Cilla at the BBC

[Steve Parish]

I think it is a futile exercise comparing and contrasting The Beatles and MWF, or any two bands for that matter;
On the one hand, The Beatles did their thing, on the other hand, MWF did their thing.
Different strokes for different folks etc.. It boils down to personal opinion.
If you like both bands, as I do, then you should just like and listen, and not fall into the versus trap.
I feel, sometimes, perhaps, with some of the older Shadows fans, there is a general bitterness towards the Beatles.
A sort of "They stole their thunder" attitude.
I like MWF's material, and the Shads material, and I like the Beatles material.
Chart placings are irrelevant to me.
It's the quality of the music and what it means to me that counts more.

[Iain Purdon]

Great comeback with the video, Steve!

[Moderne]

I think it is a futile exercise comparing and contrasting The Beatles and MWF, or any two bands for that matter;
On the one hand, The Beatles did their thing, on the other hand, MWF did their thing.
Different strokes for different folks etc.. It boils down to personal opinion.
If you like both bands, as I do, then you should just like and listen, and not fall into the versus trap.
I feel, sometimes, perhaps, with some of the older Shadows fans, there is a general bitterness towards the Beatles.
A sort of "They stole their thunder" attitude.
I like MWF's material, and the Shads material, and I like the Beatles material.
Chart placings are irrelevant to me.
It's the quality of the music and what it means to me that counts more.

Couldn't agree more, Steve.

[alewis41]

I think it is a futile exercise comparing and contrasting The Beatles and MWF, or any two bands for that matter;
On the one hand, The Beatles did their thing, on the other hand, MWF did their thing.
Different strokes for different folks etc.. It boils down to personal opinion.
If you like both bands, as I do, then you should just like and listen, and not fall into the versus trap.
I feel, sometimes, perhaps, with some of the older Shadows fans, there is a general bitterness towards the Beatles.
A sort of "They stole their thunder" attitude.
I like MWF's material, and the Shads material, and I like the Beatles material.
Chart placings are irrelevant to me.
It's the quality of the music and what it means to me that counts more.

Couldn't agree more, Steve.

Yep me too. Well said.

Andrew

[drakula63]

The point I was making is that I think the Shadows/MWF were technically better vocalists than the Beatles. Which I think is a perfectly valid observation.

Nothing more than that. Not comparing them in any other way.

[Iain Purdon]

I think we got that point, Chris. It's valid because it's what you think.

[Uncle Fiesta]

I don't think it matters who were the better singers or instrumentalists, the fact is that the Beatles were more successful after 1963 because they moved with the times, and the Shads didn't. From my own personal point of view, two things took me away from the Shadows (and no.1 could apply to Cliff also):

1 - they became a bit 'establishment' and 'respectable' and our parents started liking them,
2 - they started doing covers.

[iefje]

Although I really like about everything The Shadows did until 1970, from 1970 onwards (the Marvin, Welch & Farrar period and beyond), things improved again. They came up with a wealth of new original material and (in opinion) did move with the times (in a positive way).

[Moderne]

I was interested to read once in an old music paper a review of a Marvin, Welch, Farrar concert which said that both the vocals and the presentation were far better than a recent performance by Crosby, Stills & Nash!! Such a shame so few people gave them a chance at the time.

[Iain Purdon]

They were highly professional. Maybe that is part of it. Youngsters like their rock raw. The original Shads lineup gave them that.