Best Singles Band

Best Singles/B-Sids Band

  • Total voters
    42
A

Andrewroon

New Member
The Smiths were an amazing Singles band, and the quality of their B-Sides is breathtaking. Morrissey, as a solo artist, also released great Singles and B-Sides, although I would say nowhere near the quality of what he did as a member of The Smiths. However, the question of 'who is the best singles band?' is something that is certainly open to argument. Just going by decades, The Beatles in the 60's, The Jam in the 70's 'yes, they had Singles in the 80's too,' The Smiths in the 80's and Oasis in the 90's and 2000's. This tradition of great UK Singles bands, who also release some of their finest music via B-Sides, produced some of the best music in history. So, without getting sidetracked in which of these musicians/groups was 'the best,' which of these groups had the best Singles/B-Sides output.
 
The Smiths are the best, hands down.

I would throw New Order and The Wedding Present on the list, too.
 
Well, considering The Beatles have at least 27 #1 singles, each one known by even people who AREN'T Beatles fans, I think the case is closed...
 
It's not particularly original but for consistancy it has to be the Beatles. But, the thing is, their output is so much a part of our culture that as much as l like them, I could never imagine wanting to put a Beatles platter on the gramaphone. For my generation atleast (I am ancient) the Beatles are old news although I would grant a younger generation could discover them anew. That said, they are always being released and repackaged it's like they've never gone away. Actually, it gets on my tits.
 
The scope of the question included B-sides. Some of The Smiths' best songs came out as B-sides. Format differences aside, if we went by sheer greatness, the "William, It Was Really Nothing" twelve-inch single would have to be considered one of the best 'albums' of 1984 (as would New Order's "Thieves Like Us" in the same year).

Are these classics?

"This Boy"
"You Can't Do That"
"Things We Said Today"
"She's A Woman"
"Yes It Is"
"Baby, You're A Rich Man"
"Old Brown Shoe"

Would anyone but a committed Beatles fan know them?

Yes, I know there are excellent Beatles flip sides like "Eleanor Rigby" and "Don't Let Me Down", but The Smiths' singles are unparalleled in terms of consistent quality on both A and B sides. And they were certainly better dressed.

(Also, The Smiths are superior to The Beatles.) :guitar:
 
Last edited:
Worm said:
The scope of the question included B-sides. Some of The Smiths' best songs came out as B-sides. Format differences aside, if we went by sheer greatness, the "William, It Was Really Nothing" twelve-inch single would have to be considered one of the best 'albums' of 1984 (as would New Order's "Thieves Like Us" in the same year).

Are these classics?

"This Boy"
"You Can't Do That"
"Things We Said Today"
"She's A Woman"
"Yes It Is"
"Baby, You're A Rich Man"
"Old Brown Shoe"

Yes, I know there are excellent Beatles flip sides like "Eleanor Rigby" and "Don't Let Me Down", but The Smiths' singles are unparalleled in terms of consistent quality on both A and B sides. And they were certainly better dressed.

(Also, The Smiths are superior to The Beatles.) :guitar:
Click to expand...
Oh dear Worm, I feel we are drifting apart. This Boy, You can't do that, Baby you're a rich man and old brown shoe are indeed classics (in my 'umble)
 
Sorry about that, Peter. :)

Bear in mind I'm not dismissing the Beatles' B-sides as bad. I'm saying they're not classics the way the others are. When most people think of their favorite Beatles songs, they think of the (admittedly amazing) run of A-sides and lots of album tracks. I would speculate-- and here I admit I am speculating, not being a giant Beatles fan-- that their B-side output represents a good, but nevertheless inferior category of songs. This is also true of The Jam. And probably Oasis, too, though I sure as hell wouldn't know.

Whereas, with The Smiths, there is almost no difference in quality between A-sides, B-sides, and album tracks. The only notable exceptions are instrumentals like "Money Changes Everything" and the occasional already-released album track (e.g. "Cemetry Gates" on "Ask"). These are clearly "filler" tunes included to meet the requirements of the format. (Also, I'm not counting the posthumous "Strangeways" singles, which are anomalies.)

Maybe the matter should be posed this way: if you took away the Beatles' B-sides and pretended those songs never existed, ever, they'd still be the Beatles everyone in the known universe adores. If you did the same to The Smiths, they'd be half as great as they are.

