Beach Boys vs Beatles in the same years

[SMiLE Brian]

Just expressing my honest opinion on the BBs, thats all. This thread is another BBs vs. Beatles thread, so I am trying to answer why the Beatles have a god-like reputation and the BBs don't. Doesn't matter if I went to a show, bootlegs and full concert videos on youtube are a source to make decisions.


I love the BBs, but I am not afraid to call them out when reviewing them if I see fit to do so.

Yeah, well it does matter when you call the shows crass, bizarre & autopilot. Even watching videos and listening to boots is not quite the same as experiencing it in person. You act like beyond Pet Sounds & Smile, your interest in the band is Brianista-like, at best. And that is my opinion of you.

To be fair to SMiLE Brian, who is not someone I agree with often, a lot of the shows in that period fit that description fairly well. Cheerleaders, Adrian Baker, Al looking at his watch, cheesy synths, Billy Hinsche rapping, Mike exaggerating his nasal vocals, Stamos, that awful 25th anniversary special... there were peaks and troughs, and I wouldn't dismiss that entire period (there were clear efforts to up their game in 85, 88, 93 and 96, for example, and I think the shows I've heard from 77-80 are extremely good more often than not), but there were some very, very poor shows during that time, though it does depend what your criteria are. The audiences clearly went away happy more often than not, so they must have been doing something right, but aesthetically/artistically a lot of those shows were just plain bad.

Glad we agree on something, those flaws you mention are what I was hitting at with the crass and bizarre terms. This youtube video is a prime example with cheerleaders.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpSwdQMn8xs

[drbeachboy]

Just expressing my honest opinion on the BBs, thats all. This thread is another BBs vs. Beatles thread, so I am trying to answer why the Beatles have a god-like reputation and the BBs don't. Doesn't matter if I went to a show, bootlegs and full concert videos on youtube are a source to make decisions.


I love the BBs, but I am not afraid to call them out when reviewing them if I see fit to do so.

Yeah, well it does matter when you call the shows crass, bizarre & autopilot. Even watching videos and listening to boots is not quite the same as experiencing it in person. You act like beyond Pet Sounds & Smile, your interest in the band is Brianista-like, at best. And that is my opinion of you.

To be fair to SMiLE Brian, who is not someone I agree with often, a lot of the shows in that period fit that description fairly well. Cheerleaders, Adrian Baker, Al looking at his watch, cheesy synths, Billy Hinsche rapping, Mike exaggerating his nasal vocals, Stamos, that awful 25th anniversary special... there were peaks and troughs, and I wouldn't dismiss that entire period (there were clear efforts to up their game in 85, 88, 93 and 96, for example, and I think the shows I've heard from 77-80 are extremely good more often than not), but there were some very, very poor shows during that time, though it does depend what your criteria are. The audiences clearly went away happy more often than not, so they must have been doing something right, but aesthetically/artistically a lot of those shows were just plain bad.

Glad we agree on something, those flaws you mention are what I was hitting at with the crass and bizarre terms. This youtube video is a prime example with cheerleaders.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpSwdQMn8xs

It's one song, 3:00 mins of a 90 minute show. That is being overly critical of a whole show. Cheerleaders are not crass, nor bizarre in the context of Be True To Your SCHOOL. Even the 45 version had simulated cheerleaders doing cheers in the song. Next you will be telling me how bizzare it is to have surf boards on stage too.

[SMiLE Brian]

Just expressing my honest opinion on the BBs, thats all. This thread is another BBs vs. Beatles thread, so I am trying to answer why the Beatles have a god-like reputation and the BBs don't. Doesn't matter if I went to a show, bootlegs and full concert videos on youtube are a source to make decisions.


I love the BBs, but I am not afraid to call them out when reviewing them if I see fit to do so.

Yeah, well it does matter when you call the shows crass, bizarre & autopilot. Even watching videos and listening to boots is not quite the same as experiencing it in person. You act like beyond Pet Sounds & Smile, your interest in the band is Brianista-like, at best. And that is my opinion of you.

