. The overall point will be to not only show the development of Beatles music during the 1963-70 period, but also to suggest that such analysis forces us to rethink conventional accounts of rock style and its development--a point that extends beyond the music of the Beatles and rock music in the 1960s.

Hey Hey You're a Monkey!

But people say you're Martin Keown.

I'm not denying the Beatles didn't open doors, change people's musical preconceptions and cut paths that're still followed by musicians to this day. However, I wouldn't believe it was purposeful. I think the way they were marketted meant they got sweapt up in something much bigger than themselves. I don't think it mattered what they sounded like, and any number of 'sounds' could've produced the same result if given the breaks the Beatles received.

Led Zeppelin were mostly an industrial noise band.

That statement alone devalues your opinion. Not heard Led Zeppelin III then?

Bands better than the Beatles:

The Who, The Kinks, The Stones, The Jam, The Clash, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Beach Boys, The Smiths, Joy Division.

I could go on...

...Let me help you.

FrankZappa ,the buzzcocks (early diy stuff) , Van Der Graaf Generater ,Sex Pistols , Kevin Coyne , Billie Holiday , Bo Diddley , The Soft Machine , The Stooges , Iggy & The Stooges, Killing Joke , SOAD , The Piss Flaps , Half Man Half Biscuit ,Loudon Wainwright III......To name but a few

Ive said this before but I was 7 in 1963 and grew up during what I consider to be the finest modern musical period. What youve got to remember is that there was no Radio 1 until 1967 and we had to tune in to radio stations on ships in the North Sea on our tinny little transistor radios in our bedrooms.

We queued round the block the day an eagerly awaited single came out. We got the NME when it was the size of a Sunday Times. We begged record shops for posters. We watched as our idols did free festivals, tuned in, turned on and dropped out. Our heroes died early deaths, smashed hotel rooms and slept with groupies.

We sniffed Lady Esquire Shoe Conditioner at 7/6 a bottle and groped each other to Led Zep in grubby bedsits. Nothing comes anywhere near the feeling of absolute pure indulgence we felt at being young, free and off our fikkin heads.

All of this was done for the first time by young people making inroads into the staid 1950's culture still rampant in the 1960's. We fought for the rights of women and gay people against much opposition from the adults of the day. The music we listened to (and still listen to) expressed ABSOLUTELY our values and our culture that we tried so hard to carve out for ourselves. If anyone is in any doubt about this I suggest you watch Woodstock.

Beatles versus Monkees? It were all grand.

When I were a lad , It were all prog .
Up in't north it were a grim 'ol place in ' 77.
I were 13 ,and needed a fuckin' t'change in my life.
Down in t'grand old south came t'Sex Pistols.Up in the grime came the Buzzcocks .
The Beatles were dead ,long live the new wave .

Music isn't about accepting the past ,its about welcoming the new.

..which no doubt makes sound like a twat .

But I'll still say the Monkees.

I was trying to create some sort of context during which the Beatles and the Monkees played.

Altho I suppose my emphasis was on more of the prog rock bands, and the Vietnam War protesters.

I aint knocking more modern stuff, or the punk era. Punks to me were about destroying the stuff we'd built, which after all destroyed the stuff that went before it.

Sometimes Im so up my own arse.

No oooooooo ,don't go there!
Its me.
You're a top banana.

Bands better than the Beatles

I'd add The Seekers, The BeeGees, Steeleye Span, Yes, ABBA, The Cure, even Bananarama. And The Goodies. But The Beatles were arguably better than the Bay City Rollers.

I was waiting for The Cure, thanks Gordon.

I was waiting for The Cure, thanks Gordon.

ooooooooo robert smith mmmmmmmmmmm

fave track is....... a forest ............. again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again

Bliss...........but slightly off topic

Bands better than the Beatles:
How about 'bands [you] like better than the Beatles'? This Beatles bashing is getting too ridiculous. At least offer some sort of reason for saying those bands are better.

What makes a band 'good'? Or what are some signs that a band is 'good'? I'd say (in no particular order of importance): popularity (as in record sales), musicianship, musical compositional ability, quality of lyrics, number of hit songs, cultural impact (style, social movements, etc), charisma, other bands naming band in question as influences, etc.. At least that's what I see as making a band truely 'good'.. and some of the bands named might top the Beatles in one or another such category, but I really fail to see how anyone can argue that any band beats out the Beatles' total package.

The Cure are like, my favourite band of all time, realness

funnily enough I like a band if I like their music. If I dont like their music, I dont like them. 8)

I really fail to see how anyone can argue that any band beats out the Beatles' total package.

I fail to see how anyone could argue that the Beatles have made more than a handful of good albums. Said it before, say it again.. Abbey Road, The White Album and Revolver are the only 'fucking good' albums they've made.

Everything else is average at best (Magical Mystery Tour, For Sale, Rubber Soul, Let it Be), or fucking dreadful (Hard Days Night, Help, Sgt Peppers).

Whereas you look at bands like The Smiths or The Jam - I'd find it hard to name more than a few bad songs by either - let alone albums.

