Beach Boys vs. Beatles (oh no not this again..)

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I just read an old freakytrigger essay on The Beach Boys' lost album "Smile" and included was the following passage:

Looking back, it’s perhaps the oldest pop debate of all: between the ‘real’ and the ‘shallow’. Pop, or at least the sort of pop that gets written about, exists in a state of permanent yearning to be more than it is. It speaks to the infatuated so well because it is itself infatuated - with the street or with the academy, it makes no difference. Preposterous to think now that the Beatles ever seemed raw or real (to these ears they always come across as narcissistic craftsmen) but in 1966 Lennon’s quoting the Tibetan Book of the Dead and McCartney’s borrowing of kitchen-sink drama tropes probably did seem like a blow for Art and realism in pop.

So what is it? Were The Beach Boys real and The Beatles not? Was Brian Wilson really a more important, genuine artist than the Lennon/McCartney team? It seems like an absurd topic to me but I'm interested in hearing if people still feel this way....

― Adam, Saturday, 2 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I just prefer the music of the Beach Boys.

― jel, Saturday, 2 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Easy. Beach Boys.

― Keiko, Saturday, 2 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't understand what the term "real" means in this situation, and I probably never will.

― Ian, Saturday, 2 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I'd rather listen to the Beach Boys' late sixties post-Smile phase than anything by the Beatles these days.

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 2 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I think the phrase I have the most trouble with is "Lennon’s quoting the Tibetan Book of the Dead and McCartney’s borrowing of kitchen-sink drama tropes", which takes a body of work that has had a profound effect on quite a number of people and reduces it to a couple of sight gags -- and, to boot, doesn't do that reduction in a critically engaged way. In other words, instead of leading me to new insight or understanding, or giving me a reasoned position to engage, I'm left with little more than the feeling that I'd better agree with the author, or I'll be branded uncool in some mysterious way. (Which is one of my more frequent problems with ILM, but I digress.) I tracked down the rest of the essay, though, and I was comfortable with most of it -- indeed, I agreed with a lot of it. Since that passage is an aside, it'd probably be a mistake to attach too much to it.

Both bands are dear to me, and Smile is great, but the Beatles definitely get the edge. The question of which band was more "real", however, doesn't strike me as an interesting one, because it's based on premises that are of no interest to me (i.e. that whole tedious self-disempowering maelstrom of things like insanity = sincerity, incompetence = honesty, and so on). So yeah, it's an absurd topic.

― Phil, Saturday, 2 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The Beach Boys by a mile.

The reason being that The Beatles had this sorta fake evil thing going with Lennon, but not really. Then you have The Beach Boys as the really nice sweet band, but they are all emotionally damaged people.

What I love is that their is a really weird, immature, backwards longing for normality in the Beach Boys that is totally lacking in The Beatles. All those cheesy Brian Wilson lyrics have a very dark edge when you understand that actual emotional dynamics of the Wilson Family. Here is a person that is absolutely screwed up trying to write his way out with this seemingly innoculus music. It is the longing for a perfect American life that is so great, that those records are documenting this Californian fantasy world.

The brilliance is that Brian Wilson was being sincere when he wrote things like God Only Knows, Don't Worry Baby, or Wouldn't It Be Nice. They are so childlike, they are masterworks by a genius whose emotional life was absolutely stunted by an abusive father. It is so utterly American.

It is all cliched, but Brian Wilson was the superior talent. On a track by track basis the Beatles never touched Good Vibrations.

― mt, Saturday, 2 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Simple: The Beatles were the best band, but the Beach Boys made the best records.

― harvey williams, Saturday, 2 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Siimply put, at his peak, Brian Wilson focused on making beautiful songs that were emotionally sincere as well as well written. I would say somewhat like Rubber Soul comes across as. The Beatles, being a group rather than the work of one man were clouded by their image and hence had to rationalize their work (-ie fuck up with meaning and context etc.) so much more than the beach boys. I would have to say that Pet Sounds is an amazing collection of songs that will remain so regardless of any 'underground' or 'alternative' artistic points of view.

