The Kinks' diminishing importance over time?

They did have some awfully good ones.

 

I think there may be five or six things that prevented the Kinks from hitting it as big as the Stone and Beatles. First Ray wrote predominately most of the music on his albums from the beginning and didn't rely on other writers for their material the way the Stones and Beatles did. Ray was a great writer but still learning and could have benefited by mixing his stronger songs in with established / top writers the way other bands did. The Stones leaned on classic American Blues artists and the Beatles used early rock'n'roll classic songs which made their albums have stronger songs and a consistency all the way through the set list. Second Ray was pretty much the song writer where the Beatles and Stones collaborated on their songs in a greater way with the other people in their group; Jagger/Richards, Lennon/McCartney and the Beatles had George and Ringo. Four the other bands relied on early rock'n'roll or blues formats for their music and the Kinks wandered around and used "barrelhouse" music, island music and other styles that just was a bit off from what the majority of music listeners were into and therefore the Kinks sound was a little bit odd or too progressive and different. Fifth, the Kinks were a hits band, I remember buying lots of their forty fives but owned none of their albums. Lastly there album covers just weren't as good as the other groups nor did their personalities stand out the way the Stones or Beatles did, and as much as one would hope you buy based on the music we all know packaging is as important or maybe even more so than the songs themselves. The Kinks hits were so much more accessible to kids ears than the other songs on their albums that weren't the hits so you were more inclined to buy the forty five and leave the album in the bin.

With all this said I think the Kinks appeal is to an older audience due to the subject matter and many different styles of music that cropped up in their songs. The Stones and Beatles certainly appealed to the older audience but they had mass appeal, even hysteria with the younger audience, which brought great attention to them and was probably were most of the money and fame was made in the early years. Of course not being able to come to America and tour certainly helped kept them down in terms of popularity.

 

The first Kinks album had lots of covers.

 

Great band. Song for song their 60's output is second only to The Beatles. I say this as a huge Stones and Who fanboy.

 

So true. Same goes for the Lovin' Spoonful.

 

"Preserving the old ways from being abused.
Protecting the new ways, for me and for you.
What more can we do?"

I think most people in 1969 (around when Big Rock really started) had no interest in this whatsoever and could get their freak flag flying much better with something like ...

"See me feel me touch me heal me" and some big rock action. No real stadium anthems like The Stones, The Who, Zep, Pink Floyd. Just much better songs.

 

LOL you are using a poll on SHF to decide that The Kinks are not off the musical map??? Reality check - the membership of this forum is NOT representative of the broader population. The musical nerds on SHF (including me, no offence meant) know and love and respect the Kinks. Outside this forum, not so much. Actually more likely, not at all.

In Australia, there is not much recognition of The Kinks (if I am allowed to speak on behalf of my country). Classic Rock radio will play Lola occasionally, less often you will hear Sunny Afternoon. I have spent a LOT of time in record shops over the last 40 years and I dont think that I have ever seen a PYE era Kinks LP. Ive got some re-issue of Muswell Hillbillies, a MFSL press of Misfits and thats it. I buy lots of classic rock, I would love to buy some Kinks - but these records dont exist in my part of the world.

My kids know The Beatles, they know the Rolling Stones, Led Zep, Pink Floyd and David Bowie. But they do not know The Kinks, The Animals, The Yardbirds and so on.

Are the Kinks great? Sure. Are they off the map? Absolutely, and this has nothing to do with your personal preferences.

 

Your point about the members here vs. the general public is well taken, but we can compare Apples-apples and oranges to oranges.

We can compare the numbers to the other esteemed band's numbers in the poll- and they hold up very well.

An intelligent reunification of the band, a small tour and then a bigger one would put them on the musical map.IMHO

 

My memory is that The Kinks were bigger in the U.S. in the 70's than in the homeland. Although their record sales weren't eyepopping, they were a popular concert draw and played to big houses all through the decade, though not stadiums like The Who, Zeppelin, Stones and Pink Floyd.

 

The way we keep The Kinks alive is by keeping Kanye out of the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame.

 

those damn concept albums in the 70's didn't help maters, and I like a lot of those songs

 

I hate to agree with this but I do .... Somehow, to me, Preservation 1 escapes this problem, but on Pres 2 through Schoolboys, there are some fantastic songs .... many ... in fact, but the spell always gets broken by my trying to figure out what the damn storyline is and how whatever song relates to it.

Interesting then that the minute they moved on from the concept albums they have a whole mini-new career as an arena rock band.