But I am glad you didn't argue with my assertion that The Smiths are better. :)
 
Last edited:
The inevitable 'best band ever' question is fairly subjective; however, can we really say The Smiths are better than The Beatles? Let me get one thing out there before I'm verbally attacked, I love The Smiths and their best songs 'my favorite songs' are my favorite songs ever. The partnership of Morrissey and Marr is awe inspiring and pretty much unrivaled in terms of quantity and quality for such a short period. BUT, then we get to The Beatles. 'Please Please Me' was released in 1963 in the UK and 'Let it Be' was released in 1970-although the songs on Abbey Road, released in 1969, were actually the last songs the Beatles recorded together, save for several overdubs. That's essentially six years, over 200 songs, with realistically, 150-175 being quite good. I think in many ways The Beatles and The Smiths had very parallel careers. Two dominant people within the group, incredible rate of songwriting and recording, their middle period is probably their best and they don't have that many bad songs. We're also left with the question 'what would have happened?' had they stayed together. I love Morrissey's solo career more than Lennon or McCartney, but I'm of the belief that none of them ever topped their work within the group setting.

'Rubber Soul' came out in December of 1965, 'Revolver' in August 1966, in between they released some of their best A-Sides, 'Day Tripper,' 'We Can Work it Out,' and 'Paperback Writer.' In 8 months they released two of the greatest albums in history and a slew of singles that rival a lot of what The Smiths did. In February of 1967, we get what can legitimately probably be called the best double A-side in history with 'Stawberry Fields/Penny Lane' followed by the forever controversial 'Sgt. Peppers.' Let's say the peak of The Smiths, in quality, came on the heels of their debut and lasted through their last album, as much as I love it, I don't think we can say that it is better than what The Beatles did. Did The Beatles ever make a flip side as enjoyable as 'Half Person'? Probably not. An album with as many all time classics as 'The Queen is Dead?' I would also say no, although 'Rubber Soul' is pretty damn close. But, taken as a whole, can we really say The Smiths are flat out better than The Beatles? What I will say is that, based on strength of songs, I would say The Smiths are certainly one of the great groups of all time, far more consistent than the majority of groups who are typically touted as 'one of the best ever,' ie, The Stones, Zeppelin, etc. But, if we simply take a group's 25 best songs-a game I often play-The Smiths are the best group ever.
 
Andrewroon said:
The inevitable 'best band ever' question is fairly subjective; however, can we really say The Smiths are better than The Beatles? Let me get one thing out there before I'm verbally attacked, I love The Smiths and their best songs 'my favorite songs' are my favorite songs ever. The partnership of Morrissey and Marr is awe inspiring and pretty much unrivaled in terms of quantity and quality for such a short period. BUT, then we get to The Beatles. 'Please Please Me' was released in 1963 in the UK and 'Let it Be' was released in 1970-although the songs on Abbey Road, released in 1969, were actually the last songs the Beatles recorded together, save for several overdubs. That's essentially six years, over 200 songs, with realistically, 150-175 being quite good. I think in many ways The Beatles and The Smiths had very parallel careers. Two dominant people within the group, incredible rate of songwriting and recording, their middle period is probably their best and they don't have that many bad songs. We're also left with the question 'what would have happened?' had they stayed together. I love Morrissey's solo career more than Lennon or McCartney, but I'm of the belief that none of them ever topped their work within the group setting.

'Rubber Soul' came out in December of 1965, 'Revolver' in August 1966, in between they released some of their best A-Sides, 'Day Tripper,' 'We Can Work it Out,' and 'Paperback Writer.' In 8 months they released two of the greatest albums in history and a slew of singles that rival a lot of what The Smiths did. In February of 1967, we get what can legitimately probably be called the best double A-side in history with 'Stawberry Fields/Penny Lane' followed by the forever controversial 'Sgt. Peppers.' Let's say the peak of The Smiths, in quality, came on the heels of their debut and lasted through their last album, as much as I love it, I don't think we can say that it is better than what The Beatles did. Did The Beatles ever make a flip side as enjoyable as 'Half Person'? Probably not. An album with as many all time classics as 'The Queen is Dead?' I would also say no, although 'Rubber Soul' is pretty damn close. But, taken as a whole, can we really say The Smiths are flat out better than The Beatles? What I will say is that, based on strength of songs, I would say The Smiths are certainly one of the great groups of all time, far more consistent than the majority of groups who are typically touted as 'one of the best ever,' ie, The Stones, Zeppelin, etc. But, if we simply take a group's 25 best songs-a game I often play-The Smiths are the best group ever.
Click to expand...

