Beach Boys beat Beatles in 1966 music polls

[GoogaMooga]

i know of at least two instances where the Beach Boys beat the Beatles in music polls. Dec 10, 1966 the Beach Boys beat the Beatles to the number one spot for best vocal group in NME.

i am also pretty sure that the danish tabloid paper Ekstra Bladet had the Beach Boys as best group in their 1966 pop poll, but i haven't been able to google that. in 1966 the Beach Boys gave their first concert in Denmark, at Copenhagen's Falconer hall.

if you know of any other examples where our boys beat the fabs in popularity, feel free to post here.

[J.G. Dev]

Someone should tell Mike Love

[Mr. Verlander]

if you know of any other examples where our boys beat the fabs in popularity, feel free to post here.

If you took a poll of this board, The BB's would probably win a popularity contest.

[KittyKat]

Europe doesn't count when you're America's Band.

[Andrew G. Doe]

According to one Kie Miskelly on the Bloo many years ago, they won the NME poll because he stuffed the ballot by sending in multiple entries. Mind, this is also the man who claimed to have been gassed in his car and robbed by Russian muggers while on a family holiday in France... and carried on with the vacation ! BS FC 1, Credibility Utd 0.

[Moon Dawg]

  Didn't "Help Me Rhonda" knock "Ticket to Ride" out of the Number One spot on Billboard?

[Disney Boy (1985)]

How about Mojo's 'Greatest Singles of all Time' poll: Beach Boys at 1 (Good Vibes), the Beatles at 2 (Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane)?

Likewise, Mojo's 'Greatest Albums of all Time' poll: Beach Boys at 1 (Pet Sounds), the Beatles at 3 (Revolver)?

And these were both polls which canvassed the opinions of musicians, rock/pop stars and fans, rather than just being decided by a bunch of critics in a room...

[Two Ways Have I]

My recollection is that the NME 'polls' in the 1960s were NOT derived from votes cast.  They were calculated rather more objectively on the basis of chart positions during the period in question. 

For example, having the number one record in the weekly chart would earn you 20 points.  Having the number two record earned 19 points. Etc. etc.  All the way down to 1 point for number 20 in the weekly chart.  The scores were accrued week by week (no points scored if you weren't in the top 20) then totted up in early December and presented accordingly.

Our boys did particularly well in the UK during 1966 with Barbara Ann, Sloop John B, God Only Knows and Good Vibrations and amassed a huge number of points on the NME's week-by-week scoring system.  The Fabs were no slouches during the same period but were just pipped at the post.

Nothing to do with subjective popularity or votes cast - just the simple expedient of NME chart success.

[Dancing Bear]

My recollection is that the NME 'polls' in the 1960s were NOT derived from votes cast.  They were calculated rather more objectively on the basis of chart positions during the period in question. 

For example, having the number one record in the weekly chart would earn you 20 points.  Having the number two record earned 19 points. Etc. etc.  All the way down to 1 point for number 20 in the weekly chart.  The scores were accrued week by week (no points scored if you weren't in the top 20) then totted up in early December and presented accordingly.

Our boys did particularly well in the UK during 1966 with Barbara Ann, Sloop John B, God Only Knows and Good Vibrations and amassed a huge number of points on the NME's week-by-week scoring system.  The Fabs were no slouches during the same period but were just pipped at the post.

Nothing to do with subjective popularity or votes cast - just the simple expedient of NME chart success.

If it's true, then that explains the result of this poll. 1966 was the year when the Beatles took half the year off, with no new releases for Christmas except for the compilation 'A Collection of Beatles oldies'.

[rogerlancelot]

Regardless, the game was over in 1967.

[Two Ways Have I]

Just to clarify, the NME's point-scoring system was based on singles only.

[Gabo]

I like Eleanor Rigby more than Good Vibrations

[bgas]

I like Eleanor Rigby more than Good Vibrations

Isn't there a Beatles board somewhere that you can post on?

[GoogaMooga]

Regardless, the game was over in 1967.

sort of; i was able to google Ekstra Bladet's 1967 pop poll, and there the Beatles were voted no 1, but the Beach Boys were no.2, still a decent result, considering it was smiley smile up against sgt pepper that year.

[kookadams]

Regardless, the game was over in 1967.

1967 was the end of rockNroll as a commercially viable media as far as quality goes. In otherwords look at every billboard chart from '56 to '66, ALL great music, in 67 it started to wane,,,but in the UK music consumers still kept it goin, the beach boys were still a smash in the late 60s/early 70s over there,,,,look at how much better pet sounds did in the UK, same with smiley, wild honey and 20/20- all phenomenal albums but didnt get the proper marketing here in america.. no wonder the BBs took capitol to court twice by the end of the decade...and then in 77 when they were simotaneousley signed to warner/reprise and cbs // columbia took years to market them correctly, not til endless summer took off did wb wake up and push 15 big ones... 1976 was a monumental yr in rock like 66 was a decade earlier ,it  was the new reniassance ,thank god the ramones came along with a fresh sound that paid alotta homage to the BBs, esp with their leave home and rocket to russia albums in 77... just think if love you had been released under brian's name as intended, would the BBs ever have bounced back? Who knows, but theres a reason a lot of us concur that love you was their last great album; the same reasons pet sounds was such a thriller ,cuz it was brian wilson- all heart&soul...the miu album was a mishmash of older sessions and reconstructed songs from the nixed 2nd xmas album and their cbs albums from 79-85 were very hit&miss compared to their phenomenal output of 63-73, right?

[Andrew G. Doe]

My recollection is that the NME 'polls' in the 1960s were NOT derived from votes cast.  They were calculated rather more objectively on the basis of chart positions during the period in question.  

