I agree it is like comparing apples and oranges, but to say they were brilliant or could even approach ANYTHING the beatles ever did even on their first album is stretching it a just a little bit. Abba was certainly not the supergroup of the 70's, at least not in the US, they had a few bland boring hooky pop tunes on AM radio that's about it. The US is considered the last place to make it, if you've made it here, you've made it. I'm not saying that they didn't make it here but they weren't any bigger than 100 other bands during the 70's here.
The Beatles trancend any notions of supergroup, the term simply doesn't apply when it comes to them, they completely changed the face of music. They WERE the 60's, They are in a class with Elvis and Frank sinatra, the greats of the whole century. Abba does not belong in that class. Abba belongs with Gilbert O'Sullivan and that type of stuff, poppy, hooky with no substance.
I don't know why some of you guys equate selling a lot of records, fame and winning awards with talent, Mozart died pennieless I guess he just didn't have it. To put things in perspective, who do you think will be remembered from the 20th century in 50 years? Abba will be about as memorable as Patti Page.
I just heard "Dancing Queen" in the same commercial as "The Hustle"" and "Jive Talking" for an oldies 98.9 dance party haha! What a coincidence.
$1,000,000,000 offered for world tour
I wasn't really making a direct comparison between ABBA and The Beatles. I just picked what is probably the most well known, popular, and in my opinion, best band ever(The Beatles of course) and tried to illustrate a similarity to ABBA which for some, hold the same position. I for one would never equate record sales with talent. Just look at what sells now or turn on your radio...YUCK! When I got into "Prog Rock" back in the early '70's I thumbed my nose at almost everything else that was going on at the time, namely disco and pop music. I didn't like Yes because they were excellent musicians. I just liked them. Looking back now, I can recognize good arrangements, musicianship and song writing outside of the realatively small group of musicians who will, unfortunately never make it into the Rock&Roll hall of fame. My first clue was when I found I couldn't make any money playing until I started playing what other people wanted to hear. I know all about the early strugling days of the Fab Four and have more of their stuff in my house than any ten people I know. I know very little about a lot of other groups and only now through the internet am discovering all sorts of great stuff. It sounds like Phil has done his homework on Sweden's Fab Four and it's made me curious to give them a listen with a less critical but I hope, more trained ear. I'm certainly not going to put them down if I've only heard two songs. Making it in the US is definitely a mark of success, but even the best prog bands of the '70's had a hard time of it, especially in the press. Our radio, and indeed, all of our regular media outlets, is very narrow in it's scope because, in the end, what matters is what sells and what is most easily and quickly digested. Remember, David Cassidy WAS a rock god!
This is a part culture issue too Bob. My generation, worldwide, (with the exception of the U.S.) had ABBA as the barometer for contemporary pop music, and for many many people they will always be their first kiss, dance etc. As long as they are alive ABBA will be too. I have no doubt they will certainly be here in 50 years time as their best material will easily stand the test of time. They are one of the very few groups to transcend their field and actually become part of the culture. They have a revered status in the U.K. Europe and especially Australia that if you never experienced it you can,t comprehend it.
I have no doubt if they wished to reform and play in the U.K. they could sell a million seats in a day. Their sales are staggering considering they never were huge in the U.S.
The term brilliant is used far too often imo, but "Dancing Queen" is for the majority of my generation the most instantly recognisable 70,s pop song. No matter where I have been in the world when it,s played it is universal in making people smile, dance and sing along to every word...And that,s brilliant...
I have no doubt if they wished to reform and play in the U.K. they could sell a million seats in a day. Their sales are staggering considering they never were huge in the U.S.
The term brilliant is used far too often imo, but "Dancing Queen" is for the majority of my generation the most instantly recognisable 70,s pop song. No matter where I have been in the world when it,s played it is universal in making people smile, dance and sing along to every word...And that,s brilliant...
...okay where's the place, now? may be we can also compare - or "put on the same scale" - the following pairs, too?
...Elvis Presley and Ricky Martin...
...the Stones and Aerosmith...
...Queen and Darkness...
...the Ramones and Blink-183 (owh, nno wahahay!!!)...
The thing is, anyway, that in the world of record technologies, 60s and 70s are kinda two different centuries. What-if-the-Beatles-had-the-same-stuff-as-70s-artists, you see... And i mean, maybe Blink 183 sold twice or thrice as many albums as the Ramones but does it reflect their musical value?..
...Elvis Presley and Ricky Martin...
...the Stones and Aerosmith...
...Queen and Darkness...
...the Ramones and Blink-183 (owh, nno wahahay!!!)...
The thing is, anyway, that in the world of record technologies, 60s and 70s are kinda two different centuries. What-if-the-Beatles-had-the-same-stuff-as-70s-artists, you see... And i mean, maybe Blink 183 sold twice or thrice as many albums as the Ramones but does it reflect their musical value?..
Nothing will get you dead quicker than being deadly serious about yourself.