 

I love The Kinks, but when I discovered them for myself in the early or mid-1970s, they simply weren't on anyone's radar that I knew, for whatever reason. Lola was still on the radio quite a bit, and I heard some of the earlier hits fairly often (You Really Got Me, All Of The Day And All Of The Night, Till The End Of The Day, Sunny Afternoon), but that's about it as far as I can recall.

 

The '65 ban really messed up their career. But not being given their due? I don't know about that. Even THE influential avatar of his time, Leonard Bernstein, both praised them to his young audiences in the 60s, and included them in his prestigious Harvard lectures (in the book, the chapter on Musical Sincerity). And that's not to mention the scores of musicians, both famous and not, who continually cite them as a MAJOR influence (the Jam, Pretenders, Ron Sexsmith, etc).

 

The RCA albums are my all-time favourites.

 

The Kinks' popularity may have waned, but not their importance - quite the contrary, I'd say.

 

A few years ago I remixed Shangri-La, replacing the brass with my own beautiful string playing, if I do say so myself (and I do!).
Enjoy!

 

The Kinks are the only rock band that really matter to me, so I almost can't believe I am writing this, but...
They were, in their prime (pre-Arista), just a proto-punk garage band. Moments of brilliance, and a very forward thinking punk ethos of mocking everything "show biz" and "professional", but they just weren't honed performers or possessed of silky vocal cords. And they never rehearsed. Dave only started practicing seriously around the time of Arthur.
Having said that, they were totally professional in the studio. They all took this VERY seriously. Ray even admitted that he took so much care in the studio because he felt they weren't a very good band live (such a self-deprecating band, the Kinks!).
I guess what I am saying is rock/pop audiences are pretty stupid and easily manipulated. That a soulless pretentious session man could become a huge 70s stadium act is proof of this.
We should be cherishing that the Kinks were not transformed into something even more embarrassing than the Arista years. They are OUR band, not the band of suburban Trump-eteers.

 

Wtf does this even mean !?

 

Completely anecdotal evidence, but the Kinks are the number one favorite band of my 23 year old daughter. I'd say she prefers the classic '64-'72 era, but she's fluent in all their material.

 

I'm actually surprised that these haven't undergone some sort of major reappraisal. I could see somebody like Of Montreal or The Decemberists absolutely revering these records. I mean, they're kind of singular in the rock pantheon - and were obviously an attempt on Ray's part to find a niche for the Kinks separate from everyone else - and yet from the get-go they were just completely disregarded. (I own nothing between Showbiz and Sleepwalker but the Celluloid Heroes "hits" CD that culls from this era.) Does anybody have anything insightful to say about Soap Opera or Schoolboys in Disgrace, etc? Were there factions at the time who loved this kind of thing and kept encouraging the band to continue? Were there stage productions for each on the spectacle scale of Bowie's Diamond Dogs shows, etc? I really have no idea.

I mean, could it be that the failure of this era is truly what killed the Kinks' momentum?

 

There were definitely stage shows dedicated to Preservation, Soap Opera and Schoolboys. I went to see The Kinks several times in the mid '70s and saw the Preservation show (more than once) and also Soap Opera. At this point, they used to play two sets at a gig. The first half was a selection of the hits and earlier stuff and the second a staging of the concept. The Kinks did tend to get a bit lost in the sea of additional band members on stage at this time (girl backing singers, brass section etc.). The Kinks themselves tended to take on roles in the concept, dressing for the part and be introduced as such by Ray (in Mr.Flash character). Lots of dialogue and showmanship between numbers (and I remember props and back projections too, particularly for Soap Opera), it was more like fringe theatre than a rock gig in some ways though. Not that I minded as I loved The Kinks. But I did sometimes wish that they'd strip it all back to the core band and just play self-contained songs again, as they did in the '60s. This they did later on again, of course, but at the cost of the songwriting being dumbed down somewhat and The Kinks re-inventing themselves as almost a broad self-parody of their earlier persona during their " stadium rock" era.

 

Soap Opera has always been one of my faves from this period since it's release

 

Soap Opera almost stands as just a collection of songs. Preservation Act 1 has a lot of strong catchy numbers as well. It's just the lyrics that sometimes pin things down to the concepts too specifically. Preservation Act 2 was the worst in that respect (and being a double LP with a lot of padding as well). All three albums have their moments though, with several great numbers apiece. If they had come up with a few really memorable standalone singles hits at this time to counterpoint the concept albums, they might have rode things out better.

 

Enjoy: