beach boys can be considered better than beatles?

[Andrew G. Doe]

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.

This is just my own opinion, but... complete nonsense. The Beatles as singers were never in the same universe as The BB. Listen carefully to "Here, There & Everywhere", always cited as their successful attempt at doing BB style harmonies. The pitch wanders, the notes flutter - it's not very impressive. I'd hate to hear those vocals in isolation. "Because" is pretty good... but that was, like five six years later.

The Beatles' vocals were generally pleasant. The Beach Boys' vocals were usually stellar. Two words:

Good. Vibrations.

[sleeptalk]

the guy who wrote the 33 1/3 book on Pet Sounds made a pretty good point about this: the beach boys continued on far past their expiration date and were defecating on their legacy as late as the late '80s ("kokomo"), even the early '90s (stamos "forever"). hell, mike is STILL touring around with "the beach boys" doing the oldies act.

and yet, the beatles quit touring long before their end as a band, and knew to quit playing together when it started going to sh*t. hence, the only place anyone's been able to see the beatles play for the past 40+ years is in their minds — where they are, of course, excellent. if the beach boys had completed Smile and broke up right after that, maybe the world wouldn't be so monotheistic in their '60s band worship...

[shelter]

Ah, this is one of those discussions that prove that the statement "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" is probably true.

You can talk for days about why a certain song is brilliant, why a certain album is the best ever or why one band is better than the other, but in the end it all comes down to someone's personal taste and taste can't be explained. You could write a 200 page essay about why song A is better than song B and someone else could say that song B is better because it simply sounds better to his ears, and he's just as "right" as you are. Ever tried to explain to someone why you like orange juice better than apple juice? You just do (or don't) and it's kind of pointless to explain why.

To me, The Beach Boys are simply better than The Beatles because when I go through my cd collection to pick out a cd to put on, it ends up being a BB cd way more often than a Beatles cd.

[Andrew G. Doe]

The Beatles quit touring for two reasons: one, they were bored... and two, they could no longer perform live what they were recording in the studio.  I'm guessing the drugs didn't help, either. 

[phirnis]

I hardly ever listen to any Beatles music at all. Sgt. Pepper is the only record of theirs I have, though I have heard most of their original albums.
I'd take the M.I.U. Album over Abbey Road any day, can't help it. (For whatever reason, though, I have kind of a soft spot for "McCartney II", which I consider one of my very favourite eighties pop records. Maybe it reminds me of The Beach Boys Love You.)

Besides, I don't think the BB "were defecating on their legacy" by recording a song as pleasant as "Kokomo". Throughout their career they made an awful lot of dreadful mistakes, but that song sure wasn't one of them.

[Nicko1234]

the guy who wrote the 33 1/3 book on Pet Sounds made a pretty good point about this: the beach boys continued on far past their expiration date and were defecating on their legacy as late as the late '80s ("kokomo"), even the early '90s (stamos "forever"). hell, mike is STILL touring around with "the beach boys" doing the oldies act.

Kokomo? Is it really considered to be that much worse than Real Love?

The truth is that The BBs may have come ahead of The Beatles in one poll in 1966 but in almost every other poll they probably came a long way second (or lower). The Beatles have always been more successful and popular and always will be. Their experimental stuff was pretty much immediately embraced whereas Pet Sounds wasn`t a big success. Plus The Beatles continued to release successful albums for a lot longer whereas Brian `s mental problems and drug use effectively forced him to give up...

[Smilin Ed H]

The Beatles were saints?! You've got to be joking 
Is anybody a saint in that business?

[Sheriff John Stone]

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.

This is just my own opinion, but... complete nonsense. The Beatles as singers were never in the same universe as The BB.

Complete nonsense? Never in the same universe? Aren't those words a little strong? This is one I'd like to see taken to a poll. John Lennon and especially Paul McCartney, and to a lesser extent George Harrison in the later years, were every bit as good, if not better vocalists than any combination of Beach Boys you put together. But that's just my own opinion.....

