What did the beach boys do better than the beatles?

[guitarfool2002]

I think there is an element of both groups doing a lot of the same things in the most formative stages and then later the most successful parts of their careers - It's almost like they were traveling basically the same path, but doing so in slightly different ways. And those different ways were due to elements out of their control, from personal and family experiences, to geography, to the general nature of people from different backgrounds and different life experiences navigating the same roads in their own unique way while still traveling the same road. There is no arbiter, there is no gold standard to use to compare other than the results of those travels, and in these cases, the music and art they created which we can experience and judge for ourselves.

It's when you can dig really deep into some of the backgrounds and find those parallels and compare/contrast the differences that the revelations may start to come out.

For example, just one for now: Consider both Carl Wilson and George Harrison were the youngest members of their bands, the "kid brother" or even the baby of the group. And that element which was totally out of their control would play a part in both the personal and the musical developments of their respective bands and the dynamics within.

George found his voice musically first through his studies of Indian music at just the right time when there was a receptive audience and formats like FM radio and the emerging importance of the rock album versus the single which allowed it to flourish. Then later, the Beatles called it quits as a band, and George since his fateful trip to the US in late '68 had been brimming with musical confidence and a backlog of original songs that would eventually comprise the All Things Must Pass album...that moment where the kid brother steps out of the shadows of the older members and is allowed to shine on his own. The same thing happened with his guitar playing - As soon as George had members of the rock elite asking his advice and respecting him, he had the confidence to tell McCartney to go fly a kite if he told him how to play, and also had the chances to develop his own voice on guitar which became as distinctive a sound and style on early 70's rock radio as Elton's voice or Bonzo's drumming.

It is almost a victim of fate and timing that at the moment(s) when Carl may have had that chance, and perhaps would have had that receptive audience for him to develop his own musical voice, it was either the band's inner politics and various crap involving everyone from the Love brothers to the market itself that may have held it back and kept him playing the hits rather than breaking away as George had done, and which his brother Dennis would eventually do as well. Right at the time the band was opening up to new musical ideas, the "Endless Summer" fluke followed by the Love brothers taking charge as managers put Carl back into the role of being the guy running the live band instead of being the guy developing new music and new styles, either for the band or for himself. And it honestly never let go of him, after that period when Reiley managed the band interrupted only by Carl doing his solo album in the 80's.

As much of a good thing it pretty much was for all Beatles when they split up and were free to do what they wanted to do musically and otherwise, there is a feeling that the aura and name of "The Beach Boys" continued to suck various members back into situations where they may have had to sacrifice the kind of artistic freedom Harrison gained after The Beatles in order to keep driving the band name. And it's like Pacino in Godfather 3, "they keep pulling me back in"...as much good as there was or could be found after the 1976 "comeback" stuff, perhaps there could have been more good stuff if there wasn't that obligation to play Fun Fun Fun for fans at every show any more than The Beatles would be replicating what they did at Shea if they had kept plugging on the road and had not dissolved the group when they did and started doing their own things.

And this adherence to the name has reached perhaps absurd depths as the year 2017 comes to a close and you have a lone original band member using the name to promote his own solo releases in front of crowds who are paying for a "Beach Boys" experience.

So maybe, after all, the Beatles had a better sense of knowing when to pull the plug before it got tacky.

[SMiLE Brian]

Great post GF, the Endless Summer "experience" really did a number on the band as a whole. Imagine the Beatles touring the Red and Blue albums.....

[HeyJude]

I never fully fault the BBs for continuing on even when they did some hit-and-miss work that kind of spoiled their sort of "cumulative GPA" as far as critical and commercial success. I especially don't fault them for continuing on in the studio. Maybe not as much the live touring (more on that later). First, I think simply continuing to create is important and almost always preferable to not. That's why it never bothered me when McCartney would churn out albums. I'm glad the BBs did an album every year from 1976 to 1980 in the sense that it resulted in a larger bulk of material that included some really good stuff. Secondly, the BBs didn't have the luxury at many points to just quit.

The Beatles certainly had the luxury of being able to split up and continue to be successful as solo artists. They had never really seen a downturn in popularity.

None of the BBs barring Brian (and maybe, just possibly Dennis if we extend the timeline a little further) would have felt they could go make it as successful solo artists if they had split in 1970. They had to stay together if they wanted to continue any modicum of popularity, monetary success, and so on. If the BBs had been scoring continual #1 hits through the end of the 60s and then desperately wanted to split off, and could foresee that most or all of them could get solo record deals, maybe they would have quit for awhile too.