For the record, I didn't expect anyone to take my "Smiths > Beatles" claim seriously. :)

However. :rolleyes:

I don't expect anyone else to agree with my assessment, but in my view The Smiths are indeed superior to The Beatles because of Morrissey's incredibly sophisticated sense of irony, particularly with respect to his own position vis-a-vis pop music (and pop culture in general). Morrissey's art is paradoxical in the way it both epitomizes the form of pop music, celebrating and thriving in it, while also opening up a small but significant critical distance between itself and pop music as a product of mass culture. In my view, The Smiths (more so than Morrissey's solo career, which I think Morrissey himself might admit) opened up a window to the world outside of pop music (literature and cinema, but also the "real world" beyond these, too). Morrissey makes music for people who mediate their experience of the real world through the prism of art, which is much more interesting-- and satisfyingly problematic-- than anything the Beatles managed to accomplish. His music has a dimension the Beatles lack, namely a strong sense of ironical self-awareness. Like the lamentations of Caliban, forced to speak the language Prospero taught him, Morrissey's songs come from the perspective of an alienated being compelled to eke out an existence in the absurd machine of pop culture.

This could be seen as a postmodern perspective emergent only in the 1980s, and therefore unknown to The Beatles, but in some respects this critical position was available to Lennon & McCartney, as well, and they adopted it half-heartedly, belatedly, or not at all. The Beatles are too closed, too establishment-friendly, too this-worldly. Despite their countercultural flirtations in the late 60s and Lennon's post-Beatles protests, the group was miserably safe. They got rich rendering unto Caesar what was Caesar's; they were Pharaoh's friends, Mammon's muses, Babylon's brightest. Morrissey & Marr were prophets of The Truth and despite the big-biz drive to squeeze every last cent out of their legacy they remain so today.

The Beatles are phenomenal, don't get me wrong. I do appreciate them. Quite a bit. And maybe I'm slagging them off for reasons that aren't their fault. Still, however you frame it, I think Morrissey's best art, both solo and with The Smiths, is smarter, more sophisticated, and-- by virtue of being out of step with its time, unlike The Beatles-- much more provocative. He's also funnier, by a mile.

Obviously, in saying all this, I am ignoring the fact that The Smiths probably wouldn't have existed without The Beatles blazing the trail beforehand. Yes. Of course. I just find that argument to be no fun at all. The guys at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame can debate the whole "originality/influence" thing all they want. Shakespeare probably wasn't possible without Thomas Kyd, either, but I know whom I prefer. :guitar:
 
Last edited:
I think everybody here can agree that the Rock Hall is a complete joke, in so many ways. The Smiths have been eligible for three years, and are still not in, while it seems that every year an obscure hip-hop group gets nominated. I would agree that Morrissey is more thought provoking, more unique and quite frankly a significantly better lyricist than either Lennon or McCartney. But taking the whole of the picture, I think it's very hard to argue against The Beatles being the best group ever. Now, the best pure Singles group ever, I would say The Smiths, The Jam and Oasis are better. But 'Hey Jude' is a fuc*in great song, even if it is overplayed.

I also think this point is interesting, everyone likes Lennon more than McCartney, and Morrissey more than Marr, but Marr and McCartney were probably more important to their respective bands. They were both more musical directors, essentially, even though Lennon technically penned more Beatles classics.
 
Andrewroon said:
I think everybody here can agree that the Rock Hall is a complete joke, in so many ways. The Smiths have been eligible for three years, and are still not in, while it seems that every year an obscure hip-hop group gets nominated.
Click to expand...

Well, okay, but the Hall's reasoning is not too different than yours, above. Based on sheer originality and influence, the Sugar Hill Gang and Grandmaster Flash are more deserving of entry into the Hall than Morrissey and Marr. You really have to stake out your criteria in these debates. Do we rank by originality or technical proficiency? Quantity or quality? Longevity or instant impact?

Believe me, the members of Rush are impatiently awaiting an answer.

Andrewroon said:
I also think this point is interesting, everyone likes Lennon more than McCartney, and Morrissey more than Marr, but Marr and McCartney were probably more important to their respective bands.
Click to expand...

People always prefer the outspoken character to the quiet craftsman. But the tide may be turning. I saw a Malcolm Young t-shirt the other day. :)
 
Last edited:
Actually Old Brown Shoe was a double A side.

Best singles band? I'd got for Madness. Quality throughout.

I'm deducting the Smiths points for putting songs that were/subsequently became album tracks on the flip side too often.
 