[TdHabib]

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.

This is just my own opinion, but... complete nonsense. The Beatles as singers were never in the same universe as The BB. Listen carefully to "Here, There & Everywhere", always cited as their successful attempt at doing BB style harmonies. The pitch wanders, the notes flutter - it's not very impressive. I'd hate to hear those vocals in isolation. "Because" is pretty good... but that was, like five six years later.

The Beatles' vocals were generally pleasant. The Beach Boys' vocals were usually stellar. Two words:

Good. Vibrations.

I have to respectfully disagree, but you are definitely onto something. Yes, on the surface the Beatles harmonies weren't as impressive as the Beatles, but that has as much to do with the way the harmonies were recorded as it does their voices. I think Paul was as good a singer as any BB in his prime. But getting back to the way they were recorded, John was terribly insecure about his own singing voice (which was terrific, but perhaps a 'trained' voice), and so his voice was always messed about in some way--double tracked, EQ, tons of echo, flanging etc. Also with simple harmonies John (usually a lower part than Paul) always double tracked and Paul usually stuck with one track. This leads to a cool yet different sound.

But as Black Francis said so well "nobody owns to pleasure of tones."

[TdHabib]

And just one more addendum, there's a difference between great TECHNICAL singing and emotional singing...the middle eight to "This Boy," John's is simply superb. Yes the harmonies may be a bit sketchy (but bear in mind Brian Carl Dennis and Mike had the advantage of being closely related thus similar voices), but I think a ton of people have been moved by the middle eight of "This Boy."

[Mr. Wilson]

Yea..When John Lennon sings/screams..CRY..!      OOPS..Goosebumps.!

[The infamous Baldwin Organ]

My personal opinion, but the Beach Boys were better than the Beatles the moment they dared to perform Good Vibrations on stage.

The Beatles also had records with arrangements that elaborate, but they never tried them on stage.

As a musician and music fan, I admire the Beach Boys for that.

[Sheriff John Stone]

My personal opinion, but the Beach Boys were better than the Beatles the moment they dared to perform Good Vibrations on stage.

The Beatles also had records with arrangements that elaborate, but they never tried them on stage.

Dared? Did the Beach Boys have a choice NOT to perform their biggest hit? I'm not a musician, but is "Good Vibrations" difficult to perform live?

Did you ever hear the Beatles perform "Paperback Writer"?

[Dancing Bear]

I think AGD meant 'group singing', not lead singing. As lead vocals go, The Beatles were as good or better than the Beach Boys, though I'd vote for a tie.

[grillo]

My personal opinion, but the Beach Boys were better than the Beatles the moment they dared to perform Good Vibrations on stage.

The Beatles also had records with arrangements that elaborate, but they never tried them on stage.

Dared? Did the Beach Boys have a choice NOT to perform their biggest hit? I'm not a musician, but is "Good Vibrations" difficult to perform live?

Did you ever hear the Beatles perform "Paperback Writer"?

Not even close as far as difficulty goes. GV is a complex, subtle and dynamic song with lots of things appearing and disappearing instrumentally, PW is just a four or five piece combo and way easier to play live.

[the captain]

Part of the difference in group singing could also be attributed to the parts they were singing. The Beach Boys and Beatles came from different traditions to a certain extent. Obviously there was plenty of overlap, but the bigger harmonies the Beach Boys brought just weren't something the Beatles grew out of. Their harmonies, especially early on, tended to be either simple counterpoints or lead + backgrounds, like a blues or doo-wop basis. The Beach Boys, as you may have heard, were bringing in something that hadn't been a part of pop/rock much in the past, which was the jazz-influenced harmonies. They also had more singers to accomplish that goal, often five or six as opposed to three.

