The Beatles Verses The Monkees
This essay is under construction and will be added to/edited in time.
Any fan of The Monkees at some point in time has had the experience of someone, somewhere
bringing up the comparison of The Beatles verses The Monkees. This is often an
obnoxious moment, as what is usually said is: "The Monkees are cheap knock-offs of
The Beatles"; "The Monkees copied everything The Beatles
did"; "The Monkees fame only exists because of The Beatles"; "The Monkees are just like The Beatles,
except much worse"; "Why like The Monkees when you can like The Beatles?";
"The Beatles hated The Monkees."
In fact, more than once I've heard someone say,
"'Daydream Believer'/'I'm A Believer'/'Last Train To Clarksville',
didn't The Beatles do that?"
So, let's get one thing out of the way: no.
I'll be honest, while I've heard and am familiar with probably all of The Beatles
music, and read a handful of books on them [who hasn't?], I am not an *expert*
on The Beatles, at least not as one might say I am on The Monkees [if one might say
that].
We all know that.
HOWEVER, I feel I know enough to make some compelling arguments.
This comparison of The Beatles Verses The Monkees is
unecessary and unfair for many reasons. It's tacky and unbecoming that people still
in this day in age try to say these things.
The Monkees certainly were similar to The Beatles
in the way many sixties bands were, but not attempting
to directly copy everything of The Beatles--
The Monkees, lest anyone forget, started out as a make
believe band on TV, meant to emulate any band of the 1960's. For that matter,
what band in the 1960's didn't copy The Beatles to some extent? Sure, when you're writing
a TV show about a make believe band, you're going to want to look at some real life models.
But aside from that, The Monkees eventually blossomed into their own entity and style
when they became their own band, and had their own persona even as just a television
show
before they broke
from their creators. Similar? Perhaps. Copying? I think not.
Yes, you could argue that since The Monkees existed as a TV show before
they became a real band, and since that TV show was created to portray the phenomenon
of the explosion boy bands in the culture at the time, especially and including The Beatles,
The Monkees would not have existed if it were not for The Beatles, and therefor
The Monkees are dependant on The Beatles' fame and could not be a thing of their own.
In this sense, this is true. However, this does not mean The Monkees are simply
*copying* The Beatles, nor a corrupt endeavor, nor does it take away from the actual talent
that existed within The Monkees and the writers and producers who helped create them.
For that matter, you could argue that *any* group or artist exists because of the inspiration
of those before them, and for that matter mostly *all* the boy bands of the 1960's post
The Beatles were in some ways emulating themselves after The Beatles.
Although I will give you that with The Monkees it was a far, far, far less
organic process.
The Monkees phenomenon is such a unique, complex set of causes and effects, actions and reactions, pioneering in the frontier of combining music and televison, fantasy and reality, I don't really consider them a "band" as much as I consider them, simply, a "phenomenon". I give them credit for becoming their own band, I think their music is excellent, both before and after they broke from their creators, I think they are all talented, and I don't consider them a "fake band" [at least not after they became a real band obviously], but I consider the whole thing a broader experience than simply a "band". They obviously defied the expection for how a "band" should have been created. And while a lot of their music was complex, beautiful, and influential, they would not have had the influence they did had it not been for the TV show. Clearly, the show AND the music combined was more than the sum of their parts. While the music and TV show separated could probably have held its own, clearly the combination was sheer genius, as one always played off the other. They were a group of artistic, talented, charismatic men caught in unpredicted phenomenon that was shifting the paradigms of music and television as we knew it. They are, simply, The Monkees. They simply don't really fit into any category.
For this reason, I don't really compare The Monkees to any band, let alone The Beatles.
They simply don't really fit into any category.
Whether or not you agree with this view is your own choice. However, among the
degradation that's externalized about the connections between The Beatles and The Monkees
is the belief that because of the aforementioned
"facts", The Beatles must hate The Monkees and there be great animosity between them.
Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, The Beatles, unlike the criticizers
of The Monkees, were the charismatic zeitgeists that they were because they are
free thinkers and not easily threatened. The Beatles knew The Monkees were not attempting
to directly copy them, and saw their existance as benign, genuine, and independant of theirs.
The Beatles were able to see The Monkees as the montage of artists, entertainers, comedians,
and musicians
that they were, and left it at that.
Even if The Beatles thought The Monkees might have been influenced by The Beatles,
they were simply flattered, and as I said, not threatened, because they were The Beatles.
