Beach Boys Surpass the Beatles for Billboard 200 Record

[Chocolate Shake Man]

But they had such a profound impact on culture and society, it is impossible to say they are overrated. If one doesn't like their music, fair enough. But whether one likes it or not, the incredible impact it has cannot be ignored.

[Wah Wah Wah Ooooo]

Sure, I certainly understand that some people are not Beatles fans. And that's fine.

But, The Beatles are not overrated. Period. Few (maybe none?) artists in history changed the world in so many ways, including the Beach Boys.  And, while the Beach Boys as a whole mean more to me and most of the people on this board, I don't think there's much of any valid argument that could convince me that the Beach Boys are as important culturally as the Beatles.

That said, I also don't think anyone that says Brian Wilson and the Boys are overrated has a brain either. Their contribution to popular music and culture is up there with just about any pop/rock musicians, sans the fab-four.

I guess my main point is that I would actually say that both bands are underrated because I don't think you can overstate the significance of either.

[HighOnLife]

I love the Beatles. They are truly perceived as the greatest band of all-time. I think McCartney's one of the two or three greatest talents in pop history.

I love the Beach Boys because I think they have something in their music that the Beatles don't have in theirs. Don't ask me what it is because I'm not exactly sure. It could be a certain essence or spirituality, but I'm not even sure those would be the right words. There's a certain quality to their music. It's not my opinion though.

[JohnMill]

I don't think they are overrated either for all the reasons the above posters stated.  That being said I think you can make a valid argument either way in terms of the overrated or not argument goes.  It all depends on which side of the fence you are on and how you view the situation.  For me I have no problem saying The Beatles are and will forever be the greatest band in the history of music and be done with it.  

However I can see how those who would have issues with that assumption if we are talking strictly about their musical prowess and talent alone aside from their cultural impact as a phenomenon of the sixties.  While some would argue you can't separate the two, I point no further than the leader of the group: John Lennon.  John was an exceptional singer/songwriter and a fine musician although in that regard not on the level of his mates McCartney and Harrison.  However as a cultural phenomenon, Lennon's legacy actually dwarfs his significant contributions to music.  There is this feeling among the baby boomer generation and even beyond that Lennon was the embodiment of his entire generation perhaps even more so than political and cultural leaders such as JFK and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  

To many Lennon signifies the proliferation of spiritual love, hope, peace, goodwill and passivity that many associate with the latter part of the decade of the sixties.  Now for those of us who have researched John Lennon's life know much of this is pure bollocks and has more to do with how Lennon's legacy has been marketed to the general public since his assassination more than anything else.

The point being that a very large part of what The Beatles are to society today has to do with their legacy as pop culture icons of the sixties ("Beatlemania" as it was/is called) rather than their status as extremely talented and prolific musicians during that same era.

[Runaways]

But they had such a profound impact on culture and society, it is impossible to say they are overrated. If one doesn't like their music, fair enough. But whether one likes it or not, the incredible impact it has cannot be ignored.

I think there is, I agree with everything you said, thats why I yhink they were the best band ever, but allmusic.com thinks every single album by them cept yellow sub and let it be are perfecr 5/5 albums.  And I just dont think thats true, sometimes their average music (to me) is overrated because of who they are. Which is normal

[Wah Wah Wah Ooooo]

But they had such a profound impact on culture and society, it is impossible to say they are overrated. If one doesn't like their music, fair enough. But whether one likes it or not, the incredible impact it has cannot be ignored.

I think there is, I agree with everything you said, thats why I yhink they were the best band ever, but allmusic.com thinks every single album by them cept yellow sub and let it be are perfecr 5/5 albums.  And I just dont think thats true, sometimes their average music (to me) is overrated because of who they are. Which is normal

I would add that even average music by The Beatles is better than the best music by a whole plethora of musicians.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Heh, well im the weirdo that thinks theyre objectively the best band ever but still overrated lol.

I'm the real weirdo that thinks they are not the best band ever- great, but not THE best- and defintely overrated.

[JohnMill]

But they had such a profound impact on culture and society, it is impossible to say they are overrated. If one doesn't like their music, fair enough. But whether one likes it or not, the incredible impact it has cannot be ignored.

I think there is, I agree with everything you said, thats why I yhink they were the best band ever, but allmusic.com thinks every single album by them cept yellow sub and let it be are perfecr 5/5 albums.  And I just dont think thats true, sometimes their average music (to me) is overrated because of who they are. Which is normal

I would add that even average music by The Beatles is better than the best music by a whole plethora of musicians.

