beach boys can be considered better than beatles?

[muchacho_playero]

This is a question for the truly fans and old guys. Was there a point in the career of the beach boys in which it was considered better than the Beatles?
 
I dont know what happends in usa, bu i think they do not have the recognition they deserve around the world

the Beatles were very powerful commercial apparatus, which despite their music, the perpetual top of the world. the beach boys in my opinion were more a crazy band.

equally to every place I go I try to meet the beach boys

on my list, they are the first and best

[Andrew G. Doe]

This is a question for the truly fans and old guys. Was there a point in the career of the beach boys in which it was considered better than the Beatles?
 
I dont know what happends in usa, bu i think they do not have the recognition they deserve around the world

the Beatles were very powerful commercial apparatus, which despite their music, the perpetual top of the world. the beach boys in my opinion were more a crazy band.

equally to every place I go I try to meet the beach boys

on my list, they are the first and best

Yup - 1966 NME readers poll: they edged The Beatles as the Top World group, 5,373 votes to 5,272.

[muchacho_playero]

This is a question for the truly fans and old guys. Was there a point in the career of the beach boys in which it was considered better than the Beatles?
 
I dont know what happends in usa, bu i think they do not have the recognition they deserve around the world

the Beatles were very powerful commercial apparatus, which despite their music, the perpetual top of the world. the beach boys in my opinion were more a crazy band.

equally to every place I go I try to meet the beach boys

on my list, they are the first and best

Yup - 1966 NME readers poll: they edged The Beatles as the Top World group, 5,373 votes to 5,272.

an in your personal opinion?

[Andrew G. Doe]

No contest. 

[runnersdialzero]

The Beatles are recognized for their better material. The Beach Boys are not, sadly.

Dennis put it best:

"Because of the attitude of a few mental dinosaurs intent on exploiting our initial success, Brian's huge talent has never been fully appreciated in America and the potential of the group has been stifled.... If the Beatles had suffered this kind of misrepresentation, they would have never got past singing 'Please Please Me' and 'I Wanna Hold Your Hand' and leaping around in Beatle suits."

That was in 1970, too - things have gotten much, much worse since then.

I really do think the Beach Boys are criminally underrated and yes, better than the Beatles (whom I also like).

[Sheriff John Stone]

Ooh, way to open up a can of worms for the weekend. This is just one man's opinion....

Brian Wilson WAS as talented as any of The Beatles.

Between 1964-1966, The Beach Boys were pretty close to, or as good as, The Beatles. After 1966, I don't think it was even close.

That 1966 NME poll was just one poll. A good one, but just one.

Fans point to the Beach Boys' vocals as their strength, the one thing that might be better than the Beatles. However, the Beatles were great, great singers in their own right, and, if the Beach Boys were "better", it was only slightly.

The Beatles were consistently more excellent. From beginning to end, their albums were great; IMHO they never had a less than great album. They didn't have the "lows" that some of the Beach Boys albums had.

[Nicole]

I guess just because I like the Beach Boys more, I'll say that they were better then the Beatles. But I really don't know nearly as much about the Beatles as I do the Beach Boys, so just judging from the music I hear, I prefer the Beach Boys and think a lot of their music is superior to what the Beatles did. I do really like the Beatles, though.

How many times did I just say "Beach Boys" and "Beatles?" Gosh.

If I were to ask this question to any of my friends and then respond with how I like the BBs more, I don't think I'd ever hear the end of it...it seems like for my age group, liking the Beatles is just the cool thing to do. I appreciate the music and that's what I like them for, not the legendary status they've achieved.

[donald]

The Beatles had 3 good songwriters.    Two of them worked together as a team for close to 10 years honing their craft and growing as writers...together and apart.  Brian worked with different lyrical specialists over the years...Mike, Roger, Gary, Tony,Van Dyke, and others to flesh out his musical vision/s.

Different paths leading to different ends.

And the Beatles started the whole hair thing so they were ready to move into the hippie genre when that hit...after all, they had INVENTED hair! 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

All I can say is that while I recognize the Beatles greatness fully, the reason I will always consider the Beach Boys  superior, is because The Beatles have simply never touched me as deeply as The Beach Boys have. Simple as that. Even at their "worst" The Beach Boys still touch me in a way that no other band has.