― ddd, Saturday, 2 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

These bands are the cornerstones of my existence. I remain shocked at the level of indifference and/or dislike I read about the Beatles in some quarters. As for the Beach Boys, it is clear now that they are as famous for Brian's idiosyncrasies and emotional issues as they are for their music, and for this reason I believe they are *still* underrated. In fact, I believe if you check your stats, someone calls them a "surf band" every 3.7 seconds. Travesty.

As for pitting them against each other, I'd take the Beatles in the early rounds, Beach Boys over the span of a whole fight. But that might be an introverted American thing.

― dleone, Saturday, 2 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

this doesn't help but my friend said this today

"only two good things came out of britain: the beatles and america."

on topic, i'll go with the beach boys when brian was sane and the beatles over the whole career.

― Todd Burns, Saturday, 2 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"In fact, I believe if you check your stats, someone calls [The Beach Boys] a "surf band" every 3.7 seconds. Travesty."

I think one of the reasons for the anti-Beatles sentiments these days lies in the fact that most people focus on the 1966 and 1967 output - not enough people acknowledge that for a large portion of their career, The Beach Boys _were_ a "surf band". There is this idea that The Beatles were con artists and didn't write about 'real' and 'emotional' issues but if one were to look back at half of the total Beach Boys recorded input (probably even more) they would see an overwhelming majority of songs with content on fixing up hot rods, going surfing (admit it), and shallow portraits of girls. I'm not saying The Beatles were any deeper in their early days, but let's not loose our heads here...

Also, if you're going to criticize John Lennon for jumping on the bandwagon by quoting the Tibetan Book of the Dead for one song, go ahead, but don't forget that Brian and company built the foundation of their career on the surfing bandwagon, and that outside of Dennis, no one had any tangible surfing experience at all.

― Adam, Sunday, 3 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

This interesting point seems to have been rapidly reduced to a 'my band is bigger than yours' level, yet the original quote is surely astute enough to recognise that judging the art of the sixties with present day attitudes is self-defeating. Why Lennon's emotional damage (lost father, strange relationship with mother who dies young) should be regarded as less significant than Brian Wilson's is beyond me though. Of course, in the end all we're left with is the music, and that will last. I'm not sure that Wilson wasn't sent over the edge by the cold response 'Pet Sounds' received from his bandmates, whose homes, cars and sexual habits he unwittingly subsidised. It certainly must have seemed that The Beatles internal competition, exemplified by 'Revolver' was a lot more benign than dealing with Mike 'Self' Love every day. Perhaps Mike should have stuck to touch football and the combover for his ego gratification.

― Snotty Moore, Sunday, 3 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Blimey! The second and third sentences of that are ace. The Beatles stuff less so: I like them more now. I think PhilT has the wrong end of the stick - what I'm reducing is the critical reception (that part of it which always focusses on how original or socially engaged they were) of the Beatles not their work. For the record I think JL's Book of the Dead stuff is musically thrilling but the idea doesnt resonate, whereas McCartney's kitchen-sinkisms were a good and important idea. (Goodness, at this rate I'll be buying a record by them).

― Tom, Sunday, 3 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

There is this idea that The Beatles were con artists and didn't write about 'real' and 'emotional' issues but if one were to look back at half of the total Beach Boys recorded input (probably even more) they would see an overwhelming majority of songs with content on fixing up hot rods, going surfing (admit it), and shallow portraits of girls

but that is real life too! i dislike the distinction implied here. as for the battle between the 2, beach boys resonate for me on a personal level, whereas the beatles may be interesting in points but i do not play their records.

― gareth, Monday, 4 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

not enough people acknowledge that for a large portion of their career, The Beach Boys _were_ a "surf band".

They released their first record in 1962. The last time the Beach Boys recorded a new song about surfing was 1964. I wouldn't really call that period "large" in the scheme of their career, though they certainly did have big hits with some songs about surfing. They also had big hits with songs not about surfing.