[Dave in KC]

What did Hendrix say.."The Beach Boys are like a barbershop quartet on acid." I grew up in a barbershop singing family with my Dad singing lead and his quartet practicing in our basement for years. So you take somebody like me who was listening to that, and of course barbershop records and shows, starting at age 6 and by the time I was 14 The Beach Boys made the scene. Well it seemed a natural for me. This was going to be my group. The Beatles a far second, at that time. Over the years, I have realized The Beatles harmonies, although basic, were also present. But only after they copied The Beach Boys. By the time 20/20 came out, my Dad finally started to pay attention to this rock and roll barbershop sound I was forcing on him. Want a pure example of true barbershop quartet singing by The Beach Boys? Play the opening to School Days. God bless the Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barber Shop Quartet Singing in America. SPEBSQSA. You trained me to appreciate a facet of my favorite group's work much more than regular fans.

[Andrew G. Doe]

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.

This is just my own opinion, but... complete nonsense. The Beatles as singers were never in the same universe as The BB.

Complete nonsense? Never in the same universe? Aren't those words a little strong? This is one I'd like to see taken to a poll. John Lennon and especially Paul McCartney, and to a lesser extent George Harrison in the later years, were every bit as good, if not better vocalists than any combination of Beach Boys you put together. But that's just my own opinion.....

An opinion I feel very few unbiased observers will share. 

[buddhahat]

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.

This is just my own opinion, but... complete nonsense. The Beatles as singers were never in the same universe as The BB.

Complete nonsense? Never in the same universe? Aren't those words a little strong? This is one I'd like to see taken to a poll. John Lennon and especially Paul McCartney, and to a lesser extent George Harrison in the later years, were every bit as good, if not better vocalists than any combination of Beach Boys you put together. But that's just my own opinion.....

An opinion I feel very few unbiased observers will share. 

I think this is a personal taste thing. The Beatles voices are more distinguishable from one another and I would argue, individually they have more personality than the BB voices. The BB voices are more about the blend - more like one voice really. If we're talking about solo vocals I'd take The Beatles any day, but if we're talking blend, then definitely Beach Boys.

[HighOnLife]

I dunno. I think Brian at his peak could sing as well as either John or Paul.

Carl wasn't too shabby either.

[Dave in KC]

Well Paul could scream-sing better than any of them, that's for sure.
ML has the best hum though.

[nobody]

The only Beach Boy whose voice came closest to the biting tone that John had was, surprisingly, Al. That voice John had was very important for the overall sound, IMO. Well, the interplay between John's snarling tone and Paul's smoother, friendlier style. Al should've got more leads, I always feel like he feels that he's just a background member of the band.

I hear Paul trying to capture a Brian sound a lot, during the years he was most influenced by him. You can tell that Paul went through a big Brian phase. But it goes both ways really. Brian could do what Paul couldn't do. Paul could do what Brian couldn't do. One thing is for sure, Paul's voice has never been as badly awesome as Brian's gruff voice from the 70s onwards. These days Paul's voice is much, much stronger than Brian's but he also looks a lot more active and energetic than Brian, who seems more like a 'nod off in reclining chair' type of guy to me, lol.

[Mr. Wilson]

One thing both groups had in common was: When they covered a song they both made it their own..Until 1976 i dont think BB ever madfe a bad cover. in most cases they do it better than original version..Do You wanna Dance..Hushabye.. Hearts full of spring..Cotton  Fields.......Twist + Shout ..Mr Postman..Till there was you....See what i mean.?..The snarl in John"s voice on Twist + Shout is one of the greatest moments in rock history...

[runnersdialzero]

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.

That'd be because The Beatles broke up after ten years. If their solo outputs are anything to gauge what they'd be like had they continued, then things would have been about the same.

[runnersdialzero]

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.

I don't agree with any of this, really.

Being more popular or well known doesn't make one better over another. That's pretty much my response to everything you said - you're trying to use the argument of The Beatles being more well known as to why they're better, can't say I agree.

And...

"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"

How is that? Can't we just think their music is genuinely better? I know I certainly do - that's why I got much more into one band than the other