 I can articulate how The Beatles might be the greatest band of all-time, buit its mostly and intellectual deal rather than an emotional one. I simply KNOW the Beach Boys are better. No explanation is necessary or will do.

I usually get around this maddening argument by saying "Sure, the Beatles are the best band, therefore, The Beach Boys are the best vocal group"

[buddhahat]

buit its mostly and intellectual deal rather than an emotional one.

This is exactly how I think of it - the Beatles are more intellectual, more knowing, and the Beach Boys are a more emotional experience. There is deepness and an emotional honesty on PS that seems very American. It has an expansiveness to it that also feels uniquely American. Like you get a sense of the scale of the country in Brian's sweeping orchestration. I think us Brits are scared of being too sincere and so with The Beatles, a lot of it is tongue in cheek, and also seems to be on a more modest, local scale e.g. Penny Lane.

For my money Brian Wilson has more mystique, and The Beach Boys music is generally more emtionally satisfying i.e. it hits me on a deeper level. But the story of the Beatles is far more satisfying, and ultimately The beatles were the perfect band, so I find the albums more satisfying in that they feel complete and almost flawless, whereas a lot of The Beach Boys has a kind of bittersweet thing going on for me as there are so many what ifs.

[muchacho_playero]

when i started to listen to the beach boys my friends became to call me gay.

this is a demostration of mental disorder and how jerks and closed minded people can be

be beatles fan is like to be  Real madrid, Barcelona, Manchester United in soccer: ferrari and Mc Claren in races, LA Lakers in basketball

be beach boys fan is like to be Charlotte in basket, Minardi in F1 or a egyptian soccer team

i try to say its easy to be beatles fan cause they are well-know

at live performances, the beatles shouted the songs, just see japan 66

the beatles are great cause they separate in 1970
what happened if beach boys separate after a false smile relesead or in 1970?
nobody can say whats up with the fab four in 1985

[punkinhead]

as one individual pointed out to me once, cant remember who it was...they said: "Brian was one person and did the same amount of work, if not more than Lennon/McCartney."

Also, I loved that speech George Martin gave at the BW Tribute, talking about how Brian was one individual who had a hand in every aspect of the band as each beatle has in their band, in terms of production, writing, performing, etc.

[Zander]

I can't understand the need to determine who was better? I love both bands.

One poll in 1966 (which they won by around 100 votes or whatever) doesn't really mean much now and probably didn't make front page news then. I'm sure by general consensus that Joe Public would've disagreed with that in that year's poll.

Sheriff John Stone pretty much hit the nail on the head in his post.
 

[nobody]

I think of the Beatles as a religion. Or something of huge cultural impact and importance. The four Beatles are like four saints. In the same way people of the past kept the memory of their saints alive, so we keep the memory of the Beatles alive. John Lennon's memorial thing in New York is like a place of religious pilgrimage. They exist on a sort of mythic level. We listen to them speaking and nod our heads with dreamy eyes. Yoko is the new Judas to the modern mind. The Beach Boys have and never had anything close to this impact and significance. There's no one person in the Beach Boys as interesting and media friendly as any of the Beatles. Despite being the creative heart of the group, Brian is generally regarded as an acid case or just plain nuts, and the only media attention he ever seemed to gain in the first place was the mystique around him staying home while the band toured and the new sounds he was expected to release. He didn't and doesn't have the personality to be a worldwide religious icon of a figure like any of the Beatles. And the rest of the Beach Boys never had anything interesting to say, or were dry personalities. They didn't have what was needed to become individually recognized public figures. Everyone knows that Beatles = John, Paul, George, Ringo. Everyone knows that Beach Boys = Umm, the Wilson brothers ... Mike, what was his last name? Loaf? Load?