They did have lots of songs about girls, though their interest in cars ended about the same time as did their interest in surfing. I would say that beyond the fact the vast majority of their albums don't have any songs about surfing, the biggest reason not to call them a surf band is because it is a *big* insult to real surfing bands/artists, like Dick Dale, the Surfaris and the Chantays, who really were making music for surfers and took part in surf culture.

I think it's much more appropriate to label the Beach Boys a pop band. As you said, none of the guys except Dennis actually surfed, so it's difficult to support the idea that they had a big interest in anything but making pop records, at least in the early days. In the mid and late 60s, Brian started think beyond that, and was making music that was at the very least *adventurous* pop. After that, they kind of went into a shell, musically -- not publicly, because they constantly toured -- and made music that didn't sound like anyone else on the radio, and also wasn't very popular, so it I don't know what you would call it. In any case, still nothing about surfing.

I still think too many people label them a surf band, and that's probably why they lost popularity around the time of Pet Sounds. It should not come as a surprise that they made their comeback in the mid 70s with the release of the greatest hits collection Endless Summer, and started touring like an oldies act -- thereby reinforcing the unfortunate stereotype of them as a surf/hot-rod band.

― dleone, Monday, 4 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Only in America. Here in Britain Pet Sounds was a big seller and the Beach Boys actually knocked the Beatles off the top in the '66 NME Readers' Poll. Bit like "River Deep Mountain High" (which I think only got to something like number 88 in the US due to being "ignored" by radio - i.e. let's teach uppity Spector a lesson - but in the UK was raved over as a masterpiece, went top 3 and sold a million) - more appreciated here than in their homeland.

I'm not sure whether the "cred" thing was ever an issue on this side of the Atlantic - the BBs continued having hit singles and albums up until about '72, and then with the Holland/Carl & the Passions phase died off a little.

On the Pet Sounds thread I wondered why BW didn't give Mr Love his books, but as Andrew rightly pointed out, he probably needed the guy around - he was the commercial face (though boy did he need those hats) and his chorus was pretty damn essential for Good Vibrations. Yin and yang, and all that.

I guess we can only know from the bootlegs and leftovers what "Smile" would really have been like, and maybe in the long run that's enough - like the missing original final reel of The Magnificent Ambersons, wouldn't confirmation of its "existence" destroy the myth and make the work less impressive than one might otherwise have thought it?

― Terry Shannon, Monday, 4 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The Beach Boys have more letters in their name which is the arbitrary way of telling whether a band is better.

― Pete, Monday, 4 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Size isn't important, though; it's what you DO with what you got. Mike Love is a bigger detriment than Ringo, though - advantage, Beach Boys.

― David Raposa, Monday, 4 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hence Showaddywaddy better than the Beach Boys (including the "the") according to Pete's theory.

― Terry Shannon, Monday, 4 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

two weeks pass...

YOU GUYS SUCK.

― ANONE ONO, Sunday, 24 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Well then.

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 24 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The BB vocal harmonies are derivative of bleached vocal groups of the 50's, i.e. the removal of minor 3rds and 7ths leave way for picture perfect "Barbershop Harmony." Phil Spector influence, and/or BW production magic aside, and without Sgt. Pepper, BB's would possibly have been a lost cause, a opportunist surf/hot-rod band crusin' for hits. Without George Martin, ditto with Beatles, but easy hits.

― Bob, Sunday, 24 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Hm. A tough question. At first glance, it would appear the Beach Boys would win, simply because there are FIVE of them and only FOUR Beatles (please, let's not count Pete Best or George Martin as a "fifth" Beatle). But I bet Brian Wilson could probably be easily dispatched by Ringo early on, thereby leveling the playing field.