Furthermore, The Monkees were HUGE Beatles fans,
loving them with great admiration and respect, and would never attempt to outdo or compare
themselves to The Beatles.
John Lennon loved The Monkees show, and watched it all the time.
"They're like the Marx Brothers" he said. In fact, The Beatles appreciated
The Monkees so much when The Monkees came to the UK in the summer of 1967
during their summer tour, The Beatles
hosted a party for them. Sweet? You bet.
Since the 60's there's been only amicable feelings between the Beatles and the Monkees,
and Micky even became and still remains close friends with Ringo Starr.
I'm not sure who's quote this is, but this came from
this site
and I'm aware all of this is true:
"While they may have been musical rivals, the Beatles and the Monkees were
actually good friends and crossed paths during their respective careers.
Davy made his first US television appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show with
the cast of Oliver! on February 9, 1964, the same night that 73 million US
viewers tuned in to see the debut of the Beatles. The Monkees attended the
next-to-last ever Beatles concert in Los Angeles on August 28, 1966.
In the summer of 1967, Beatles manager Brian Epstein promoted the Monkees'
London shows. When in London, Micky visited Paul McCartney's
house and attended a Beatles recording session at Abby Road Studios.
Mike even appeared in the promotional film for the Beatles' 'A Day in the Life.' "
So, The Monkees interaction with The Beatles was pretty much always positive.
The fact of the matter is, The Beatles are The Beatles. No one compares.
They are what? One of the greatest rock and roll bands in history? If not
THE greatest rock and roll band in history?
The Beatles are The Icon.
Why would anyone try to compare any band to them?
So, it's cruel, rediculous, and irrational to even try to compare The Monkees
to The Beatles,
let alone compare any band to The Beatles.
It's like that joke about Jesus having a brother, and his parents
constantly saying to him, "Why can't you be more like your brother, Jesus?".
The Beatles have unprecedented fame, influence, and cultural power that almost
no other celebrity or figure has come close to being near.
So, let it go.
The Beatles will always be the precedent for something
The Monkees will not. However, The Monkees are a part of something else
entirely which they are the precedent of,
and regardless The Monkees have contributed very successfully
in the rock and roll domain in their own way.
For the sake of argument, it can be noted
that The Monkees third album Headquarters
was number one in the US for a week during the summer of 1967
until The Beatles Sgt Pepper knocked it down to number two,
and they remained in those two slots back and forth during the entire summer
of 1967. As well, The Monkees outsold The Beatles and The Rolling Stones
combined
in 1967 [I love saying that].
So, I'm not saying The Monkees are trying to be The Beatles... But I'm saying
that they fare pretty well as themselves at least.
So, stop harassing them.
Beatles And Monkees Breakdown
|
Beatles
|
Monkees
|
|
Called the "Fab Four" because, hey,
they were really fab.
|
Called the "Pre-Fab Four" as a joke, refencing
that they were pre-fabricated.
|
|
British Invasion
|
Teeny Bopper Invasion
|
|
Movie released in 1967, Magical Mystery Tour,
bombed.
|
Monkees only movie, released in 1967, HEAD,
bombed.
|
|
The Beatles are the first to use a sitar on a pop record.
|
The Monkees are the first to use a Moog synthesizer on a pop record
[and everyone else copied later!].
|
|
"I Want To Hold Your Hand" was number one before The Beatles even came to America.
|
"Last Train To Clarksville" was number one before The Monkees even aired on TV.
|
|
One of the greatest selling rock and roll bands in history.
|
Outsold the Beatles and Rolling Stones combined in 1967.
|
|
All four members from around the same part of England.
|
Each member from a different part of the world: California,
Texas, Connecticut, England.
|
|
Similar haircuts.
|
Different haircuts.
|
|
British accents.
|
Various accents.
|
|
Had no television show, but various movies and later a cartoon.
|
Television show won an Emmy for "Outstanding Comedy" in 1967.
|
|
All four Beatles debut in America on Ed Sullivan show in 1964.
|
Davy Jones debut in America on the very same Ed Sullivan show in 1964.
|
Much of this information used with thanks to
Beth,
who never fails to rock my socks.
The Beatles And Monkees Articles
Here are examples of some articles from sixties teen magazines about the
interactions between The Beatles and The Monkees. They're kind of hokey,
but it shows how benign this whole situation is.
|