We might personally think that the Beach Boys made better music but that doesn't mean it was of more significance to the culture. What were the Beach Boys doing when the Beatles did that rooftop concert thing? Probably sitting around recording "Take Good Care Of Your Feet" or something. The Beach Boys will be remembered always and forever until our collective history is wiped or lost as a great pop group from the 1960s - an important time in America - but one of many great pop and rock groups. The Beatles will forever take the title as the main players, even if people prefer other groups over them on the whole. Many of the Beach Boys' songs will live on for a very long time and will continue to inspire and move people, but the amount of people who will be inspired and moved by the Beatles is far greater. Consider John Lennon's first few solo albums. He was such a huge figure that he COULD write personal songs and still sell it to millions because his life was followed with great interest. If Brian had released a solo album of personal songs, who would have cared at large? Brian Wilson, the guy from the Beach Boys, new solo album. C'mon, it means nothing compared to a Lennon solo album. McCartney can release some fairly shitty albums and they still get more public recognition than any non-Brian Beach Boy would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever get had they released a solo album. How many people know of Pacific Ocean Blue? How many people know of McCartney's RAM or self-titled? Hmm...

In the end I think it's all down to the immediate image. Most kids under 10 would recognize the individual faces of the Beatles and be able to name them and perhaps even sing some of their songs. Show the same kids a picture of Al Jardine. Hell, show they a picture of Brian. You'll get nothing. A blank stare and perhaps some mindless drooling. Maybe, maybe if you show a group photo of the guys in their striped shirts the kids might recognize who they are, but it's a big maybe. The Beach Boys are a thing of the past to most people now, and the fact that they have various touring groups playing their oldies only adds to this public opinion of them. The Beatles image is arguably as fresh as it was when they stormed the world, especially with that video game being released now. That's set them up for decades of constant public interest.

In short, the only people who will ever consider the Beach Boys as "better" than the Beatles are us fans who are blinded by our emotional attachment to the music and story of the Beach Boys, who fail to see the reality of the situation. Personally I think Pet Sounds is better than anything the Beatles ever did and better than their solo albums combined. Personally I think that not only did Pet Sounds make Rubber Soul seem like kids stuff, but it is also a much greater album than Revolver and Sgt. Pepper. Personally I think that Surf's Up the song is so far beyond what any Beatle could ever conceive in their wildest dreams. And so on. I think those things but it doesn't make the Beach Boys a better band than the Beatles, especially not as far as popular opinion is concerned. Play "Good Vibrations" for a random person and then "Strawberry Fields Forever". They'll hear GV as goofy fun in the sun type stuff and SFF as heady and psychedelic. It doesn't have the same impact except on musicians. Even then, only some.

[MBE]

All I can say is that while I recognize the Beatles greatness fully, the reason I will always consider the Beach Boys superior, is because The Beatles have simply never touched me as deeply as The Beach Boys have. Simple as that.

I couldn't have said it better. I kind of disagree that after 1966 there was no competition from a musical standpoint. I just don't like the later Beatles as much as the post Smile pre Surf's Up Beach Boys. I totally separate their place in the public consciousness at the time and just listen to the music. I can readily say that I like Wild Honey, and Sunflower better then any Beatles album, and I would play 20/20 or Friends over Pepper anyday.  I think the Beatles early stuff was unselfconsciously good and later on they thought about things a little too much. Not that I don't like nearly their later stuff, but I feel they had better quality control early on. True  here was more filler on Beach Boys albums on the whole, but I think their are higher highs for me with the Beach Boys.  

The Beatles were more marketable, they had more personal charisma, but I can relate to the Beach Boys more as a middle class white guy who grew up in the suburbs. The Beach Boys story is convoluted, the Beatles one is neat and tidy, still song by song I like the Beach Boys more.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

All I can say is that while I recognize the Beatles greatness fully, the reason I will always consider the Beach Boys superior, is because The Beatles have simply never touched me as deeply as The Beach Boys have. Simple as that.

I couldn't have said it better. I kind of disagree that after 1966 there was no competition from a musical standpoint. I just don't like the later Beatles as much as the post Smile pre Surf's Up Beach Boys. I totally separate their place in the public consciousness at the time and just listen to the music. I can readily say that I like Wild Honey, and Sunflower better then any Beatles album, and I would play 20/20 or Friends over Pepper anyday.  I think the Beatles early stuff was unselfconsciously good and later on they thought about things a little too much. Not that I don't like nearly their later stuff, but I feel they had better quality control early on. True  here was more filler on Beach Boys albums on the whole, but I think their are higher highs for me with the Beach Boys. 

