Who vs Kinks vs Stones 1965

[Diamond Dog]

If most of us are in agreement that the Beatles were the best UK band of the era?

There were better bands outside of the UK?

Both the Byrds and the Beach Boys were certainly better than The Who in '65, and Dylan is better than any of the three bands listed above.

But better than The Beatles?

[naughty boy]

Between 1965 and 1966 it seemed like many bands dropped the blues influence and then things really opened up. The Stones are very much a case in point.

[Matt Wilson]

There were better bands outside of the UK?

Both the Byrds and the Beach Boys were certainly better than The Who in '65, and Dylan is better than any of the three bands listed above.

But better than The Beatles?

No, that's why I didn't include them. But I'll bet Dylan could give them a run for their money in '65. Basically, you're looking at Bringing it all Back Home and Highway 61 vs Help and Rubber Soul. And then you've got stuff like "Ticket to Ride," "I'm Down," "We Can Work it Out," "Day Tripper," etc. Dylan's only got the "Positively 4th St" and "Can You Please Crawl Out Your Window" stand-alone 45s.

I dunno, it might still be close.

[naughty boy]

Not close. The Pretty Things, on the other hand...

that first album is 3/4 covers!

some GOOD covers, but still...

[Matt Wilson]

Get the Picture has its share of covers as well.

[naughty boy]

It does, yeah. Probably just as many. And then came Emotions with no covers at all!

It wasn't really until 'Midnight To Six Man' that they proved themselves key players in the 60s SCENE. That song is as good as anything the Stones put out then.

[Matt Wilson]

I don't mind the Pretties at all. I just think it's hyperbole when you and Dave say they're better than the Stones. I mean - what year would that be? 1970, maybe - and only then because the Stones didn't release a studio album.

[naughty boy]

The Stones' purported 'golden era' sounds increasingly like a load of old tosh. Tenth-rate blues pastiches/covers, bits of half-arsed 'country', Jagger's unsexy bawling, a lack of energy all round.

If - like me - you think they took a wrong turn with Beggars Banquet, then look to the Pretties.

[Goat Boy]

Oooooo! Mr Controv is in the building!

[naughty boy]

I don't think it's that controversial, really. It just depends what you're looking for. But those Stones' albums are really such a fucking drag.

[Matt Wilson]

"What a drag it is.... with the Stones."

Ah, but the score's tied again. The plot sickens!

[Matt Wilson]

double post

It sucks we don't have the delete function anymore.

[Osgood]

As a whole I'd take the Kinks from that lot, but in 1965 they were just starting to find their path. So I voted for the Stones. Any other year afterwards till 1971 it'd had been Ray & Co, even if The Beatles were included in the poll

[sloopjohnc]

If most of us are in agreement that the Beatles were the best UK band of the era?

There were better bands outside of the UK?

Both the Byrds and the Beach Boys were certainly better than The Who in '65, and Dylan is better than any of the three bands listed above.

I'd buy that.

[Diamond Dog]

I'm not even talking about The Who... or Dylan (who isn't a band).

I'm referring directly to the phrase "If most of us are in agreement that the Beatles were the best UK band of the era?".

I don't understand the need to state "UK" unless there is an implication that there were better non-UK bands.

[The Modernist]

The Stones' purported 'golden era' sounds increasingly like a load of old tosh. Tenth-rate blues pastiches/covers, bits of half-arsed 'country', Jagger's unsexy bawling, a lack of energy all round.

If - like me - you think they took a wrong turn with Beggars Banquet, then look to the Pretties.

Yes. Agreed.

[The Modernist]

This was The Who's best year and they get my vote .

[Matt Wilson]

Well, it looks like the Stones won, barely. I'll start a 1966 poll tomorrow and include more bands - maybe some American ones.