Beach Boys beat Beatles in 1966 music polls

[Moon Dawg]

rubber soul thru abbey rd??? No way! Meet the beatles thru rubber soul is more accurate.

Dude, Aby Rd is awesome.

  Some of side 1 is just OK. The same might be said of LET IT BLEED.

[pixletwin]

The beatles NEVER had the kinda consistency album-wise that the beach boys had. The beatles had meet hard days night, help and rubber soul before the hippie era sucked the life outta rockNroll while the beach boys had bitchin albums from 63 to 73, and a joke 'filler' track here and there doesnt weaken the album, it adds character...the beatles after revolver werent even a 'band' anymore, they were a acid-fueled studio group and the quality of those last three albums (sgt pep, white and abbey) altho highly regarded doesnt even touch their output of 64-66, I dont care what some think about that cuz rockNroll was a thriving force the first half of the 60s and as vietnam got more intense it took a pretty big toll on the consumption of quality music in america; look at how well the beach boys did in europe and outside the US, americans just didnt care about rock anymore til the mid 70s when endless summer and the ramones got it back on track/ yeah Ive gotten flack for making these kinda responses but ya cant dictate the past you can only reflect on what happened and revert to it in any instance.

I get what you're saying and you get it mostly right, but the conclusions you jump to are right off the cliff. That is why I find your posts so frustrating. 

[kookadams]

I hear ya, its hard to sugarcoat tho yknow.... I dont 'troll', I just come out with it and sometimes it gets skewed by those who take it the wrong way. I may not be an old dude but I been sponging up this music since I could talk and its important for me to break thru the horseshit yknow .

[alf wiedersehen]

The beatles NEVER had the kinda consistency album-wise that the beach boys had. The beatles had meet hard days night, help and rubber soul before the hippie era sucked the life outta rockNroll while the beach boys had bitchin albums from 63 to 73, and a joke 'filler' track here and there doesnt weaken the album, it adds character...the beatles after revolver werent even a 'band' anymore, they were a acid-fueled studio group and the quality of those last three albums (sgt pep, white and abbey) altho highly regarded doesnt even touch their output of 64-66, I dont care what some think about that cuz rockNroll was a thriving force the first half of the 60s and as vietnam got more intense it took a pretty big toll on the consumption of quality music in america; look at how well the beach boys did in europe and outside the US, americans just didnt care about rock anymore til the mid 70s when endless summer and the ramones got it back on track/ yeah Ive gotten flack for making these kinda responses but ya cant dictate the past you can only reflect on what happened and revert to it in any instance.

The fact that you say that the Beach Boys had consistency, and then tell us that they had joke tracks doesn't make sense to me. The Beatles never had joke tracks, how could the Beach Boys be more consistent? Saying it adds character is such a cop-out. Secondly, one of the reasons your posts are frustrating is because you constantly slam down your opinion that the Beatles' musical peak is 64-66 and then you go off on some weird thing about rock and roll... it's just, like, your opinion man. Stop acting like you're some great prophet spreading the truth to all the people who can't see it. Clearly, you like energy in your music, and that's fine, but you're probably not going to get that from later Beatles. It doesn't make them bad, it just makes the different than what you're looking for.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The beatles NEVER had the kinda consistency album-wise that the beach boys had.

I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I get resistance from people not persuaded by The Beach Boys precisely because of the inconsistency of the albums. While I do love most of the songs, especially during the peak years, I can recognize that the boys couldn't have had hit singles with a great deal of the album tracks on many of the LPs. The Beatles, on the other hand...

the beatles after revolver werent even a 'band' anymore, they were a acid-fueled studio group

There were two albums made under the influence of acid - Pepper and MMT, the latter not even an official LP in England. And even then, they only took acid by accident in the studio. White Album, Let it Be, and Abbey Road cannot be called "acid-fueled." Furthermore, I am unsure how they cease to become a band because they work exclusively in the studio.

and the quality of those last three albums (sgt pep, white and abbey) altho highly regarded doesnt even touch their output of 64-66, I dont care what some think about that cuz rockNroll was a thriving force the first half of the 60s and as vietnam got more intense it took a pretty big toll on the consumption of quality music in america; look at how well the beach boys did in europe and outside the US, americans just didnt care about rock anymore til the mid 70s

I'm not understanding your point here. I don't know what the Beatles latter-quality has to do with the American consumption of rock and roll. Also, there were plenty of bands doing old school rock and roll in the States in the late 60s who were popular. Think of the great Motown hits during that time, or even CCR.

