do you ever go back and forth.....or not

[halblaineisgood]

.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

You can't go wrong with any of these bands as the best pop group ever: Beach Boys, Beatles, The Who, Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin, Chicago, U2, REM or Radiohead.

In my humblest of opinions.

I suppose that the biggest problem with the BBs is the inconsistancy. I mean, how could the same band do Pet Sounds and 15 Big Ones?

[MBE]

True but how could John Lennon do the godawful Sometime In New York City and  then the great Walls and Bridges? Every great group releases bombs.
I never vary from these 13 artists who stand about the rest to me. There are a couple dozen more who I think are terrific and about 100 artists altogether who I respect enough to buy some of their stuff. Still these remain the best. The Beach Boys and Elvis stand a little above anyone else.

My favorite groups
Beach Boys, First Edition, Who, Stones, Beatles, Jackson Five, Small Faces.

Fave duos
Jan and Dean, Ike and Tina

Fave solo acts
Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Dylan, James Brown

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I'll be honest...I've never seen what the big deal with the Beatles is. Maybe it's because I was born in 1978, and missed them when they were fresh, but I just don't see what's so f*cking great. I think though, too, that a lot of my feeling is colored by the fact that everyone acclaims them as the best, and I just don't think they were.

[MBE]

I mean the Beatles are my all time tops either but still among my very faves. I think they had charisma as people that many other groups lacked which put them over. I cannot say I don't like them, they were terrific, but they aren't THE only group who was great at the time. One other thought, they broke up in time. I think had the Beach Boys broken up in 1973 they may be regarded quite a bit higher then they are.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I cannot say I don't like them, they were terrific, but they aren't THE only group who was great at the time.

Yet hear historians tell it...the Beatles were it. Period. Nobody better. I just don't buy that. IF you take the cultural shift they brought it away and just concentrate on the music, the earlier stuff is nothing special. Not bad mind you,in fact pretty good, but again...nothing better than what Brian was doing at the same time. Plus, George Martin deserves even more credit than what he has been given (and he's been given a lot). If they had a different producer, say, Mickie Most (), it never would've worked out like it ended up.

Also...I never thought their lyrics were that great.

[MBE]

Martin was good at focussing the group, but his other pop records of the era (the Action) were only good nothing really special. Most did a lot of crap records but he got a good sound with the Animals. I think you have to have a good person at helm, but the talent has to be there too.  Besides only garbage mags like Rolling Stone degrade other groups compared to the Beatles.  As another Beatles fan told me (who didn't like when they again became trendy), many folks just like what is popular without really thinking about it.

[the captain]

I think the Beatles were the best, and most consistently great for a band with such a large catalog. The BBs highs matched or even exceeded the Beatles highs, but oh god, those lows...pretty rancid sometimes.

I also put the Velvet Underground and Bob Dylan as rounding out my top four, with VU being consistently great and Dylan more in the BBs camp of having turned in a lot of garbage over the years. Fact is, work long enough and your output is sure to be a mixed bag.

If I had to turn my top 4 into a top 5, I'd go with Tom Waits, for some of the most creative lyrics and beautiful (not to mention ugly, haunting or anything else) arrangements.

[shelter]

Even though I'm a huge Beatles fan, I think that the Beach Boys at their height were better than the Beatles. But the Beatles were clever enough to quit before they could get bad. I think the Beach Boys would have a MUCH better reputation now if they would've quit in 1970 too.

[Jon Stebbins]

I grew up loving both the Beatles and the Beach Boys.  The BB's take a higher musical IQ to perceive  the spectrum of their greatness. People who "like" them but don't take them seriously as important music miss something huge, but I'm happy they still enjoy the fun aspect. The Beatles are more accessible and certainly had waaaay better quality control. Their very best stuff rivals The Beach Boys very best stuff, but isn't quite as inventive or complex. Example: A Day In The Life is incredible, but Surfs Up is beyond it. No doubt. The five greatest BB's songs are greater than the five greatest Beatles songs...but probably about 80% of what the Beatles released is wonderful...The Beach Boys are probably around 30% - 40% good IMO.