Again given what terms?  Now I have gone on record before as saying that I don't think there is truly a bad Beatles song in the catalog.  What I meant by that is every Beatles song has something to recommend it whether it be the songwriting or the execution.  When both were in synch with one another obviously few could match the result.

The issue I have is that some of the average entries in The Beatles catalog are not necessarily better than the strong entries in the catalogs of artists that have had careers that most music fans would term either successful or highly successful.  For instance in my opinion there are songs in the catalogs of many of the other artists I listen to all of which have had found comparative success in their careers that are better songs than say quite a number of tunes on "Beatles For Sale".

[SG7]

The Beatles were my first love, so I have a slight bias to this. However, good for the Beach Boys! I'm sure this won't keep Macca up at night 

[GhostyTMRS]

The constant Beach Boys-vs-Beatles thing is an odd bird indeed.

I suppose when that McCartney quote about "God Only Knows" was widely distributed in the late 80's, it must've com as something of a shock to baby boomers who worshipped the Beatles but dismissed the Beach Boys as a pack of morons who sang about surfing (the friends I have who are in their 60's still have never heard of Pet Sounds or SMiLE and don't even want to know about them). The generations that have come up since the reappraisal of Pet Sounds know the value of Brian Wilson's music. They really don't need the constant comparisons. They get it.

I always get the feeling that Brian and Mike constantly bring up the fact that the Beatles "approved" of their music because they're thinking in the mindset of their own generation....the one spoon-fed a steady diet of "credibility" nonsense from Rolling Stone magazine since 1967.

In any case, congrats to the Beach Boys. They're my #1 band, the Beatles are at #2 and at #3....The Monkees....and I'll fight to the death about the legitimacy of The Monkees's music!     

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

The issue I have is that some of the average entries in The Beatles catalog are not necessarily better than the strong entries in the catalogs of artists that have had careers that most music fans would term either successful or highly successful.

^1 MILLION PERCENT AGREED. I mean, I can't see how anybody would prefer 'Ob la di ob la da', 'Mr Moonlight' (I hate that fucking song), or 'Savoy Truffle' to anything the Beach Boys put out. I know, personal taste and all, but I just don't get it.

[Wah Wah Wah Ooooo]

The issue I have is that some of the average entries in The Beatles catalog are not necessarily better than the strong entries in the catalogs of artists that have had careers that most music fans would term either successful or highly successful.

^1 MILLION PERCENT AGREED. I mean, I can't see how anybody would prefer 'Ob la di ob la da', 'Mr Moonlight' (I hate that f***ing song), or 'Savoy Truffle' to anything the Beach Boys put out. I know, personal taste and all, but I just don't get it.

I love Ob La Di....

[Ziggy Stardust]

(the friends I have who are in their 60's still have never heard of Pet Sounds or SMiLE and don't even want to know about them).

That's pretty sad and dumb, man.

[Zach95]

The issue I have is that some of the average entries in The Beatles catalog are not necessarily better than the strong entries in the catalogs of artists that have had careers that most music fans would term either successful or highly successful.

^1 MILLION PERCENT AGREED. I mean, I can't see how anybody would prefer 'Ob la di ob la da', 'Mr Moonlight' (I hate that f***ing song), or 'Savoy Truffle' to anything the Beach Boys put out. I know, personal taste and all, but I just don't get it.

I love Ob La Di....

I'm with ya. Dissing Ob La Di is in the same vein as dissing She's Goin' Bald or something like that.

[Mr. Cohen]

The Beatles were amazing songwriters, but their arranging skills and instrumental skills can't compare to what Brian could accomplish with the Wrecking Crew. Without George Martin... well, have you heard Let It Be... Naked? It's fun, catchy, amazingly well-written rock - but it's not art.  IMO. George Martin was huge for the Beatles. "She Said She Said" shows the best the Beatles could've sounded without a producer and arranger of George Martin's caliber helping them out (although Martin was the producer on the song, he seemed more hands off there). It's great, but it can't compare to even "California Girls" when it comes to delivering a complete package.

[SamMcK]

Why do we have to compare? Also it's pretty redundant to say you prefer the BB's on a forum dedicated to them. All I know is I love both groups, it's often the case where I prefer one group over the other but I always come back them both.