On the touring front, most all of the BBs elicit far less sympathy from me. I don't begrudge them making a living. But certainly there was a point where they could have and/or should have been pretty rich off this thing and they continued to tour and stretched the brand way too thin. That their studio work declined in quality and quantity at this same time certainly only made things worse. Not to mention stale setlists and sometimes rote (if still usually professional) performances. And of course that entire arm of the organization never giving it a rest eventually led into what we have now with Mike watering the whole thing down further.

[B.E.]

I'm going to go slightly off-topic here, forgive me...

Great post GF, the Endless Summer "experience" really did a number on the band as a whole. Imagine the Beatles touring the Red and Blue albums.....

The Beatles touring the Red and Blue albums would have been f*cking awesome!!! I mean, it's that or a few random solo performances, for the most part. And they certainly would have been performing a lot of Blue album material, not just replicating Shea. I get the feeling that the Endless Summer "experience" is used as an excuse more than anything else. The BBs, essentially, stopped recording in '72, why? Endless Summer wasn't released until the summer of '74. If you want to blame the studio output of '76 on Endless Summer, fair enough. But, we got Love You and Pacific Ocean Blue in '77. The Beach Boys could have recorded whatever they wanted, they had there own studio. And they were free to include new material in their setlists, and they did, even after Endless Summer and the 'Brian's Back' campaign. The fans want the hits...shocking. Endless Summer was not a fluke. The music Brian made in the early-mid 60s is timeless, and the Beach Boys earned that nostalgia wave as much as anyone. What was keeping them from recording singles aimed at the Endless Summer crowd while backing those singles up with progressive album tracks? Would have been an improvement over the early '60s model which saw "Our Favorite Recording Sessions" featured on the great All Summer Long album. I don't understand why it had to be one or the other. But, the reason wasn't the success of a compilation. Who knew that music sold well?

[marcella27]

Not intentional but bb’s/brians story does infom the music and makes them more sympathetic once you know about murry/landy/drugs/mental illness/dennis etc.
John lennon on the other hand seemed like kind of a prick and sure his mom died etc but none of the beatles had to overcome as much adversity while they were alive, imho, which can make you have more of an appreciation for bbs music.

How familiar are you with the Beatles story? Have you read Mark Lewisohn's "Tune In?" The "sure, his Mom died, but...." suggests to me you're not super familiar with the Beatles.

Outside of John Lennon, the rest of the Beatles grew up in squalor compared to the relatively middle class upbringing of most of the Beach Boys members. The Beatles' families gave birth to the members in the midst of WWII bombings, etc.

There doesn't need to be a tit-for-tat, and Murry was awful, but an argument could easily be made that the Beatles, especially in the early era, suffered more adversity than the BBs.

The BBs essentially cut their first record before and/or as they became a band. The Beatles gigged around for years before they had the chance to make a professional record. Murry was awful, but he also was there to help the BBs immensely. Who out of all of the Beatles' parents actively helped them succeed in a way at all similar to what Murry did? Mostly Pete Best's Mom, that was about it.

Also, have you read Steven Gaines' book (not to mention Stebbins and others)? All the BBs and everybody else for that matter are human and have failings just like all of us. While Brian suffered greatly under Landy and deserves a huge amount of understanding and empathy, most of the BBs (and not just Mike) were pricks at various points over the years just like the Beatles were (and Lennon himself to a certain degree admitted as such; I believe one of his famous interviews referenced that the Beatles could be some of the biggest bastards around).

Lennon got shot, Harrison was attacked in his home. There are plenty of ways all of these guys were a-holes and also plenty of ways they faced adversity not of their own making.

I'm not sure every female Dennis had relationships with left those relationships with nothing but positive feelings.

Pretty much every one of the BBs was at the forefront of any number of business/money/artistic dealings that left others feeling slighted and disgruntled.

The Gaines book doesn’t really manage to make Carl seem like a prick, though, does it?  I mean, he talks in detail about the Australia tour incident, which doesn’t present Carl in the best light, but really, it’s like the worst he could say about Carl is that he went through a period where he was a bit f’ed up and drank too much and took drugs.  But I don’t recall anything in the Gaines book (or anything else I’ve read) that indicates that Carl was ever mean or just, you know, a dick.  I find it interesting because the whole purpose of that book seems to be to trash the BB’s reputations, but there’s really nothing in there, at least that I can recall, that paints Carl in a bad light. 