Andrewroon said:
I also think this point is interesting, everyone likes Lennon more than McCartney, and Morrissey more than Marr
Click to expand...

I thought people liked Marr more than Morrissey, at least as a public figure. Of course Morrissey got more of the spotlight and the fame because he was the frontman, but I've never yet heard someone say "I like the Smiths, but the guitarist is a prick". Plenty have said it about the singer.
 
Andrewroon said:
Did The Beatles ever make a flip side as enjoyable as 'Half Person'?
Click to expand...

Well, I think "I Am The Walrus", "Don't Let Me Down" and "Rain" are phenomenal b-sides. Also, with the double a-sides of "We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper", "Strawberry Fields"/"Penny Lane", "Hey Jude"/"Revolution" even "Eleanor Rigby"/"Yellow Submarine" they were releasing two tracks of equal quality, both far superior to your average b-side.

The other thing with The Beatles as well is many of their very best known tracks weren't even singles at all: "Yesterday", "Long and Winding Road", "Lucy In The Sky", "Day In The Life", "Fool On The Hill", "For No One", "Here There And Everywhere", "With A Little Help From My Friends", "Here Comes The Sun", "Back In The USSR", "Dear Prudence", "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Blackbird", "Drive My Car", "Nowhere Man", "In My Life", "Norwegian Wood", "Across The Universe" and I could go on. I don't think any other band can quite match that.

But, yes, I agree with the basic premise that both The Beatles and The Smiths released really great singles.
 
I voted Moz, SMiths & Oasis....
I can't help noticing that Beatles has more votes tham Morrissey....
 
So, it comes down to The Beatles and The Smiths.

Having lived through The Smiths, I can better appreciate their impact. Worm (as usual) makes a great point: Morrissey's sophisticated "postmodern" take on the pop sensibility and his ability to act as a mediator for his audience is something more subtle and complex than anything The Beatles ever attempted. This is why The Smiths are the ultimate indie band, and The Beatles are (however improbably) the establishment. This, however, does not make The Smiths a better band, nor does it make their awesome single releases any greater than those of The Beatles, who single-handedly invented the already antiquated idea of a pop band as both cultural driving force and counter-cultural reaction.

I'm too young to remember The Beatles as anything other than a relic, but I've heard enough references to the idea that they were omnipresent and able, through some strange personal alchemy, to be so many things to so many people. They were a part of the cultural family, a ubiquitous presence that both reflected and drove the cultural narratives of the time. That is a power unimaginable today.

When it comes to cultural impact, The Beatles are unsurpassed: sure, The Smiths' (and especially Morrissey's) influence echoes in the indie crooning of so many Sensitive Young Things, and Morrissey's place as a Living Icon is a settled fact. As a pop band The Smiths managed to inject a kind of timeless poetry into the vapid cultural wasteland of the '80s and brought a level of cultural sophistication and literary weightiness to the pop music scene that gave them an impact beyond music. However, The Beatles have been credited with (among other things) A) weakening the East/West cultural divide enough to have had a hand in the fall of the Soviet Union B) Almost single-handedly destroying the cultural hegemony of the American old guard and ushering in the countercultural upheaval of the 1960s, and C) taking an entire generation on a hallucinogenic magical mystery tour to the land of Eastern mysticism from which we've never fully returned; perhaps we can blame the New Age on them as well. Of course they were not single-handedly responsible for any of these things, but the fact that people still blame (or praise) them as the arbiters of such monumental social changes is incredible. They were and weren't just a rock 'n roll band, after all.

So, the music, yeah: The Beatles were from a less sophisticated era - their early singles were silly love songs that sound like ancient history now, it's true. At their best, though: Day Tripper/We Can Work it Out, Paperback Writer/Rain, Eleanor Rigby/Yellow Submarine, Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane, Hello/Goodbye/I am the Walrus, Hey Jude/Revolution, Something/Come Together... I don't think any pop music anywhere can compete.

The Smiths are an entirely different animal: smaller in scope but more sophisticated and artful in impact. It's All Up To What You Value...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Best 'Best Of' Album?
Replies
6
Views
3K
Theo
Theo
M
  • Poll
Best Album?
Replies
5
Views
3K
DAVIE
D
Raphael Lambach
Very best of... doubt
Replies
3
Views
1K
Raphael Lambach
Raphael Lambach
J
A Smiths Tribute Band
Replies
11
Views
2K
Johnny Marr
J
davidt
The Smiths - Singles (TV Advert from 1995)
Replies
10
Views
7K
Anonymous
A
Back
Top Bottom