With that in mind, we'd have to balance Dennis' whitebread athleticism and Mike Love's sheer venality with the Beatles' quasi- hooligan backgrounds and the early days in Hamburg. On the other hand, Al Jardine looks really scrawny and Carl is a little soft in the middle. So with that, I'd say that in a rumble...hmm...the Beatles would win. By a shiv.

Oh wait! I forgot about Bruce Johnston! Damn. Then I don't know.

― Michael Daddino, Sunday, 24 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

two weeks pass...

i prefer the beatles. i think their better song writers and the beach boys style just doesnt do it for me

― Allen, Saturday, 16 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The Beatles over the Beach Boys

― peri ellis, Sunday, 17 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Both bands are great and can provide you with a LOT of pleasure in listening to them. The only sad part of the situation today is while the Beatles are celebrated (and rightly so), the Beach Boys are stereotyped and increasingly forgotten.

― steve, Saturday, 23 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You want to try reading the British monthly music press, steve..

― N., Monday, 25 March 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I am actually just starting to really listen to the Beach Boys. Unfortunately for me, I considered them beach music for the longest time. Pet Sounds is fairly brilliant, yes. But one must look at Let in Bleed, Exile on Main Street and Sticky Fingers to real brilliance

― Ron Owen, Monday, 1 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

nine months pass...

I think that the two bands were great. But the Beach Boys win for a very little difference.

― Laucha, Tuesday, 7 January 2003 19:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Kokomo vs. Free As A Bird (or whatever that paste-up was called)

― Horace Mann, Tuesday, 7 January 2003 19:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Most Americans who enjoy the Beach Boys, the dedicated parrotheads who make the oldies circuit, ageing women in beehives, etc., apparently hear them wrong, which I think is interesting. They don't understand the real Beach Boys, and yet they love them. Somehow the Beach Boys have been claimed by the indie world, probably b/c they're venerated in Britain, where indie takes its cues. They're like the VU of the late '90s (the post-Elephant 6 indie scene, I guess.)The Beatles were taken up by classic rock long ago, so their popular perception has always been very closely aligned w/ critical assessments.

Maybe the Beach Boys had higher highs. Nothing the Beatles did could touch "Good Vibrations" or "Heroes & Villians" (well, maybe "She Said..."). Still, I'm currently working my way thru the post-Pet Sounds material, finally, and I've been dissapointed. Smiley Smile is great & weird, but Jesus, Wild Honey is awful. 20/20 had 2 or 3 good songs. Still haven't given Sunflower a proper spin yet (just got it day before last), but Surf's Up, despite having one of the best songs ever in the title track, is also damn spotty. You can name at least four Beatles albums that are great start to finish; how many Beach Boys albums work all the way thru?

― Mark (MarkR), Tuesday, 7 January 2003 20:05 (twenty-two years ago)

'They don't understand the real BBs' with 'Wild Honey is awful' in the same post!?

― dave q, Tuesday, 7 January 2003 20:11 (twenty-two years ago)

I think what's being missed here is that in both of these bands' heyday, there was an acknowledged cross-polination going on.
Up until the early 70s there were only a handful of bands that were actually pushing things forward and they all answered each others' albumic statements.
I'm not a classic rock expert or even especially a fan, but there was a very circular nature to the way the Beatles, the Beach Boys, the Byrds, the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and a few others recorded/wrote/produced/played.

That kind of kinship/competition is definitely gone today with the complete and hopeless fragmentation of pop music into meaningless subgenres and this stigma that rock-nerds have placed on shunning influences. Howev, it's still there in rap.

― Horace Mann, Tuesday, 7 January 2003 20:28 (twenty-two years ago)

'They don't understand the real BBs' with 'Wild Honey is awful' in the same post!?

Mark thinks the real Beach Boys were awful.

― dleone (dleone), Tuesday, 7 January 2003 20:49 (twenty-two years ago)

The Beach Boys never rocked. Thus, the Beatles win.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 7 January 2003 20:56 (twenty-two years ago)

not for lack of trying, but yeah.

― hstencil, Tuesday, 7 January 2003 20:59 (twenty-two years ago)

a tie it is!