[marcella27]

I’m very late to this thread but I wanted to offer my observations. 

This is clearly oversimplifying it, but I think the Beatles excelled at beautiful, simple songs.  Think Blackbird. 

The BBs excelled at creating beautiful, complex songs.

We’re talking about two of the greatest bands ever, or maybe THE two greatest.  Ultimately it comes down to personal preference.  I love the Beatles but I love the BBs way more. 

[guitarfool2002]

The Beatles were effectively over when they started working on "Get Back/Let It Be" in an old airplane hangar of a film set in the dead of winter. The fact they pulled it together for the rooftop speaks more to their professionalism as performers and musicians as it does the notions of the band. And the way they also pulled it together for Abbey Road, which they knew would be the last hurrah when they were making it, speaks to the same ideals.

They ended it when it had to end, and it just happened to coincide with the end of the 60's idealistically. The Apple rooftop final concert became an iconic image as well as a fitting send-off. There would never be and can never be the sad spectacle of McCartney or Ringo touring as "The Beatles" decades later with either remaining member fronting a band of backing musicians and "still tourin'" for whatever reasons they'd give.

There was no need for a touring license with The Beatles because it ended when it had to. They have that one over the Beach Boys by light years.

[KDS]

The Beatles were effectively over when they started working on "Get Back/Let It Be" in an old airplane hangar of a film set in the dead of winter. The fact they pulled it together for the rooftop speaks more to their professionalism as performers and musicians as it does the notions of the band. And the way they also pulled it together for Abbey Road, which they knew would be the last hurrah when they were making it, speaks to the same ideals.

They ended it when it had to end, and it just happened to coincide with the end of the 60's idealistically. The Apple rooftop final concert became an iconic image as well as a fitting send-off. There would never be and can never be the sad spectacle of McCartney or Ringo touring as "The Beatles" decades later with either remaining member fronting a band of backing musicians and "still tourin'" for whatever reasons they'd give.

There was no need for a touring license with The Beatles because it ended when it had to. They have that one over the Beach Boys by light years.

The Beatles also had more people who looked out for The Beatles brand than The Beach Boys.  Even had the Beatles stayed together into the 70s and behind, I doubt they'd have made nearly as many missteps. 

[guitarfool2002]

The Beatles were effectively over when they started working on "Get Back/Let It Be" in an old airplane hangar of a film set in the dead of winter. The fact they pulled it together for the rooftop speaks more to their professionalism as performers and musicians as it does the notions of the band. And the way they also pulled it together for Abbey Road, which they knew would be the last hurrah when they were making it, speaks to the same ideals.

They ended it when it had to end, and it just happened to coincide with the end of the 60's idealistically. The Apple rooftop final concert became an iconic image as well as a fitting send-off. There would never be and can never be the sad spectacle of McCartney or Ringo touring as "The Beatles" decades later with either remaining member fronting a band of backing musicians and "still tourin'" for whatever reasons they'd give.

There was no need for a touring license with The Beatles because it ended when it had to. They have that one over the Beach Boys by light years.

The Beatles also had more people who looked out for The Beatles brand than The Beach Boys.  Even had the Beatles stayed together into the 70s and behind, I doubt they'd have made nearly as many missteps. 

This could be a book-length discussion but I'll try to condense it just a bit, lol.

Credit in the 70's and beyond for protecting and increasing the value of the Beatles brand goes in large part to Neil Aspinall, their original road manager (and protector along with Mal Evans) going back to Liverpool pre-fame. Neil was an accountant by trade, and after the band split, Neil basically ran Apple Corps up to the time of his death, including all of the successful Anthology projects, CD reissues, and related product tie-ins.

If there is anyone who was the "Fifth Beatle", it was Neil. Having him oversee Apple after the dust settled was a great move for the band, because Neil was essentially one of them, he was in the inner circle, yet had a business mind as well. The Beach Boys never had someone like Neil in that kind of position. And as it played out, in any negotiations or disputes regarding the use of the catalog minus the Michael Jackson debacle, the Beatles held the upper hand because the catalog was literally a Blue Chip stock that everyone knew would only grow in value. If an outsider was more involved like Neil, it could have been disastrous.