[kookadams]

I totally know what you guys are sayin, Im jus pickin it apart on a deeper level, doesnt mean thats how it has to be, its just a reflection of the past, retrospective more or less .

[alf wiedersehen]

I give up.

Kookadams       1
Bubbly Waves   0

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I totally know what you guys are sayin, Im jus pickin it apart on a deeper level, doesnt mean thats how it has to be, its just a reflection of the past, retrospective more or less .

I don't understand.

[Niko]

I totally know what you guys are sayin, Im jus pickin it apart on a deeper level, doesnt mean thats how it has to be, its just a reflection of the past, retrospective more or less .

I don't understand.

It's OK 

[pixletwin]

I totally know what you guys are sayin, Im jus pickin it apart on a deeper level, doesnt mean thats how it has to be, its just a reflection of the past, retrospective more or less .

lol If you say so.

[Andrew G. Doe]

BTW, I don't "hate" The Beatles expressly because I'm a BB fan. Don't hate them at all, some fine, fine - occasionally outstanding - music. I just don't kneel down and worship at the shrine of Ss. Johnny & Paulie. It's a band. They're musicians. Is all. Just like The Beach Boys.

[rogerlancelot]

  George Martin didn't "make" The Beatles. The content was always there but he did much to help the form. Their recorded work would have suffered without Martin's production to be sure.

  In terms of rock & roll power, philosophical content, and perhaps musical complexity, The Who (at their best) blow The Beatles away. Did The Who have a better or more consistent career than The Beatles? Nope.

 Compared to The Rolling Stones (or Elvis) The Beatles knew nothing of the blues. That sort of emotional depth was beyond them.

  Was there ever a greater narcissist in the history of rock & roll than Lennon? I doubt it. At least Brian Wilson had the humility not to proclaim his own genius.

  In his way George was the coolest of The Beatles. He didn't crave attention the way John and Paul did.

 

What about "Wild Honey Pie" and "Why Don't We Do It In The Road"?

[alf wiedersehen]

It's a band. They're musicians. Is all. Just like The Beach Boys.

I don't think any of us are saying otherwise.

[Fire Wind]

To those Beach Boys fans who feel that they must hate the Beatles, try this at home: listen to Magical Mystery Tour and Wild Honey back to back and then we'll talk. It's like one of them is in full color and the other is black and white.

Welll, my comparison of I Get Around/Don't Worry Baby to the Hard Day's Night album was because they were both early, pre-psychedelic rock, so kinda on the same page.  MMT and Wild Honey were released near the same time, but each going for a totally different aesthetic.  With Smiley and the next couple of albums, The Beach Boys went with a stripped-back approach.  They had moved on, following the Smile fiasco.  The Beatles at that point were still busy peddling psychedelia to 12-year-olds with MMT, only catching up with the new, back-to-basics approach on the White Album, by which point TBB had released Smiley, Wild Honey and Friends.

Anyway, I semi-agree with Gabo's comment about vocals.  Vocally, the Beach Boys were a much greater whole than the sum of their parts.   Others, Beatles included, did individual vocal expressiveness to a higher level.  Bob Dylan's another one - he'd be awful in a vocal harmony mix, but as an individual putting across a song on his own, he's far more nuanced, varied and expressive than any individual Beach Boy.  A whole other level.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

With Smiley and the next couple of albums, The Beach Boys went with a stripped-back approach.  They had moved on, following the Smile fiasco.  The Beatles at that point were still busy peddling psychedelia to 12-year-olds with MMT, only catching up with the new, back-to-basics approach on the White Album, by which point TBB had released Smiley, Wild Honey and Friends.

The idea that The White Album was a "back-to-basics" approach is, to me, another oft-made remark that is completely unfounded. Production-wise, the album has as much production as the MMT songs. At least, from memory, Glass Onion, Ob-la-di Ob-la-da, Martha My Dear, Piggies, Don't Pass Me By, Mother Nature's Son, Revolution 1, Honey Pie, Savoy Truffle, and Good Night all have some form of orchestration on them or horn/string overdub. Is Revolution 9 back-to-basics? Hey Jude, the single from these sessions, is one of the "biggest" sounding records the band ever made. The Beatles didn't try a back-to-basics approach until the Get Back sessions in 1969 and even then it was far different conceptually from what The Beach Boys were doing - aiming to record everything live.