Elvis, The Stones, and The Ramones were all originators, all originals. It's kind of dificult to pair someone who starts a new style or originates a new style with someone who just jumps on the bandwagon. I don't see the parellel with Elvis and Ricky Martin at all, well maybe superficially but Elvis originated rock a billy which is still big with the young people here in the states excpet now it's louder and faster and they call it punk a billy, and although he didn't really originate it he put rock and roll on the map.
But I agree with you about the technologies between the 60's and 70's. Sgt. Pepper was recorded on a four track machine, you can buy more advanced recording stuff now for home use for a hundred bucks. In the 70's 16 and 32 track machines were becoming common place, that is why the bands sound so much more professional and polished during the 70's. Younger people don't realize the vast difference in recording techniques between the 50's, 60's and 70's. The 50's was all essentially live stuff, they use to take the best take and use that as the master. Early Beatles were two track, that's what you hear on the early "stereo" recording of The Beatles, still essentially live. That's why I like the older stuff, it's real, not homogenized like today's music of endless takes and retakes, punches, artificial pitch machines etc. Back in the 50's and 60's what you heard was real. When you listen to one of The Beatles early albums that is what they sounded like live, most of the live recorded stuff we hear of them does not do them justice as they could barely hear themselves sing and play at their concerts. Some of the ED Sullivan show stuff sounds great especially the Miami stuff, they could hear themselves, they were an awesme live band when given the chance to hear themselves live. I was a kid of 15 in 1968 but back then monitors were not common and unheard of to me, it was a different world, that why it is unfair to compare a band of the 60's and one of the 70's on the sound and polish of their recordings. During the 60's you had to be good to sound good, during the 70's it had gotten to the point where just about anyone could sound good if they had enough money and time, now anyone can sound good period.
But I agree with you about the technologies between the 60's and 70's. Sgt. Pepper was recorded on a four track machine, you can buy more advanced recording stuff now for home use for a hundred bucks. In the 70's 16 and 32 track machines were becoming common place, that is why the bands sound so much more professional and polished during the 70's. Younger people don't realize the vast difference in recording techniques between the 50's, 60's and 70's. The 50's was all essentially live stuff, they use to take the best take and use that as the master. Early Beatles were two track, that's what you hear on the early "stereo" recording of The Beatles, still essentially live. That's why I like the older stuff, it's real, not homogenized like today's music of endless takes and retakes, punches, artificial pitch machines etc. Back in the 50's and 60's what you heard was real. When you listen to one of The Beatles early albums that is what they sounded like live, most of the live recorded stuff we hear of them does not do them justice as they could barely hear themselves sing and play at their concerts. Some of the ED Sullivan show stuff sounds great especially the Miami stuff, they could hear themselves, they were an awesme live band when given the chance to hear themselves live. I was a kid of 15 in 1968 but back then monitors were not common and unheard of to me, it was a different world, that why it is unfair to compare a band of the 60's and one of the 70's on the sound and polish of their recordings. During the 60's you had to be good to sound good, during the 70's it had gotten to the point where just about anyone could sound good if they had enough money and time, now anyone can sound good period.
I was prejudiced against ABBA in their heyday. I owned Eagles, Pink Floyd, Fleetwood Mac, Waylon Jennings, Emmylou Harris and things of that nature in the 70's. ABBA was catchy radio pop music for me (that I usually didn't admit to liking), and I didn't have to buy it in Alaska and Minnesota because they were played often. Then I bought their ABBA Gold greatest hits video in 1996 for nostalgia's sake, and the result was mesmerizing. ABBA actually glued me to my seat in front of the TV and speakers. I listened to (and watched) that video several times over the next several nights. I bought the More ABBA Gold video and got to hear songs I had NEVER heard before, like Summer Night City, Bang-A-Boomerang, Happy New Year, and The Day Before You Came. Hey, those were great songs too!!! Why hadn't I heard THEM on the radio? Sure, they were polished to the max and they wore some weird costumes, but the guys were great pop songwriters and those gals were songbirds like you rarely ever get to hear anymore. Andrew seems to have a pretty good handle on who they were. They obviously wrote songs that were supposed to make lots of sales, but being able to do that takes talent also. BEETHOVEN DID THE SAME THING!!!! Beethoven wrote for the general public and made most of his money from PUBLIC concerts, which is why he died with money and Mozart died broke. If Mozart had insulted the aristocracy while writing music for and holding concerts for the general public, he would have done a far sight better for himself and would probably lived a lot longer and given us more music. If you want to point the finger at those who artistically "sold out" to make a decent living, you can start with dear old Ludwig van B. He was the first guy to pave the way for songwriters to personally profit from their music through massive public sales of concert tickets and sheet music. It may have been just as big a breakthrough as his music. He proved that a composer could be popular and artistically centered at the same time.