But...the element of looking out for the brand was a difficult journey to get to where it was at the time of Anthology and even the CD reissues in the late 80's.

Despite not as much being written about this aspect as perhaps could be, Brian Epstein did a world of good as the band's manager but he also made some reckless and even foolish deals that ended up costing the band literally millions in revenue, and also came close to cheapening the brand in the name of marketing and profit.

All of those product tie-ins, the Beatle wigs and Beatle soap and Beatle bric-a-brac that was in every five and dime store in 1964 was part of a really bad deal Brian made to sign away all of those things to various fast talkers and hustlers who were coming at him with deals and offers when the Beatles were everywhere in pop culture in '64. "Saeltab" was the company involved in this (Beatles spelled backwards), and Epstein signed deals where all those random junk peddlers scored most of the profit and signed away the band's ability to control what their names and images would appear on.

It was said that Epstein never recovered from this in the eyes of the band, who felt he let them down and lost a lot of control and money because he didn't weigh these deals carefully enough before signing, among other issues. They felt he dropped the ball and in some ways they held it against him until his death in '67.

Then, there were the issues of songwriting and publishing deals regarding Lennon and McCartney who again lost a fortune through some heavy-handed deals made by people like "Uncle" Dick James and the Lew Grade organization, who made a killing on the songs and ended up with exorbitantly more in their pockets than the Lennon-McCartney writing team. Again, the band members felt betrayed by these deals which were signed and ended up costing them millions down the road. More of the story that doesn't get reported or discussed as much...but John and Paul lost millions on these deals.

Factor in the Apple Corps debacle, and Apple in those first years was literally a financial free-for-all where the Beatles thought they had endless supplies of capital and income which they simply did not, and they ran a company which was throwing money out the window on a daily basis.

Then...factor in John and George (and Ringo by default) bringing in Allen Klein and Abkco to manage their affairs, in direct competition with Paul who wanted to bring in his new in-laws the Eastmans to do that job, and the two sides barely spoke to each other, which also led to the less than positive split. But Klein came in offering to audit the books and recoup back payments owed the band by various label interests, almost exactly what David Anderle and Nick Grillo did for Brian and the band over the Capitol royalties and unpaid amounts due the band when they took over management and were setting up what became BRI.

It was a mess, to put it simply. It should have collapsed by all rights, but Apple Corps again thanks to Neil Aspinall in large part, turned around and became a juggernaut that even Apple (the Steve Jobs Apple) could not push around, because that back catalog and legacy had so much demand and therefore industry clout. It had to be on The Beatles' terms or else it wasn't done. And credit to the estates including Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison for seeing that the decisions made were respectful and beneficial for that legacy when necessary.

Were there missteps? Yes. Mistakes? Yes. But nothing in the 70's and beyond compared to the mess that both Epstein and later the Apple Corps organization created through naive and outright bad business deals that could have torpedoed the band at any time.

The Beach Boys never had a figure like Neil Aspinall. Having a genuine friend if not the true "Fifth Beatle" overseeing these affairs was huge. Credit to whoever around the band managed to get the box sets and other rarities released, in spite of the issues that could have scuppered any of those deals.

But there seems to be nothing in the present day in terms of something or someone at BRI (or even BRI in general) who can put on the brakes on some of the less than positive things being done in the name of the legacy and the brand over the past 40 years or so.

And the Beatles really didn't have more people looking out for them and protecting the brand and legacy, but perhaps they had the right people, competent people, a better structure in a corporate sense, and a lot more clout to where the word "no" could be said with authority rather than having to come to a Kangaroo Court type of board vote that usually runs 2-2 for various reasons whenever something is tabled and parties seem to do whatever they want.

[KDS]

I agree 100% that The Beatles made questionable business decisions. 

I was referring to artistic missteps. 

Ie.  Imagine (no pun intended) The Beatles in the late 70s doing an 11 minute disco version of Getting Better.   Or a rap version of Love Me Do in the early 90s. 

[HeyJude]

I agree 100% that The Beatles made questionable business decisions.  

I was referring to artistic missteps.  

Ie.  Imagine (no pun intended) The Beatles in the late 70s doing an 11 minute disco version of Getting Better.   Or a rap version of Love Me Do in the early 90s.  

Not quite rap, but this is perilously close to "Here Comes the Night" territory (and in some ways arguably worse):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxilLKjWxhs

The move was potentially arguably as cynical as the decision to bow to (belated) disco trends with HCTN. In the case of "PS Love Me Do", those two tracks being the only two Beatles songs that McCartney's MPL owned the publishing to probably had something to do with the weird choice.