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 7 January 2003 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)

I wish I misunderstood the Beach Boys in the same way the bluehairs do. I find it v. difficult now to hear the Beach Boys music w/ out thinking of the "insane genius" Brian Wilson, and that bothers me. I get the Sunflower LP and I flip it over to see “Which ones were written by Brian? Those should be the best. Were any of these Smile outtakes?” etc. I feel complicit in something voyeuristic & degrading. I watched that Theramin documentary the other night, and the interview with him was so awful. I don’t like the idea of mentally ill people figuring into entertainment. Usually I think more about my posts, sorry, but today I’m very tired & not making any sense. My apologies.

― Mark (MarkR), Tuesday, 7 January 2003 21:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Ah yes, the romance of the author. I can see why, in that light, Sunflower and many of the '70s records would be very disappointing. But as '70s pop records they can be very good indeed. Also it hurts me to see Wild Honey, the most good-natured album I know, be insulted so.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 7 January 2003 21:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Sunflower's got some mad Bruce Johnston and Dennis Wilson sk!77z, yo!

― hstencil, Tuesday, 7 January 2003 21:14 (twenty-two years ago)

(pulls down shades, turns off lights before he plays "disney girls" on the stereo)

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 7 January 2003 21:27 (twenty-two years ago)

With all this talk of Post-Pet Sounds albums, everybody seems to be forgetting that 'The Beach Boys Today!' and 'Summer Days (And Summer Nights!!)' are probably both better albums than any of the later albums. Both also avaiable on the same mid-price CD too.

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Tuesday, 7 January 2003 21:34 (twenty-two years ago)

are you on the Beach Boys street team?

― hstencil, Tuesday, 7 January 2003 21:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Do either of those have "The Warmth of the Sun"? I love that song.

― Mark (MarkR), Tuesday, 7 January 2003 21:38 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, sometimes people take the early stuff for granted. 2d side of beach boys today is as good as anything they did. so is all of all summer long.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Tuesday, 7 January 2003 21:42 (twenty-two years ago)

are you on the Beach Boys street team?

Teehee. No, but I got suckered into all that "genius, underated late-60's/early 70s albums stuff" myself, but was disapointed and it wasn't until I went backwards that I discovered the true gems.

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Tuesday, 7 January 2003 21:51 (twenty-two years ago)

'Friends'. 'Love You'. There you are.

― dave q, Wednesday, 8 January 2003 07:33 (twenty-two years ago)

For me personally, the Beach Boys. Reinforced by seeing BW last year. Their music just moves me a whole lot more.

Plus I've definitely got a kneejerk reaction against the whole 'Beatles most important band ever' thing.

― James Ball (James Ball), Wednesday, 8 January 2003 11:49 (twenty-two years ago)

three years pass...

As I type now, I play the records. Musically te Beatles are much better. I cna only stress that the Beach Boys music falls short in every way. Good Vibarations for example, I heard was meant to be good, finally gave it a play, God it is that song I hated to hear in childhood I always detested. I play A Day in the Life now, and God is it ever better, than any Beach Boys effort. Strawberry Fields and I Am The Walrus are the best phsycadelhic songs around.

― Owen James Hunter, Saturday, 27 May 2006 13:53 (nineteen years ago)

I think it's mainly a question of quantity. Count the classic tracks by The Beatles, compare to the number of classic tracks by Beach Boys. You will find that both have lots, but Beatles still obviously have a way larger number.

The Beach Boys might have been considered bigger if they had quit while they were still on top like The Beatles did though.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Saturday, 27 May 2006 15:52 (nineteen years ago)

The Beatles very rarely had arrangements (instrumental or vocal) as sophisticated as the BBs, though.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Saturday, 27 May 2006 16:29 (nineteen years ago)

What about counting all the gay tunes like Surfin' Safari and I Wanna Hold Your Hand? Who wins then? Beatles! Beach Boys best records didn't have decent production, which makes listening to different versions of Ego more of a chore than enjoyable.