The Beatles never made pop dance songs as complex and excellently orchestrated as Dancing Queen. It WAS an original song. The intro of the song sounds like you are thrown right into the middle of the song right from the start because of how the chorus begins the song.....and it's DANCE music for crying out loud, not Eleanor Rigby. I can't fault a group because they happened to grind a bunch of facets into some of their songs and then polish them up like the Hope Diamond while a lot of other contemporary bands were rubbing a hunk of coal on the sidewalk and polishing it up with spit and toilet paper.
The recorded quality of the bass and other instruments is WAY better on ABBA's albums than it is on many of the Beatles' albums. Too bad the Beatles didn't have Mike Tretow and Polar Studios of the late 70's as their recording venue. It's really a shame. Paul's bass lines are really poorly recorded on many songs, and the same can be said for John Entwistle of The Who. Its really sad in John's case as he was THE greatest rock bassist of his day. His performance on the Live at Royal Albert Hall DVD gives us a taste of what he could really do. ABBA preferred the recording studio. The recording studio WAS their primary performance venue, which was exactly opposite of The Who. If you gave me a trip back in time and a free ticket to the best Who concert, OR the best Beatles concert, I would probably grab The Who ticket before I stepped into the time machine. I admit that I like Beatles albums better, but everyone knows that a Who concert was an over-the-top affair. I would rather have spent a whole day in the Polar Studios watching ABBA lay down tracks than see them in a live concert.
Michael Tretow said that comparing ABBA to the Beatles was totally unfair. He didn't say it as a slight to either group, but only that the recording techniques that ABBA had at their disposal was a quantum leap ahead of what the Beatles had, and the Beatles albums will never have the clarity and polish of the late ABBA albums, not to mention the complexities allowed by 32 tracks. The very earliest ABBA albums and the latest Beatles albums aren't that far apart in recording quality. The late ABBA albums are true masterpieces of the recording art of their day and simply sparkle. On a cheap rack system, these complexities get smeared and disappear. Stig Anderson explained how ABBA became a very big business undertaking that took up all his time and removed him from the songwriting process (he is known as the fifth member of ABBA by the fans), besides needing a very large support group to handle all the business and artistic details. One of his last songs to help write was Dancing Queen, and he co-wrote a lot of the good early ones like Waterloo, Mamma Mia and SOS.
The Beatles never made pop dance songs as complex and excellently orchestrated as Dancing Queen. It WAS an original song. The intro of the song sounds like you are thrown right into the middle of the song right from the start because of how the chorus begins the song.....and it's DANCE music for crying out loud, not Eleanor Rigby. I can't fault a group because they happened to grind a bunch of facets into some of their songs and then polish them up like the Hope Diamond while a lot of other contemporary bands were rubbing a hunk of coal on the sidewalk and polishing it up with spit and toilet paper.
The recorded quality of the bass and other instruments is WAY better on ABBA's albums than it is on many of the Beatles' albums. Too bad the Beatles didn't have Mike Tretow and Polar Studios of the late 70's as their recording venue. It's really a shame. Paul's bass lines are really poorly recorded on many songs, and the same can be said for John Entwistle of The Who. Its really sad in John's case as he was THE greatest rock bassist of his day. His performance on the Live at Royal Albert Hall DVD gives us a taste of what he could really do. ABBA preferred the recording studio. The recording studio WAS their primary performance venue, which was exactly opposite of The Who. If you gave me a trip back in time and a free ticket to the best Who concert, OR the best Beatles concert, I would probably grab The Who ticket before I stepped into the time machine. I admit that I like Beatles albums better, but everyone knows that a Who concert was an over-the-top affair. I would rather have spent a whole day in the Polar Studios watching ABBA lay down tracks than see them in a live concert.
Michael Tretow said that comparing ABBA to the Beatles was totally unfair. He didn't say it as a slight to either group, but only that the recording techniques that ABBA had at their disposal was a quantum leap ahead of what the Beatles had, and the Beatles albums will never have the clarity and polish of the late ABBA albums, not to mention the complexities allowed by 32 tracks. The very earliest ABBA albums and the latest Beatles albums aren't that far apart in recording quality. The late ABBA albums are true masterpieces of the recording art of their day and simply sparkle. On a cheap rack system, these complexities get smeared and disappear. Stig Anderson explained how ABBA became a very big business undertaking that took up all his time and removed him from the songwriting process (he is known as the fifth member of ABBA by the fans), besides needing a very large support group to handle all the business and artistic details. One of his last songs to help write was Dancing Queen, and he co-wrote a lot of the good early ones like Waterloo, Mamma Mia and SOS.
Phil just to let you know so you don't wear out your keyboard and add 100 Mb to the forum, I have seen the light! Abba was THE greatest band ever in the universe. Beethoven? Why Abba made him seem like a piker, The Beatles? rank amateurs, I am a born-again Abbist, I'm even going to vote republican from now on I'm so born again, haha! Hail Abba, Hail Dubya! Amen! hallelujah!