But no other pop act compares to The Beatles in total importance. They were so much bigger than anybody else in our lifetime, and better in almost every way. They absolutely changed everything in western culture. I've always felt sorry for people who don't like The Beatles because they feel the urge to be contrary because everyone else loves The Beatles. The whole overrated tag usually comes from people who don't have the context part of the equation to draw on. If you grew up thinking Kiss, or The Clash,  or  Radiohead, or (fill in the blank) were important  they all were, but they were ants at the Beatles picnic in comparison. I had a friend down the street like that, he always told me The Beatles weren't that great, and he was into CSN and Cat Stevens and Elton John, and ummm...Al Stewart. Anyway, I kept pointing out that most of his heroes were seriously derivative of the Beatles and that without them would be in a different place. he didn't buy that. Its like saying you dig the Beatles but Chuck Berry had no importance and was overrated.  Doesn't compute. Anyway, i always felt sorry for my friend because he missed out on something so beautiful. He also thought the BB's were lightweight and silly.  I got him high one time and played Mrs. O Leary's Cow from my first Smile bootleg in '81...he thought it was trippy and evil sounding. When i told him it was The Beach Boys he was shocked. When I told him it was recorded in 1966 he nearly messed his pants. You can do that to people who underestimate the Beach Boys, its easy. Its harder with The Beatles because everybody has heard everything. But to anyone who thinks The Beatles aren't so good, I feel bad for you. They were one of the sweetest gifts of our lifetime.

[Mahalo]

I grew up loving both the Beatles and the Beach Boys.  The BB's take a higher musical IQ to perceive  the spectrum of their greatness. People who "like" them but don't take them seriously as important music miss something huge, but I'm happy they still enjoy the fun aspect. The Beatles are more accessible and certainly had waaaay better quality control. Their very best stuff rivals The Beach Boys very best stuff, but isn't quite as inventive or complex. Example: A Day In The Life is incredible, but Surfs Up is beyond it. No doubt. The five greatest BB's songs are greater than the five greatest Beatles songs...but probably about 80% of what the Beatles released is wonderful...The Beach Boys are probably around 30% - 40% good IMO.

 Anyway, i always felt sorry for my friend because he missed out on something so beautiful. He also thought the BB's were lightweight and silly.  I got him high one time and played Mrs. O Leary's Cow from my first Smile bootleg in '81...he thought it was trippy and evil sounding. When i told him it was The Beach Boys he was shocked. When I told him it was recorded in 1966 he nearly messed his pants. You can do that to people who underestimate the Beach Boys, its easy. Its harder with The Beatles because everybody has heard everything.

Agreed 110% . I've been saying the Beach Boys best is better than the Beatles best, but the Beach Boys worse is lower than the Beatles worse. I have also had the opportunity to play unheard Beach Boys tracks to friends and afterwards they are speechless as their foots are usually in their mouth.

I grew up on the Beatles. When in Junior High in the early 90's here in NY everybody was grooving on the grunge scene or gangsta rap scene...but I was a die hard Beatles fan...now in my mid-twenties I am all for the Beach Boys. It does take a higher musical IQ or understanding to listen to the Beach Boys, not to mention not to be ashamed of the strange looks one gets when blasting Good Vibrations in a car stereo!!...I feel sorry as well for all those who are quick to judge the Beach Boys...I respect the Beatles but I'll take the Beach Boys any day over the Beatles...and damn proud of it................

Spread the gospel of Brian Wilson 19.61-20.07

sidenote....I can't stand John Lennon's political stuff AT ALL.

My other faves besides the Beach Boys are Blondie, Joy Division/New Order, Temptations

[Fun Is In]

I go back and forth on which group I most enjoy listening to....but not so much anymore on who was best.

Maybe the best measure of "best" is influence. Jon Stebbins alluded to this. I would be willing to bet that there was not one single pop-rock act after 1964 that was/is not influenced by the Beatles. Not one. Whether they know it or not.

Brian Wilson, Jimi Hendrix, Flat and Scruggs, The Clash, everyone.

Brian Wilson was/is also very influential. But because his genius was/is chiefly in vocal arrangements as performed by genetically related individuals, it couldn't be imitated as readily and so was less influential down the line.

Both groups were top flight, both groups are among the best-ever still.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Is it a sign that I am too obsessed with the Beach Boys that as soon as I saw "Blondie" I immediately thought, "Chaplain"?