― RuPaul's Brother, Saturday, 27 May 2006 16:33 (nineteen years ago)

I Wanna Hold Your Hand is a great song.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Saturday, 27 May 2006 16:47 (nineteen years ago)

The Beatles very rarely had arrangements (instrumental or vocal) as sophisticated as the BBs, though.

At least not vocal. As far as instrumental arrangements go, they were a bit different from each other and hard to compare. Brian Wilson used a full orchestra on "Pet Sounds" and beyond, and did some really sophisticated stuff there. The Beatles may not have used full orchestras to the same extent, but then Beach Boys never did anything like, for instance, "Being For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite", "Strawberry Fields Forever" or "I Am The Walrus", all of them songs with magnificient arrangements.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Saturday, 27 May 2006 17:47 (nineteen years ago)

No, the Beach Boys didn't do anything exactly like those songs, but I don't see how that puts The Beatles on the same level as them as arrangers. The Beatles stuck tape loops together and used psychedelic effects and what have you, and that was creative and great and all, but they rarely orchestrated as inventively and effectively as Brian did. Most of their arrangements are pretty barebones.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Saturday, 27 May 2006 17:58 (nineteen years ago)

I like that there is such a distinction made between the Beach Boys surfing/cars phase as their "immature" one before they could finally move on to the later days of songs about vegetables.

― regular roundups (Dave M), Saturday, 27 May 2006 18:15 (nineteen years ago)

Some quick thoughts though:

1) Pet Sounds is my favorite album either produced, but

2) The Beatles had more better albums (in the sense of being really playable all the way from start to finish w/o skipping much).

3) After watching A Hard Day's Night last night, I'm thinking the Beatles were probably much better actors. And after seeing A Hard Day's Night, that counts for a lot.

4) The White Album has some of the highest highs of either group. "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," "Helter Skelter," oh yeah!

― regular roundups (Dave M), Saturday, 27 May 2006 18:18 (nineteen years ago)

I like that there is such a distinction made between the Beach Boys surfing/cars phase as their "immature" one before they could finally move on to the later days of songs about vegetables.

However, in-between those two periods, they did a brilliant collection of melancholic songs about insecurity, and they have never bettered it before or since.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Saturday, 27 May 2006 18:38 (nineteen years ago)

WMGGW isn't even George Harrison's best song.

― Steve Goldberg (Steve Goldberg), Saturday, 27 May 2006 18:53 (nineteen years ago)

WMGGW isn't even George Harrison's best song.

Which says something.

Geir, I know. Didn't you see my note about Pet Sounds? And haven't you seen the enormous defensiveness for the later stuff as opposed to the unfairly maligned early stuff on this thread?

― regular roundups (Dave M), Sunday, 28 May 2006 05:12 (nineteen years ago)

Well, the early stuff was indeed quite naff. Brian would come up with the occasional great ballad with great vocal harmonies, but the faster ones, the Mike Love ones, were far from Beach Boys at their best.

"Today" was their first fully enjoyable album. That's where even the faster tunes start having some of the same sophisticated elements, plus the latter side consists of those beautiful ballads only.

As for the later stuff, they might as well have broken up after "Surf's Up", which was their last good album.

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Sunday, 28 May 2006 10:21 (nineteen years ago)

Eh, they always had really great harmonies, though. I'm not saying those early surfin' songs are their best work, just that they are unfairly maligned.

― regular roundups (Dave M), Sunday, 28 May 2006 15:43 (nineteen years ago)

four months pass...