The Beatles were more marketable, they had more personal charisma, but I can relate to the Beach Boys more as a middle class white guy who grew up in the suburbs. The Beach Boys story is convoluted, the Beatles one is neat and tidy, still song by song I like the Beach Boys more.

I actually see it the opposite.  I don't care for early Beatles. The first album I like is Rubber Soul. I thought they started to lose their magic in the white album. But revived themselves with Abby Road. I really enjoy the early BBs and 66-73 even more. Although 20/20 was sort of their white album. Lots of good songs but no unity.

It is also frustrating as a BB fan to find so many gems that were never put on an album. They could have easily taken the place of all the covers they did. Not to mention Dennis pulling his songs from Surfs Up. However, I don't judge BB history on the released albums alone. All the lost songs (Smile, etc) is what adds so much more for me.

[nobody]

However, I don't judge BB history on the released albums alone. All the lost songs (Smile, etc) is what adds so much more for me.

agreed. all part of the fun.

[Mr. Wilson]

I consider The Beatles the greatest rock band of all time + live before the screaming way better live..Than the BB..That said..BW BB music touched me on a personal level + to quote BW..The music seems to fit the way i live better..{BW on Friends }..To Quote VD Parks: The Beatles were to trans continental for me..!..Enough said.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Good points everyone!!!!

I do disagree however, that the Beatles were four deeply shaded fascinating people whereas the individual Beach Boys weren't. I mean, I understand this is how they were publicly perceived. But the Beach Boys were deeply complex and merda'd up people, as we now know, therefore very very fascinating.

Dennis was absolutely right about misrepresentation wrecking havoc on the Beach Boys image. And it still persists to this day.

[nobody]

Good points everyone!!!!

I do disagree however, that the Beatles were four deeply shaded fascinating people whereas the individual Beach Boys weren't. I mean, I understand this is how they were publicly perceived. But the Beach Boys were deeply complex and merda'd up people, as we now know, therefore very very fascinating.

Dennis was absolutely right about misrepresentation wrecking havoc on the Beach Boys image. And it still persists to this day.

Their complexities and f***ed up-ness was behind the scenes though. That was my point. To the public their image was squeaky clean and pretty boring. Also agree re what Dennis said. Also, the name The Beach Boys, although I love it, doesn't help.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Also, the name The Beach Boys, although I love it, doesn't help.

The Beach Boys had a lot working against them - not at THAT time - but in the ultimate comparison with other "serious" groups of the 60's. Yeah, the name definately didn't/doesn't help, as well as the striped shirts, the lyrics, the album covers, the promotion, and, to a small extent, their interviews around that time. Compare the Beatles interviews, which were so clever and downright funny, to the Beach Boys' which were, "Gee, thanks a lot...." Not knocking them, just trying to note differences.

[the captain]

Let's not forget sex appeal. By many people's standards, the Beatles were at least 3/4 very attractive. The Beach Boys weren't in that league.

[nobody]

the album covers

How do you feel about Pet Sounds' cover? I've never felt that it clashed with the music for some reason. Mainly, I like the colors. When I think of Pet Sounds or any of the songs from it that image inevitably comes to mind in a positive way for me. Has anyone ever played around with making an alternate cover for it? I'd be interested in seeing that.

[Sheriff John Stone]

the album covers

How do you feel about Pet Sounds' cover? I've never felt that it clashed with the music for some reason. Mainly, I like the colors. When I think of Pet Sounds or any of the songs from it that image inevitably comes to mind in a positive way for me. Has anyone ever played around with making an alternate cover for it? I'd be interested in seeing that.

Just to tie into another thread that's goin' on right now....If I'd have been around when Pet Sounds was released in 1966, I probably would NOT have liked it. I would've been confused, not been comfortable with the Beach Boys wearing coats(!), dismissed the Japanese stuff on the back, and asked myself, "Are the goats supposed to be pets? Goats?"

Now, of course, after 45 years, it's a classic. Well, at least it's accepted. I might be in the minority, not exactly understanding the real relationship of Bruce (within the band), but I'm a little surprised, just a little, that Bruce was left off some of those mid-60's album covers.

[Dancing Bear]

The Beatles played on their records. The Beach Bosy didn't. So, the Beatles are better.

Just kidding to show how a certain line of arguments is ridiculous.

As for me, I think the Beatles have the better output.