I do find it funny that many of my  other favorite groups are ones that were heavily influenced by the Beatles, yet I'm not all gung-ho about the Beatles themselves. A lot of it does  stem from their early stuff...the whole "She Loves You Yeah Yeah Yeah" type lyric with all the girls screaming...really annoys the hell out of me. The music is too poppy for me. Then again, I really don't care for most early 60s rock. Just a matter of taste. Compare what Brian was doing,and it's no contest IMHO. Now, if you want to talk about Beatles' later stuff, then I'll give it to you, although I personally don't see the big deal with Pepper. Again, a lot of it was due to Martin's production...and Brian's influence. I do like a bit of the later songs, but some of the lyrics...no. "Mean Mr Mustard", "I am The Walrus", "Come Together"...wtf? Great songs, but I cannot stand the lyrics.

Interestingly, I do like McCartney and Lennon's solo material, ESP. Lennon. Of course, some of that may be because my political views are so far to the left that they've actually are came back around from the right for a second lap.

Maybe the best measure of "best" is influence. Jon Stebbins alluded to this. I would be willing to bet that there was not one single pop-rock act after 1964 that was/is not influenced by the Beatles. Not one. Whether they know it or not.

Brian Wilson, Jimi Hendrix, Flat and Scruggs, The Clash, everyone.

Brian Wilson was/is also very influential. But because his genius was/is chiefly in vocal arrangements as performed by genetically related individuals, it couldn't be imitated as readily and so was less influential down the line.

Good points.Also, it was harder to emulate Brian because he came up with some unusual (for the time) chord changes. In order to truly copy him, one would have to try to unlearn any music theory they've learned in order to stand a chance.

[pixletwin]

1) Brian > The Beatles but The Beatles > The Beach Boys. Confusing? Think about it.

2) The Beatles only made record from 62 - 70. I am sure had they stayed together the Beatles would have put out at least one crappy album in the 70's.

3) The core of the Beatles were 2 very strong personalities. The core of the BB wasn't. John and Paul would never have let George or Ringe dictate what direction the Beatles were moving. Mike got to the point were he was bullying everyone to go in the direction he wanted.

4) When John and Paul could no longer co-exist in the same group, they possessed the inner strength to go their own ways and still remain successful. Mike and Brian? Not so much. Even the Stones haven't been able to do this.

All things told (in my opinion) Brian was a greater talent than the Beatles but the Beatles were a greater group than the Beach Boys.

'Nuff said from me.

[MBE]

I really think the Beatles were great from about I Feel Fine to Revolver. I enjoy the stuff before and after a lot but that to me was their prime. If we do count solo Beatles albums like Life With The Lions, Bad Boy, London Town, etc they are far worse then anything the Beach Boys did as a group. Then again if we also count the Beach Boys solo..... nope nothing as bad as Yoko screaming. As far as percentages let's be fair. Everything the Beach Boys did (as a group) from 1976 on would be maybe 35-40 percent good, yet if you take the Beach Boys 61-74 and compare to the Beatles group catalog it holds up just as well. Sure a few filler tracks were to be found on the early Beach Boys albums, but come on Revloution 9, All Together Now, even When I'm 64, those define filler. Brian Jones once said that it was not for fair for him to compare the Stones to the Beatles because the Beatles were a phenomanon. He was right in one sense because for whatever reasons the Beatles DID connect in a way only 4-5 artists EVER did. Yet I will leave the final musical analysis to the great Bob Dylan. He once said that he could tell the Beatles adapted their sound from basic rock and roll, and he could tell the Stones took their sound from hard blues. However,  he then said that the Beach Boys were doing things that were unto themselves. In other words as much as he admired the other two groups, it was the Beach Boys he found most original. On this point I agree. I wouldn't want to be without any of those three groups (and Dylan too) but it's the Beach Boys who win in my eyes.

[pixletwin]

....Yet I will leave the final musical analysis to the great Bob Dylan. He once said that he could tell the Beatles adapted their sound from basic rock and roll, and he could tell the Stones took their sound from hard blues. However,  he then said that the Beach Boys were doing things that were unto themselves. In other words as much as he admired the other two groups, it was the Beach Boys he found most original. ...

Where can I find that quote? That is great.

[MBE]

Rolling Stone 20th aniversary issue is where he said it. It's from 1987 with a big yellow cover. Not hard to find really.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

When you consider the Beatles popularity and music quality combined, they are the #1 group of all time. Competing with them in sales, I can only think of Michael Jackson, and there may be some others, but they don't compare musically. Musically, there are many bands as good, if not better then them, but don't compare in sales.
 