Well, I think I'll put the Beatles bashing down to simple backlash.

As for Help and Sgt Pepper.. I'm not sure what to say. I'd say Help (and I'm referring back to the abstract) marked the beginning of the period where Lennon/McCartney began to look at their product as art instead of a craft. I guess that was a result of Dylan and the Beatles feeding off eachother.. and we have that reaction to thank for everything worthwhile that's come after.

Help's track list:
1. Help!
2. The Night Before
3. You've Got To Hide Your Love Away
4. I Need You
5. Another Girl
6. You're Going To Lose That Girl
7. Ticket To Ride
8. Act Naturally
9. It's Only Love
10. You Like Me Too Much
11. Tell Me What You See
12. I've Just Seen A Face
13. Yesterday
14. Dizzy Miss Lizzie
As far as I can see, the only throwaways or filler are the two covers and tracks 2 and 4. Highlights for me being 1, 3, 7, 11, 12, and 13. All in all, a mediocre Beatles album, but far from dreadful. I think a mediocre or average Beatles record is better than a mediocre or average album from any other band. And keep in mind that they put out 13 albums in 7 years... plus two additional albums comprise a catalogue of singles not appearing on other albums.. a little mediocrity should be forgiven, but the Beatles don't really offer much.

For the record, I like the Kinks better than the Beatles... but I've got to admit that the Beatles are the better all around band. I do happen to think there are many bands who were together better musicians... or better lyricists... or whatever else. The Beatles just seemed to put all the ingredients together better than any of the others.

paul mccartney is a cunt, and he wasn't in the monkees

ergo

monkees win

This is like Man Utd versus Darlington. The only member of the Monkees who could play an instrument was Mike Nesmith. The rest of them wouldnt know a quaver from a crotchet. They did a few good songs like "A little Bit Me" and "Pleasant Valley Sunday". All very flower powery and nice to get stoned to, Im sure. But other than a few nice tunes their catalogue of hits ends.

Suggests Greasy:

I guess that was a result of Dylan and the Beatles feeding off eachother..

I'd put the Beatles several tiers above Bob Dylan. Even The Bay City Rollers were a good deal more entertaining than Bob Dylan.

Alleges Manta:

The only member of the Monkees who could play an instrument was Mike Nesmith.

Not true at all. Each Monkee was/is a multi-instrumentalist. And they can dance, too :))

This is like Man Utd versus Darlington. The only member of the Monkees who could play an instrument was Mike Nesmith. The rest of them wouldnt know a quaver from a crotchet. They did a few good songs like "A little Bit Me" and "Pleasant Valley Sunday". All very flower powery and nice to get stoned to, Im sure. But other than a few nice tunes their catalogue of hits ends.


flower powery Monkees? getting stoned to the Monkees? well thats complete Tommy Rot.

In the interests of research I shall download some Monkees hits and prepare for an evening of er......... research.

The Monkees did go rather psychedelic in their second series & their movie "Head".

paul mccartney is a cunt

Not as big a cunt as Mickey Dolenz!

paul mccartney is a cunt
Correct tense, of course.

However, when in The Beatles, Paul is alleged to have been very diplomatic, and even fair.

His descent to the Kingdom of Cunt came after, perhaps.

How about 'bands [you] like better than the Beatles'? This Beatles bashing is getting too ridiculous. At least offer some sort of reason for saying those bands are better.

What makes a band 'good'? Or what are some signs that a band is 'good'? I'd say (in no particular order of importance): popularity (as in record sales), musicianship, musical compositional ability, quality of lyrics, number of hit songs, cultural impact (style, social movements, etc), charisma, other bands naming band in question as influences, etc.. At least that's what I see as making a band truely 'good'.. and some of the bands named might top the Beatles in one or another such category, but I really fail to see how anyone can argue that any band beats out the Beatles' total package.

Sorry to Quote it in full ,Netniv, but...

Cliff Richard really is the greatest artist in the world .

Requests Greasy:

At least offer some sort of reason for saying those bands are better.

Most of the bands I've listed as being "better than the Beatles" were just more consistently entertaining than the Beatles, & generally less pretentious. The Beatles were a fun band at first, & they introduced some innovative treatments of melody & harmony into the unimaginative world of rock n' roll, but other bands were doing that at the same time.

This "fun Beatles" stage was relatively brief, however, & most of what came later was tedious. The "craft into art" analogy you've offered probably reflects what transpired - guitar lads with aspirations beyond their stations, taking themselves & their media-created status far too seriously.

There was a lot of this junk in the late 60s, 70s - all the turgid Dylan-style singer-songwriters, the bombastic "concept albums" & "art rock" nonsense (some of which was, admittedly, enjoyable at the time - I remember liking Yes & Mike Oldfield, for example - & a few pieces can bearably be listened to today, when you're feeling nostalgic).

We are all probabably living in cloud cuckoo land.
The most inovative bands ever, never sold a friggin button badge in their time.
Velvet Underground for exsample . Van Gogh ,for another.
The Beatles were pop ,mainsteam pap, and have only ever since influenced Oasis.They had already sold out when they thought they would start there innovative period. Too late ,they'd already been overtook.
The Monkees never pretended to be anything other than bubblegum,and for that I raise my flat cap.