To be fair to SMiLE Brian, who is not someone I agree with often, a lot of the shows in that period fit that description fairly well. Cheerleaders, Adrian Baker, Al looking at his watch, cheesy synths, Billy Hinsche rapping, Mike exaggerating his nasal vocals, Stamos, that awful 25th anniversary special... there were peaks and troughs, and I wouldn't dismiss that entire period (there were clear efforts to up their game in 85, 88, 93 and 96, for example, and I think the shows I've heard from 77-80 are extremely good more often than not), but there were some very, very poor shows during that time, though it does depend what your criteria are. The audiences clearly went away happy more often than not, so they must have been doing something right, but aesthetically/artistically a lot of those shows were just plain bad.

Glad we agree on something, those flaws you mention are what I was hitting at with the crass and bizarre terms. This youtube video is a prime example with cheerleaders.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpSwdQMn8xs

It's one song, 3:00 mins of a 90 minute show. That is being overly critical of a whole show. Cheerleaders are not crass, nor bizarre in the context of Be True To Your SCHOOL. Even the 45 version had simulated cheerleaders doing cheers in the song. Next you will be telling me how bizzare it is to have surf boards on stage too.

Another video from the same concert with cheerleaders, whole show is posted on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMU1tF64_Uc

[halblaineisgood]

.

[drbeachboy]

Just expressing my honest opinion on the BBs, thats all. This thread is another BBs vs. Beatles thread, so I am trying to answer why the Beatles have a god-like reputation and the BBs don't. Doesn't matter if I went to a show, bootlegs and full concert videos on youtube are a source to make decisions.


I love the BBs, but I am not afraid to call them out when reviewing them if I see fit to do so.

Yeah, well it does matter when you call the shows crass, bizarre & autopilot. Even watching videos and listening to boots is not quite the same as experiencing it in person. You act like beyond Pet Sounds & Smile, your interest in the band is Brianista-like, at best. And that is my opinion of you.

To be fair to SMiLE Brian, who is not someone I agree with often, a lot of the shows in that period fit that description fairly well. Cheerleaders, Adrian Baker, Al looking at his watch, cheesy synths, Billy Hinsche rapping, Mike exaggerating his nasal vocals, Stamos, that awful 25th anniversary special... there were peaks and troughs, and I wouldn't dismiss that entire period (there were clear efforts to up their game in 85, 88, 93 and 96, for example, and I think the shows I've heard from 77-80 are extremely good more often than not), but there were some very, very poor shows during that time, though it does depend what your criteria are. The audiences clearly went away happy more often than not, so they must have been doing something right, but aesthetically/artistically a lot of those shows were just plain bad.

Glad we agree on something, those flaws you mention are what I was hitting at with the crass and bizarre terms. This youtube video is a prime example with cheerleaders.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpSwdQMn8xs

It's one song, 3:00 mins of a 90 minute show. That is being overly critical of a whole show. Cheerleaders are not crass, nor bizarre in the context of Be True To Your SCHOOL. Even the 45 version had simulated cheerleaders doing cheers in the song. Next you will be telling me how bizzare it is to have surf boards on stage too.

Another video from the same concert with cheerleaders, whole show is posted on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMU1tF64_Uc

This may have happened in Japan, but I saw them many, many times throughout the 80s & 90's and they rarely had them for more than a song or two, at least here at the Philly shows that I attended.

[SMiLE Brian]

Fair enough, I will take your word on it.

[AndrewHickey]

Cheerleaders are not crass

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

[SMiLE Brian]

Forget debating about whether or not it was crass or bizarre. Do you give other people permission to enjoy something crass and bizarre? Can you give them permission? Can you give them permission to be as smart you are, and know something bizarre or crass when they see it and not need your help ?

What is your beef with me? I am just posting my thoughts on this thread.

[drbeachboy]

SmileBrian, you need to face the facts that they are not the Pet Sounds/Smile Beach Boys that you fantasize them as. They haven't been that band since 1967, or the less than mainstream band since 1975.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[SMiLE Brian]

I disagree, C50 proved the artistic part of the BBs never went away and they can still be about the "music".