The Beach Boys, Pink Floyd and U2 are the closest both musically and in sales that I can think of.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

True but how could John Lennon do the godawful Sometime In New York City and  then the great Walls and Bridges? Every great group releases bombs.
I never vary from these 13 artists who stand about the rest to me. There are a couple dozen more who I think are terrific and about 100 artists altogether who I respect enough to buy some of their stuff. Still these remain the best. The Beach Boys and Elvis stand a little above anyone else.

My favorite groups
Beach Boys, First Edition, Who, Stones, Beatles, Jackson Five, Small Faces.

Fave duos
Jan and Dean, Ike and Tina

Fave solo acts
Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Dylan, James Brown

Elvis? I don't agree at all. How much music did he compose? Produce? I mean he was a very good singer and performer, and very good looking (not that I would know). But that's about it.

[MBE]

Elvis produced or co-produced every single one of his sessions from his post Sun years from Heartbreak Hotel on. He didn't have as much control on the movie soundtracks, but all in all he was one of the best producers of the rock era. It's a crime that his original LP's are so often reissued without regards to their orignal artwork or tracklist.  I compiled and basically co-wrote a major book on Elvis' recording sessions so I am not offering an opinion as far as what he did it's fact.

[LoriAnneKat]

Ok, so here's the the thing - The BB/Brian Wilson affect me on an emotional level - the way The Beatles - don't.   and  I am a HUGE Beatles fan - I love every album   -  but none of their songs move me to tears.  - none - which actually disturbs me a little - why doesn't "Yesterday" make  me cry??
 Paul McCartney said "I've often played "Pet Sounds" and cried" -  so have i  - so have all of you.   Which Beatles album moves you to tears?   for me - none  -  I enjoy them -  tremendously - "Revolver" and "Rubber Soul" -  in particular  but not on an emotional level  -it's just great music - but with Brian Wilson - it's like he spilled out all of his pain onto vinyl -   and it's not just Pet Sounds - it's The Warmth of the Sun, The Lonely Sea, In my room,  'til I Die, Surf's up  etc.
I'm just glad that I get it - there are so many people out there who STILL think the BB/BW are silly, nothing deep there
just surf and car songs - Aren't we blessed - that we get it?   I know I am

[carlydenise]

BB are top, but the Beatles are a VERY close second.  I have a deeper appreciation for the BB songs, because they get into my soul and are more meaningful...the Beatles songs are great to sing along to.  The Beatles were great together, but I love their solo works even more.  Not to mention the  BB were a more interesting band biographically, yes there are people who still think the BB are happy striped shirted surfers who sang about cars and the beach....if they only knew.

[Jon Stebbins]

Ok, so here's the the thing - The BB/Brian Wilson affect me on an emotional level - the way The Beatles - don't.   and  I am a HUGE Beatles fan - I love every album   -  but none of their songs move me to tears.  - none - which actually disturbs me a little - why doesn't "Yesterday" make  me cry??
 Paul McCartney said "I've often played "Pet Sounds" and cried" -  so have i  - so have all of you.   Which Beatles album moves you to tears?   for me - none  -  I enjoy them -  tremendously - "Revolver" and "Rubber Soul" -  in particular  but not on an emotional level  -it's just great music - but with Brian Wilson - it's like he spilled out all of his pain onto vinyl -   and it's not just Pet Sounds - it's The Warmth of the Sun, The Lonely Sea, In my room,  'til I Die, Surf's up  etc.
I'm just glad that I get it - there are so many people out there who STILL think the BB/BW are silly, nothing deep there
just surf and car songs - Aren't we blessed - that we get it?   I know I am

There are Beatles songs that totally moved me to tears at times...She's Leaving Home, Here There and Everywhere are two. The Long and Winding Road...man the Spector version just turns me to mush every time...really emotional. Again its hard for people to evaluate The Beatles fairly because we've heard it all too much, too often...But the first couple of times i heard She's Leaving Home in 1967, when i was 9 years old and alone in my house... it absolutely killed me, I couldn't stop the tears. So many people had the same reaction back then...it was epic.

Kiss Me Baby does the same thing to me, even now.

[shelter]

The Beatles' music was much more two dimensional than the Beach Boys' music. You can do almost every Beatles song on your own with just a piano or just an acoustic guitar and it's still the same song. No matter how sophisticated the original arrangement was. But with most of the Beach Boys' songs you just can't do that. It just won't work.

[the captain]

You can do almost every Beatles song on your own with just a piano or just an acoustic guitar and it's still the same song.

In many ways, that is a compliment.