The idea that they were "peddling psychedelia to 12-year-olds" is just a shot and it is untrue. Once Sgt. Pepper came out, The Beatles had an enormous following that spanned age groups. The Beach Boys by 1968 had not only alienated their teenybopper fan base, but hadn't found another, something The Beatles had indeed achieved.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that the "back-to-basics" approach that the Beach Boys "pioneered" (though, let's face it, it wasn't as if there weren't many, many bands who were just recording in a plain-style in the months leading up to Smiley Smile - look, for example, at The Doors) only occurred because they were unable or unwilling to compete production-wise anymore. The Beach Boys went back to basics, as you noted, when Smile collapsed. The Beatles, meanwhile, had just released Pepper, had no problems doing so, and thus had no reason to stop continuing in that direction.

[Andrew G. Doe]

It's a band. They're musicians. Is all. Just like The Beach Boys.

I don't think any of us are saying otherwise.

Beg to differ: in some quarters of the States, The Beatles are gods. Beyond mere human criticism. Complete bollocks, of course, but there it is.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Anyway, I semi-agree with Gabo's comment about vocals.  Vocally, the Beach Boys were a much greater whole than the sum of their parts.   Others, Beatles included, did individual vocal expressiveness to a higher level.  Bob Dylan's another one - he'd be awful in a vocal harmony mix, but as an individual putting across a song on his own, he's far more nuanced, varied and expressive than any individual Beach Boy.  A whole other level.

Dylan's what you'd term a vocal stylist: can't sing to save his life, but has a distinctive way of phrasing a vocal.

[pixletwin]

It's a band. They're musicians. Is all. Just like The Beach Boys.

I don't think any of us are saying otherwise.

Beg to differ: in some quarters of the States, The Beatles are gods. Beyond mere human criticism. Complete bollocks, of course, but there it is.

Plenty of people do the same with Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin, or yes even The Beach Boys. People tend to do that once they become fanatics for something. Sure, the noise is louder coming from the Beatles camp than any other, but that is only because they have more fans. 

When Bubbly was referring to people in this thread. No one here was lording them up as if they were gods.

[alf wiedersehen]

can't sing to save his life

I've seen people say that a lot, but I think they're wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6ODMKSWzT4

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Plenty of people do the same with Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin, or yes even The Beach Boys.

No kidding. There are people on this board who defend Summer in Paradise. And then one acts incredulous because they can't believe that people can't admit that, say, I Will is not as good as Day in the Life.

[wantsomecorn]

It's a band. They're musicians. Is all. Just like The Beach Boys.

I don't think any of us are saying otherwise.

Beg to differ: in some quarters of the States, The Beatles are gods. Beyond mere human criticism. Complete bollocks, of course, but there it is.

You're acting like they're bigger than Jesus!

[Disney Boy (1985)]

To those Beach Boys fans who feel that they must hate the Beatles, try this at home: listen to Magical Mystery Tour and Wild Honey back to back and then we'll talk. It's like one of them is in full color and the other is black and white.
[/quote]

An obviously unfair comparison. MMT was comprised of material taken from over a year+ long period. Wild Honey was written, recorded and released within the space of a couple of months.

I adore both albums, however I will say this: MMT - like Sgt Pepper - sounds of its time, whereas Wild Honey - almost in spite of the low-fi production - still sounds fresh and crisp.

The difference for me between the Beatles and the Beach Boys: I love the Beatles, but I'm obsessed with the Beach Boys.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Abbey Road is an exceptional album btw. To my ears, their finest.

[Gabo]

I think Sgt Pepper still sounds fresh. MMT is a little overproduced.

I love Wild Honey's lo-fi sound, but it was hard to take at first. When I first bought the Smiley Smile/Wild Honey twofer I was never so disappointed with a CD purchase in my life.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

I think Sgt Pepper still sounds fresh. MMT is a little overproduced.

I love Wild Honey's lo-fi sound, but it was hard to take at first. When I first bought the Smiley Smile/Wild Honey twofer I was never so disappointed with a CD purchase in my life.

Really? I sure don't share your taste in music. It was the Smiley Smile/Wild Honey two-fer which turned me from someone who'd enjoyed the occasional Best-of into someone who was a super-duper full-blown BB fanatic! I loved everything about it from the very first listen: the sound, the vibe, the songs, the artwork: everything!