[halblaineisgood]

.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[SMiLE Brian]

Go troll somewhere else, you add nothing of value to this discussion.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[drbeachboy]

Cheerleaders are not crass

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the meaning of crass. In America, they are a part of the culture. They are looked at in a very positive way. So, it may be a bit corny or whatever, but not what I call crass.

[drbeachboy]

Go troll somewhere else, you add nothing of value to this discussion.

Boy, the pot calling the kettle black.

[AndrewHickey]

Cheerleaders are not crass

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the meaning of crass. In America, they are a part of the culture. They are looked at in a very positive way. So, it may be a bit corny or whatever, but not what I call crass.

Depends which Americans you ask. I just asked my wife, who's from Minnesota (the home of cheerleading) and she said that the only reason she wouldn't use the word "crass" about cheerleading is that she'd use a lot of ruder words...

[drbeachboy]

Cheerleaders are not crass

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the meaning of crass. In America, they are a part of the culture. They are looked at in a very positive way. So, it may be a bit corny or whatever, but not what I call crass.

Depends which Americans you ask. I just asked my wife, who's from Minnesota (the home of cheerleading) and she said that the only reason she wouldn't use the word "crass" about cheerleading is that she'd use a lot of ruder words...

Wait a minute here, if the college cheerleaders agree to go up and do this and they are not forced, then it is not crass. They are doing it of their own volition. Just about every high school & college, as well as pro sports teams in America have volunteer or paid Cheerleaders.

[AndrewHickey]

Cheerleaders are not crass

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the meaning of crass. In America, they are a part of the culture. They are looked at in a very positive way. So, it may be a bit corny or whatever, but not what I call crass.

Depends which Americans you ask. I just asked my wife, who's from Minnesota (the home of cheerleading) and she said that the only reason she wouldn't use the word "crass" about cheerleading is that she'd use a lot of ruder words...

Wait a minute here, if the college cheerleaders agree to go up and do this and they are not forced, then it is not crass. They are doing it of their own volition. Just about every high school & college, as well as pro sports team in America have volunteer or paid Cheerleaders.

Plenty of people choose to do crass things of their own volition.

[SMiLE Brian]

Cheerleaders are not crass

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the meaning of crass. In America, they are a part of the culture. They are looked at in a very positive way. So, it may be a bit corny or whatever, but not what I call crass.

Depends which Americans you ask. I just asked my wife, who's from Minnesota (the home of cheerleading) and she said that the only reason she wouldn't use the word "crass" about cheerleading is that she'd use a lot of ruder words...

In my opinion, the use of cheerleaders at BBs show was crass. Nothing more could distract and block the view of the band for the hardcore fans. Plus they couldn't change the setlist anymore without messing up the cheerleader changing schedule. Hence Al's anger in the Carlin book.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[drbeachboy]

Cheerleaders are not crass

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the meaning of crass. In America, they are a part of the culture. They are looked at in a very positive way. So, it may be a bit corny or whatever, but not what I call crass.

Depends which Americans you ask. I just asked my wife, who's from Minnesota (the home of cheerleading) and she said that the only reason she wouldn't use the word "crass" about cheerleading is that she'd use a lot of ruder words...

In my opinion, the use of cheerleaders at BBs show was crass. Nothing more could distract and block the view of the band for the hardcore fans. Plus they couldn't change the setlist anymore without messing up the cheerleader changing schedule. Hence Al's anger in the Carlin book.

Nobody said that you had to like it, but they never blocked my view of the band. Hell, they don't even block my view at a football game. Besides, you have 30 plus other songs to watch the band, just in case they did happen to block your view. Listen to the words of the song and Honeys singing cheers. It's just Show & Tell, baby!  

[AndrewHickey]

Plenty of people choose to do crass things of their own volition.

And you seem okay with that.

I am. I'm a fairly crass person myself.