So shoot me. Someone once said that ELO were the antithesis of MC5. At the time, I believed them, and wouldn't have admitted the fact that I liked them to anyone. Now, I'm not so sure.
ELO did exactly what they set out to do. They always wanted to be The Beatles with silly voices. And they were. They had it spot on- the right pop sensibilities and melodies, but with added extras; keyboards, odd string arrangements, and the comical high pitched squeaks. They were funny, but they weren't quite a novelty band.
In a sense, yes, the electronica was the opposite of the explosive guitars and political howling of MC5. But a band doesn't have to be political to be great. And a band certainly doesn't have to use what our dear friends Ocean Colour Scene would term "real instruments" to be deigned worthy to listen to. MC5 did what they wanted to do. So did ELO.
Oh yeah, and they both have initials usually in place of the names. So there.
When I was young and starting out on the musical trail of my life, I, as we all do, made many mistakes. I suppose to some extent it would be fair to say that I have always been a music snob. But there was one thing that was completely devoured by the fog of my ignorance. I was positive, unswervable in my belief that if I had lived in the sixties I would have been a Beatles fan.
But why? Because I thought "Well, surely, The Beatles were the band that started it all. There wasn't anything I would have liked before The Beatles." And I believed this because it is what people would have us believe.
In the sixties there were Silver Apples, there was Can and the Velvet Underground, there were 13th Floor Elevators, there was Question Mark and the Mysterians, there was Kevin Ayers and film soundtracks (in the fifties, there was Forbidden Planet), there was... many more interesting things that I can't remember because it's two o'clock in the morning...
You get the picture. And what did The Beatles have that was so special? An occasional ear for a good tune. The Beatles were a better pop band than most that we have now, but is that really because of the music? Or is it because the era we live in now has such a short attention span no chart-topping band will last for much more than a few months? Is it because we were told that they were our heroes that they were? I think it is. They heralded a development in Pop! music that had already begun to spin in that direction.
I truly truly believe that the Manic Street Preachers are the new Beatles. They are a triumph of style over substance, and the diehard appreciation of fans who suck away at the teat their marketing team so eagerly give. Of course, the Manic Street Preachers are a more extreme version of the phenomenon, having at most a couple of worthy songs, whereas I concede to admire a range of The Beatles' efforts.
Yet, to quote:-
"is THAT all there is?"