For example, having the number one record in the weekly chart would earn you 20 points.  Having the number two record earned 19 points. Etc. etc.  All the way down to 1 point for number 20 in the weekly chart.  The scores were accrued week by week (no points scored if you weren't in the top 20) then totted up in early December and presented accordingly.

Our boys did particularly well in the UK during 1966 with Barbara Ann, Sloop John B, God Only Knows and Good Vibrations and amassed a huge number of points on the NME's week-by-week scoring system.  The Fabs were no slouches during the same period but were just pipped at the post.

Nothing to do with subjective popularity or votes cast - just the simple expedient of NME chart success.

As l recall the difference in points announced was ten or less - would that square with what you're saying ?

Just had a look at the  categories - looks like a public vote, not a points table. Will investigate further.

[rogerlancelot]

Regardless, the game was over in 1967.

1967 was the end of rockNroll as a commercially viable media as far as quality goes. In otherwords look at every billboard chart from '56 to '66, ALL great music, in 67 it started to wane

I had to stop reading there. You're saying that rock music was ALL great from '56 to '66 but then it jumped the shark in 1967? I know an old woman from Utah who feels the same way. She's not a bad lady by any means but she has no understanding of Led Zeppelin or why Jimi Hendrix made noise with his guitar.

I'd say music just started getting good in 1964 and exploded in 1967 but the Beach Boys were unable (or unwilling - take your choice) to deliver the goods and stay in the game. The End.

Epilogue: 1974 - they had a chance to get back in there but decided to take a sh*t on everybody with 15 Big Ones and it's all been a big "f*** you" to us fans ever since.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Regardless, the game was over in 1967.

1967 was the end of rockNroll as a commercially viable media as far as quality goes. In otherwords look at every billboard chart from '56 to '66, ALL great music, in 67 it started to wane

I had to stop reading there. You're saying that rock music was ALL great from '56 to '66 but then it jumped the shark in 1967? I know an old woman from Utah who feels the same way. She's not a bad lady by any means but she has no understanding of Led Zeppelin or why Jimi Hendrix made noise with his guitar.

I'd say music just started getting good in 1964 and exploded in 1967 but the Beach Boys were unable (or unwilling - take your choice) to deliver the goods and stay in the game. The End.

Of course, it is impossible to say with any degree of seriousness that rock and roll music stopped being good starting in 1967. There was a lot of great music to follow. However, I could never say that rock and roll "started getting good in 1964." There was so much great music before then - deliciously drenched in reverb classics and exciting R&B sounds. I will agree with the above person that you are quoting that somewhere around 1967, rock and roll did start to get a bit bloated, a bit too full of itself, and a bit more respectable.  The era in which mainstream rock and roll was rebellious and simultaneously bringing a kind of happy joy to people was over. Again, there was still great stuff after 1967, but I would say that no year after 1967 has anything on the years that came before it.

[kookadams]

There were a small handful of decent bands/artists post-67 but NOWHERE near as great as 56-66.... the beach boys never quit making great albums til after love you...dont get me wrong I enjoy ALL their output but the mid 70s definitly marked the end of an era for them progressivly speaking .

[Chocolate Shake Man]

But then 1968 has some of my most beloved albums: The White Album, Odessey and Oracle, Village Green, Bookends, Astral Weeks, Aerial Ballet.

[alf wiedersehen]

But then 1968 has some of my most beloved albums: The White Album, Odessey and Oracle, Village Green, Bookends, Astral Weeks, Aerial Ballet.

Yeah, those plus Music from the Big Pink, Friends, Sweetheart of the Rodeo, Gris-Gris, Electric Ladyland, White Light/White Heat, We're Only in It for the Money, Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake, Beggars Banquet, and Dock of the Bay. If 1968 isn't my favorite year for music, it's definitely up there near the top of the list.

[Moon Dawg]

I like Eleanor Rigby more than Good Vibrations

 I like The Beach Boys more than The Beatles.

[kookadams]

I like Eleanor Rigby more than Good Vibrations

 I like The Beach Boys more than The Beatles.

damn strait/ if music were food the BBs would be filet mignon, and the beatles microwaved hamburger.... I like the beatles and I have meet, rubber soul and revolver (their most important albums), but the BBs had so much more substance .

[Moon Dawg]

I like Eleanor Rigby more than Good Vibrations

 I like The Beach Boys more than The Beatles.

damn strait/ if music were food the BBs would be filet mignon, and the beatles microwaved hamburger.... I like the beatles and I have meet, rubber soul and revolver (their most important albums), but the BBs had so much more substance .

 You are a wise man. I still "like" The Beatles but over the years my overall opinion of them has become...ambivalent. The worship they inspire can be sickening at times.

[alf wiedersehen]

I like both.

There seems to be some weird mindset that people have to somehow defend the Beach Boys by dismissing the Beatles, which I think is flat out wrong. Both bands are superb and owe a great deal to each other. Without one, we may never have gotten the best the other had to offer. I don't want to let this turn into some hating-on-the-Beatles thread.

Also, to say that Beach Boys made more substance than the Beatles is really just flat-out wrong. Up to 1965, the Beatles had practically made filler-less albums, while there were a great deal of duff tracks on each Beach Boy album up that point. Then, 1966 and Pet Sounds rolled around, both made perhaps their best albums, and then the Beach Boys went off and started making albums with throwaway tracks once again. The Beatles stayed consistently strong (though, I'll admit, they had some weak songs scattered throughout their next albums), both musically and lyrically. The Beach Boys, not so much.

Like I said, though, I love both bands. Both are giants of the 60's and music wouldn't be the same without them.