Of course, McCartney warbling through a new "Wonderful Christmastime" with Jimmy Fallon this year is pretty bad too.

[B.E.]

P.S. Love Me Do embarrasses me.

[SMiLE Brian]

Have fans like OSD....

[Debbie KL]

The Beatles were effectively over when they started working on "Get Back/Let It Be" in an old airplane hangar of a film set in the dead of winter. The fact they pulled it together for the rooftop speaks more to their professionalism as performers and musicians as it does the notions of the band. And the way they also pulled it together for Abbey Road, which they knew would be the last hurrah when they were making it, speaks to the same ideals.

They ended it when it had to end, and it just happened to coincide with the end of the 60's idealistically. The Apple rooftop final concert became an iconic image as well as a fitting send-off. There would never be and can never be the sad spectacle of McCartney or Ringo touring as "The Beatles" decades later with either remaining member fronting a band of backing musicians and "still tourin'" for whatever reasons they'd give.

There was no need for a touring license with The Beatles because it ended when it had to. They have that one over the Beach Boys by light years.

The Beatles also had more people who looked out for The Beatles brand than The Beach Boys.  Even had the Beatles stayed together into the 70s and behind, I doubt they'd have made nearly as many missteps. 

This could be a book-length discussion but I'll try to condense it just a bit, lol.

Credit in the 70's and beyond for protecting and increasing the value of the Beatles brand goes in large part to Neil Aspinall, their original road manager (and protector along with Mal Evans) going back to Liverpool pre-fame. Neil was an accountant by trade, and after the band split, Neil basically ran Apple Corps up to the time of his death, including all of the successful Anthology projects, CD reissues, and related product tie-ins.

If there is anyone who was the "Fifth Beatle", it was Neil. Having him oversee Apple after the dust settled was a great move for the band, because Neil was essentially one of them, he was in the inner circle, yet had a business mind as well. The Beach Boys never had someone like Neil in that kind of position. And as it played out, in any negotiations or disputes regarding the use of the catalog minus the Michael Jackson debacle, the Beatles held the upper hand because the catalog was literally a Blue Chip stock that everyone knew would only grow in value. If an outsider was more involved like Neil, it could have been disastrous.

But...the element of looking out for the brand was a difficult journey to get to where it was at the time of Anthology and even the CD reissues in the late 80's.

Despite not as much being written about this aspect as perhaps could be, Brian Epstein did a world of good as the band's manager but he also made some reckless and even foolish deals that ended up costing the band literally millions in revenue, and also came close to cheapening the brand in the name of marketing and profit.

All of those product tie-ins, the Beatle wigs and Beatle soap and Beatle bric-a-brac that was in every five and dime store in 1964 was part of a really bad deal Brian made to sign away all of those things to various fast talkers and hustlers who were coming at him with deals and offers when the Beatles were everywhere in pop culture in '64. "Saeltab" was the company involved in this (Beatles spelled backwards), and Epstein signed deals where all those random junk peddlers scored most of the profit and signed away the band's ability to control what their names and images would appear on.

It was said that Epstein never recovered from this in the eyes of the band, who felt he let them down and lost a lot of control and money because he didn't weigh these deals carefully enough before signing, among other issues. They felt he dropped the ball and in some ways they held it against him until his death in '67.

Then, there were the issues of songwriting and publishing deals regarding Lennon and McCartney who again lost a fortune through some heavy-handed deals made by people like "Uncle" Dick James and the Lew Grade organization, who made a killing on the songs and ended up with exorbitantly more in their pockets than the Lennon-McCartney writing team. Again, the band members felt betrayed by these deals which were signed and ended up costing them millions down the road. More of the story that doesn't get reported or discussed as much...but John and Paul lost millions on these deals.

Factor in the Apple Corps debacle, and Apple in those first years was literally a financial free-for-all where the Beatles thought they had endless supplies of capital and income which they simply did not, and they ran a company which was throwing money out the window on a daily basis.

Then...factor in John and George (and Ringo by default) bringing in Allen Klein and Abkco to manage their affairs, in direct competition with Paul who wanted to bring in his new in-laws the Eastmans to do that job, and the two sides barely spoke to each other, which also led to the less than positive split. But Klein came in offering to audit the books and recoup back payments owed the band by various label interests, almost exactly what David Anderle and Nick Grillo did for Brian and the band over the Capitol royalties and unpaid amounts due the band when they took over management and were setting up what became BRI.