They were both great bands, very much alike and yet incredibly different, comparing them is like comparing the proverbial apple and orange.
Their post Smile stuff (Smiley Smile onward) has to be judged differently than the earlier stuff because really it was different band. They were now a Democracy (albeit an unsteady) with all members wrangling for some input.
I see The Beach Boys in several phases:
1962 - 1964 was when they were THE BEACH BOYS, with the image and sound that became their hallmark (and their harness).
1965 - 1966 was when things began to get shaken up, Brian began heading in his own direction and power struggles within the band began to come to the fore. An amazingly schizophrenic, creatively successful two years if ever any artist had one.
1967 - 1970 post Smile treading of water and rebuilding of their career. An awkward time of abdication by the long time captain as the crew took over the vessel. Their was a hell of alot of good music produced during these years, and some of it still by Brian. It wasn't until Surf's Up that Brian really faded out.
1971 - 1973 the rudderless years. Brian's only involvement during this time was completely forced - Till I Die says it all. Besides that track and Bruce's Disney Girls (an of course the title track) Surf's Up sucks ass. So Tough and Holland though have soem good things on them.
1974 and onward are when they became just a nostalgia act. They recorded new albums, and some decent songs here and their (even some hits, such as the dreaded Kokomo), but it was all not much more than window dressing in an antique shop.
each of these phases really has to be examined and judged on its own terms.

― Paul Phipps (Vega-table), Friday, 6 October 2006 17:30 (eighteen years ago)

post Smile treading of water and rebuilding of their career. An awkward time of abdication by the long time captain as the crew took over the vessel. Their was a hell of alot of good music produced during these years...the rudderless years...So Tough and Holland though have soem good things on them.

Sail On, Sailor

― The PappaWheelie Story: Half Brain, Half Soul, All Mouth (on sale now) (PappaWhe, Friday, 6 October 2006 17:38 (eighteen years ago)

"Here Comes the Night" (1980) is the greatest thing ever to be put on vinyl!

― isn't this where we came in (listerine), Friday, 6 October 2006 17:43 (eighteen years ago)

this thread is pathetic

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 6 October 2006 17:51 (eighteen years ago)

one year passes...

I like this thread 'cause it's an excuse to BS about my two of my favorite bands. Better; more "important".

My Opinion (on their 60s work): The Beatles were extremely consistent. 95-98% of their songs are very good. The Beach Boys have a lot of garbage. Both bands have about the same number of magic, perfect 10 moments, though. I think historically, as a noted phenomenon and for their influence to society at large The Beatles are clearly "more important" to the world. For musicians and music-heads PET SOUNDS is untouchable. It towers over everything (not just The Beatles)in pop & rock. The chord progressions, the production, the vocals and Asher's lyrics have no equal.

The Beach Boys music is emotionally moving while The Beatles had this incredible positive energy flowing through their music(most obviously on their early hits). If you ever go on a weekend road trip try popping in RUBBER SOUL, UK version --it makes for a great drive.

BOTTOM LINE: As I get older I find myself listening to The Beach Boys much more than The Beatles. I think this is because (a) in studying music I find their songs & arrangements more interesting and (b) I'm very partial to Carl's vocals. I think Brian was VERY lucky to have Carl in the line-up to help him express his ideas. Carl didn't have charisma but he could sing the phone book and it would sound good. Clearly the best musician and singer of both bands.

― frostbite101, Friday, 1 August 2008 12:55 (sixteen years ago)

five months pass...

I don't really understand why anyone thinks the Beatles aren't genuine. Just listen to the song Let it Be, and then tell me that you're not overcome with some sense of something deep that couldn't have possibly been manufactured. The only thing that anyone might see as a problem is that they had more of a Rock and Roll lifestyle and a good deal more fun. This may make them seem disingenuous since they aren't being tortured poetic souls, but just listening to their music, the sense that it conveys can not be possibly made up.

As for which band is just generally better, that arguement doesn't seem to make sense since both their music and personalities were so radically different. If you want to say that one is better, it's all a matter of taste. I personally prefer the Beatles immensely, but that just happens to be my taste in music.

When you get outside of just the music and go into more reputational types of clashes to determine which is better, I havn't really a clue. All I know is, there's no way to hate on the Beatles in an arena of being genuine.

― MrPersp3ctive, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 02:39 (sixteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.