[Runaways]

The Beatles were amazing songwriters, but their arranging skills and instrumental skills can't compare to what Brian could accomplish with the Wrecking Crew. Without George Martin... well, have you heard Let It Be... Naked? It's fun, catchy, amazingly well-written rock - but it's not art.  IMO. George Martin was huge for the Beatles. "She Said She Said" shows the best the Beatles could've sounded without a producer and arranger of George Martin's caliber helping them out (although Martin was the producer on the song, he seemed more hands off there). It's great, but it can't compare to even "California Girls" when it comes to delivering a complete package.

I thought let it be naked was sans spector production

[Mr. Cohen]

That was my whole point. That's the Beatles, without adornment from a top producer.

[HighOnLife]

The songs are more important than the production. Yeah, I said it. The Beatles didn't need any session guys, just like the Beach Boys really didn't either. Brian chose to use the Wrecking Crew for a variety of reasons. The Beach Boys could have knocked out any of their albums without session guys. I'm sure some of the songs wouldn't have sounded quite as polished, but the material was ace and they were proficient enough.

If you think the Beatles would have been bad without Martin, what do you think about the Beach Boys without Brian producing?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Meh. George Martin was not The Beatles secret ingredient. He was a valuable member of the team but if you listen to the solo records (some of which are very good, some of which include George Martin as a producer), it should be made clear that what was missing was the full package. The secret ingredient was that all of them were a crucial part to the sound that had such an enormous historical impact.

And while I take Dada's point that Brian had superior arranging and instrumental skills, it is ultimately unfortunate then (from my perspective at least) that those superior skills ultimately mean bupkis when it comes to actually evaulating how good the music sounds.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

If you think the Beatles would have been bad without Martin, what do you think about the Beach Boys without Brian producing?

Well, Holland was a damn fine album.

[Mr. Cohen]

If you think the Beatles would have been bad without Martin, what do you think about the Beach Boys without Brian producing?

The Beatles were great, even without Martin. I just think Martin was the one that made the Beatles sound artsy - without him, we don't have "Strawberry Fields Forever" as we know it or even the entire Sgt. Pepper's album. I consider, say, Friends to be considerably more artistic than Let It Be... Naked, although the songwriting on the latter is stronger overall.

[JohnMill]

Meh. George Martin was not The Beatles secret ingredient. He was a valuable member of the team but if you listen to the solo records (some of which are very good, some of which include George Martin as a producer), it should be made clear that what was missing was the full package. The secret ingredient was that all of them were a crucial part to the sound that had such an enormous historical impact.

I agree completely.  A lot of the time I think Beach Boys' fans overrate George Martin's contributions to The Beatles' catalog of work.  Now granted the marriage between The Beatles and George Martin was one of those hand & glove type scenarios but Martin's contributions to The Beatles overall sound was almost nil when compared to what Lennon, McCartney and Harrison contributed from a compositional standpoint.  By the end of the decade you had three of the best songwriters in the world in the same band with two of them being fine musicians as well. (John Lennon was no slouch either just not on par with McCartney and Harrison).

George Martin was a superb musical arranger but he didn't "wind up The Beatles and make them go".  In fact by his own admission during the later years of the group, the band was coming to him with suggestions and questions and he was more or less trying to come up with new ways to fill their increasingly sophisticated orders as to how to make their songs sound different.  Now granted just given the fact that he was able to consistently fill their requests would certainly justify Martin's status as a great arranger but he was never necessarily driving the car so to speak when it came to developing the sound of the group.  

To draw an analogy: Just like it was never Brian and five dummies, it was never George Martin and four dummies either.

[oldsurferdude]

The issue I have is that some of the average entries in The Beatles catalog are not necessarily better than the strong entries in the catalogs of artists that have had careers that most music fans would term either successful or highly successful.

^1 MILLION PERCENT AGREED. I mean, I can't see how anybody would prefer 'Ob la di ob la da', 'Mr Moonlight' (I hate that f***ing song), or 'Savoy Truffle' to anything the Beach Boys put out. I know, personal taste and all, but I just don't get it.

And yes, I don't think they're the best band ever, but don't mess with my Savoy Truffle, hear?

[Mr. Cohen]

Yep, who can forget when John Lennon asked Martin to make "I Am the Walrus" sound like an orange? Just brilliant, eh? This is what "I Am the Walrus" sounds like without Martin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS12FUAJPXs

Not bad, but I'll take the Beach Boys over this. I stand by my comment: "She Said She Said" is the best the Beatles could've sounded like without Martin. They'd still be a great band, but Martin brought a degree of sophisticated artistry to the Beatles material from about '65 onward that they wouldn't have had otherwise.