It was a mess, to put it simply. It should have collapsed by all rights, but Apple Corps again thanks to Neil Aspinall in large part, turned around and became a juggernaut that even Apple (the Steve Jobs Apple) could not push around, because that back catalog and legacy had so much demand and therefore industry clout. It had to be on The Beatles' terms or else it wasn't done. And credit to the estates including Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison for seeing that the decisions made were respectful and beneficial for that legacy when necessary.

Were there missteps? Yes. Mistakes? Yes. But nothing in the 70's and beyond compared to the mess that both Epstein and later the Apple Corps organization created through naive and outright bad business deals that could have torpedoed the band at any time.

The Beach Boys never had a figure like Neil Aspinall. Having a genuine friend if not the true "Fifth Beatle" overseeing these affairs was huge. Credit to whoever around the band managed to get the box sets and other rarities released, in spite of the issues that could have scuppered any of those deals.

But there seems to be nothing in the present day in terms of something or someone at BRI (or even BRI in general) who can put on the brakes on some of the less than positive things being done in the name of the legacy and the brand over the past 40 years or so.

And the Beatles really didn't have more people looking out for them and protecting the brand and legacy, but perhaps they had the right people, competent people, a better structure in a corporate sense, and a lot more clout to where the word "no" could be said with authority rather than having to come to a Kangaroo Court type of board vote that usually runs 2-2 for various reasons whenever something is tabled and parties seem to do whatever they want.

"...the right people, competent people..." - so true.  If only re:  The BBs - someone to say "no" to stupid stuff, someone to actually care about the art and the artists.  I think there was the occasional good guy (Jerry Schilling?), but something always fell through the cracks, or was blocked by the wrong people, or blocking of Brian (and Dennis) getting the proper medical care for so long.  Hollywood arrogance played a role in many cases, I fear - Just plain stupid decisions in the end.

[KDS]

I agree 100% that The Beatles made questionable business decisions.  

I was referring to artistic missteps.  

Ie.  Imagine (no pun intended) The Beatles in the late 70s doing an 11 minute disco version of Getting Better.   Or a rap version of Love Me Do in the early 90s.  

Not quite rap, but this is perilously close to "Here Comes the Night" territory (and in some ways arguably worse):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxilLKjWxhs

The move was potentially arguably as cynical as the decision to bow to (belated) disco trends with HCTN. In the case of "PS Love Me Do", those two tracks being the only two Beatles songs that McCartney's MPL owned the publishing to probably had something to do with the weird choice.

Of course, McCartney warbling through a new "Wonderful Christmastime" with Jimmy Fallon this year is pretty bad too.

Seems like Paul redoes Wonderful Christmastime every few years or so.   

[Plantplant]

The Beach Boys from 1966-1967 imo had superior production, and their music also has a "spiritual" quality that i haven't experienced with The Beatles music personally.
The Beatles were stronger from a LYRICAL standpoint. Also as a unit they had stronger musician ship.
At the end of it all though, The Beach Boys had Brian Wilson  which I think kind of ends the conversation.

[Plantplant]

The Beatles never made albums on the same level as Pet Sounds, the SMiLE Sessions, or even Smiley Smile. I'm not bias toward the Beach Boys! Revolver, Rubber Soul, and The White Album are absolutely wonderful, So is their pre Rubber Soul material. If I'm being honest....I Prefer The Beatles boy-band stuff than the Beach Boys surf songs.....

[Debbie KL]

Another great conversation.  I love Craig's expertise and everyone's knowledge about the subject.  I kind of feel ridiculous comparing the bands, in that they each had such a crucial role in many of our lives and brought us such happiness.  Obviously, I'm a BW fan above all, but the Beatles as a band and individual artists always make me smile, as did the BBs as a band and as individuals (well, mostly - loved Denny's stuff and Carl did some beautiful work - then there's Al's earthiness and voice - wonderful).  I also thought Bruce was a talented songwriter in a genre that didn't really interest me.  I wonder how much happier he'd have been if he pursued that?  Mike, well...I guess he's happy doing what he's doing.

We're lucky to have enjoyed their absolute brilliance for so long.  I'm grateful.  Even some of the mis-steps had their brilliance.  I'm happy for all of us.