Argues cappy:

They had already sold out when they thought they would start there innovative period.

Actually, their early songs were regarded as innovative, in those days. They used some chord sequences, melodic structures & harmonies that were quite unusual in "beat music" at the time. This is why "the Beatles sound" briefly took the pop world by storm - it was regarded as fresh & interesting.

Their later stuff sank into orchestral histrionics & delusions of grandeur.

BTW, I don't want to give the impression that I only respect bands that "just want to have fun". There are always some artistically interesting bands out there, but the best of the "arty" ones tend to be creative on the scale of being a band, not an "iconic mind-blowing cult pop phenomenon" or what have you.

Cliff Richard
Who the fuck is Cliff Richard? Really? I've only heard of him from the Beatles Anthology where George Harrison makes a joke about him being the only British artist that made a mark before they started... I have no idea who that guy is..

The official Sir Cliff Richard website -

http://www.cliffrichard.org/

Cliff Richard was/ is a pop singer who was vaguely like an English Elvis Presley, only cuter & better.

Unfortunately, he's a "committed Christian".

He looks quite young... Cliff Richards, I mean. Younger than the Beatles, anyhow. Is 'he' like Menudo?

Cliff is 65 but well-preserved. He was originally backed by The Shadows. He was a clean-cut boyish heart-throb but some of his performances were surprisingly "raunchy", so I'm told.

cliff does my head in. I went to see him in the film Summer Holiday about 1962? with my mum. I couldnt hear a word what with all the screaming girls in the audience. I just didnt get it. I still dont get it.

Theres something uncomfortably squeaky clean about him, which leads me to believe he's grubby.

The most inovative bands ever, never sold a friggin button badge in their time.
Velvet Underground for exsample

You could also mention Nick Drake in that sentence. He didn't sell a thing when he was alive, but you couldn't argue against his 3 albums being more innovative and influencial on future musicians than the beatles.

Why the Monkees were the best....

1. Peter Tork wore a woolly hat. Which was obviously a massive influence on that bloke from U2 and Benny from Crossroads.
2. Mike Mesmith's solo stuff is far better than that idiot MacCartney.
3. Mickey Dolenz did Circus Boy and Metal Mickey. The Beatles influence on children's telly is negligible. Ringo doing Thomas the Tank doesn't count.
4. Davey Jones was once in Coronation Street. Top man.
5. The Monkees didn't have that wanker Ringo playing drums.

5. The Monkees didn't have that wanker Ringo playing drums.


:youwin:

Fuck Off


I <3 Ringo

I heard the funniest conversation between two teenage girls i've ever heard in my life this morning.


Did you know that ringo from the beatles is gay?


Oh... is he the purple one..?


:\

Taya, what have I told you about loitering in asylums?

Saw the Lennon documentary last night on tv, hour long, Peter T <3 ork of monkees did a song "Cruising" that was good, it was about prostitution...

1. Peter Tork wore a woolly hat.


I think you'll find it was Mike Nesmith that wore the wooly hat. You know, Nesmith. The musician in the "band"

Who the fuck is Cliff Richard?

Britain's answer to Elvis Presley?

Never part of a popular beat combo from Liverpool.

Likes Tennis.

Definately NOT gay, no way Jose. Even though he lives with an ex-minister, he's NOT GAY.

The Monkees every time for me. I grew up loving their music and still like many of their songs today.

http://monkeesconvention04.tripod.com/

I think you'll find it was Mike Nesmith that wore the wooly hat. You know, Nesmith. The musician in the "band"
Fair point sir. Did you know that Nesmith's mum invented tippex? What an awesome family.

Reveals Daveboy:

Did you know that Nesmith's mum invented tippex?

Ah, I knew it was one of their mums. Makes you wonder why he bothered working at all, being heir to the Tippex fortune.

Liquid Paper ackshully, s'different company, different recipe

This thread reminds me of that bit on Alan Partridge:

"who are Wings"

Alan: "Only the Band the Beatles COULD have been!"


ho ho ho




"alan, whats your favorite Beatles Album?"

Alan: "hmm, Best of the Beatles Volume II"

The Monkees also recorded songs by the God among men that is Neil Diamond.
The Beatles never had the honour of recording one of his songs, therefore they were rubbish.

The Monkees get their name from a mammal that is biologically the most similar to humans.
The Beatles are named after an insect, so are therefore rubbish.

not all insects are beetles tho, but all beetles are insects

not all insects are beetles tho, but all beetles are insects
You can't argue with that.

The Monkees also recorded songs by the God among men that is Neil Diamond.
The Beatles never had the honour of recording one of his songs, therefore they were rubbish.
Neil Diamond has covered The Beatles' Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight in his live set - so where does that fit in with the equation?

(doubtless you'll bend it in the Monkees favour though).

Even Gods among men have lapses of judgment comababy. I bet the Monkees never covered any of those ropey old Beatles tunes did they?