The Smiley Smile Message Board

I think its interesting to line up the time lines and look at the Beatles and BBs music this way. A lot of Beatles fans will say, "give me Strawberry Fields over I Get Around any day", well umm yeah! And BB fans say, "give me Pet Sounds over Hard Days Night any day!" Well, yeah!

Anyway, here is a list of the albums released around the same time. Maybe we could do the same with the singles.

Early 63:Surfing USA vs Please Please Me

late 63: Little Douce Coupe vs With the Beatles

Early 64: Shut Down II vs Meet the Beatles

mid 64: All Summer Long vs Hard Days Night

late 64: Christmas LP vs Beatles for Sale

mid 65: Today and SDSN vs Help!

late 65: Party vs Rubber Soul

mid 66: Pet Sounds vs Revolver

mid 67: SMiLE sessions vs Sgt Pepper

late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey vs Magical Mystery Tour

68: Friends vs White Album

69: 20/20 vs Abbey Road

70: Sunflower vs Let it Be

When I have more time, I will listen more to see which I like better. (I know this is unfair being on a BB board, but I love both bands).

Early 63 Surfing  USA
Late 63 LDC and WtB pretty much tie for me.
Early 64 Shut Down II
Mid 64 HDN
Late 64 Christmas LP
Mid 65 Today and SDSN (kind of an unfair match up)  :lol
Late 65 Rubber Soul (also an unfair match up)
Mid 66 Tie for both Revolver and Pet Sounds
Mid 67 SMiLE.. easily
Late 67 Magical Mystery Tour
68 White Album
69 Abbey Road
70 Let It Be

Not too surprising. Beach Boys kicked ass until the machine broke.

Early 63:Surfing USA
late 63: Little Douce Coupe
Early 64: Shut Down II
mid 64: All Summer Long
late 64: Christmas LP
mid 65: Today and SDSN
late 65: Party
mid 66: Pet Sounds
mid 67: Smile sessions
late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey
68: Friends
69: 20/20
70: Sunflower

In some ways, the Beatles and Beach Boys are much more fun to compare on the strength of individual songs than entire albums. Both groups have an equal number of five-star songs, but I find the Beatles' albums more consistent and enjoyable to listen to in sequence, especially before 1967.

Not long ago I made three playlists for each group, divided into major changes in sound until 1970, with my guess at each group's best songs. That was a fun comparison: not to figure out which group is "better", but because it really highlights their similarities and differences.

The BB's xmas LP was a blip in '64...but the Concert LP released around the same time was MASSIVE. So if you're going to compare, I think that one is more appropriate vs Beatles '65 (Beatles for Sale)

It's also worth noting that many of  Beatles biggest hits were never on any of the UK albums.

I was about to post the exact same thing. :grouphug

I'm merely going to substitute "plus" for "versus" on this list...and come out a much bigger winner for it!

When you've got two powerhouse greats like Fabs/BBs, it's silly to put one over the other.

"What's my favorite Beatles song? That's like saying which is better, red beans or cabbage...don't you know, they all taste great?" - Ray Charles

While that is a great quote, and very relevant to the discussion at hand, it bugs me. You're going to ask Ray Charles, one of the people who helped invent rock and roll, what his favorite Beatles song is? Hell, the racial connotations alone make me squirm. But it's similar to how every single interview or documentary about the BBs involves at least one Beatles-related question, if not a slew of them. While the competition/exchange with the Beatles is a part of the BBs story, it's not an overarching theme, is it?

Anyways, I think every pop musician should be asked to pick a favorite Ray Charles song each and every time they're interviewed.  :p

Early 63: Please Please Me

late 63: Little Douce Coupe /With the Beatles(tied,WTB for songs LDC for production)

Early 64: Shut Down II

mid 64: All Summer Long / Hard Days Night (Tied,ASL for production,HDN for the songs)

late 64:  Beatles for Sale

mid 65: Today/ SDSN (becasue of the wall of sound production and songs) Only VERY slighlty though

late 65: Rubber Soul (without a doubt both UK and US)

mid 66: Pet Sounds (of course)

mid 67: SMiLE (Sgt Pepper IMO is not as good as MMT or Smile,even though the Mono Version of SP is really cool)

late 67: Smiley Smile /Wild Honey / Magical Mystery Tour ( tied,all three are great IMO)

68:  White Album

69: Abbey Road

70: Sunflower (just because LIB has always been "bottom of the barrel" IMO)

Here's mine for what it's worth:

Early 63: Please Please Me
late 63:  With the Beatles
Early 64: Meet the Beatles
mid 64: Hard Days Night
late 64: Beatles for Sale
mid 65: Today and SDSN
late 65: Rubber Soul
mid 66: Pet Sounds & Revolver
mid 67: SMiLE sessions & Sgt Pepper
late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey
68: Friends & White Album
69:  Abbey Road
70: Let it Be

There's some in there that I just cannot choose over!! It's like picking a favourite child!

[Anyways, I think every pop musician should be asked to pick a favorite Ray Charles song each and every time they're interviewed.  :p
[/quote]


.....at least every pop musician who realizes his music is rooted in gospel.........

Early 63: Surfin' USA
late 63: Little Deuce Coupe
Early 64: Shut Down vol. II
mid 64: All Summer Long
late 64: Beach Boys Concert
mid 65: Today and SDSN
late 65: Rubber Soul
mid 66: Revolver
mid 67: The Smile Sessions
late 67: WILD HONEY!!
68: White Album
69: Abbey Road
70: Sunflower

Early 63:Surfing USA vs Please Please Me - PPM

late 63: Little Douce Coupe vs With the Beatles  - WTB

Early 64: Shut Down II vs Meet the Beatles - TIE

mid 64: All Summer Long vs Hard Days Night - ASL

late 64: Christmas LP vs Beatles for Sale -  TIE

mid 65: Today and SDSN vs Help! - Help

late 65: Party vs Rubber Soul - RS

mid 66: Pet Sounds vs Revolver - TIE

mid 67: SMiLE sessions vs Sgt Pepper - Sgt Pepper

late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey vs Magical Mystery Tour - MMT

68: Friends vs White Album - TIE

69: 20/20 vs Abbey Road - AR

70: Sunflower vs Let it Be - Sunflower

Early 63: Surfing USA vs Please Please Me = tie (both good; PPM was easily the better debut)

late 63: Little Deuce Coupe vs With the Beatles = LDC (I don't know what's on WTB)

Early 64: Shut Down II vs Meet the Beatles = SDII (obviously, but see above)

mid 64: All Summer Long vs Hard Days Night = ASL

late 64: Christmas vs Beatles for Sale = BFS (don't know what's on it but it has to be better than Christmas music)

mid 65: Today and SDSN vs Help! - T/SDSN

late 65: Party vs Rubber Soul = RS

mid 66: Pet Sounds vs Revolver = pass

mid 67: SMiLE sessions vs Sgt Pepper = TSS (although good call on mono Pepper)

late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey vs Magical Mystery Tour = SS/WH (for many reasons, not least "CWTL")

68: Friends vs White Album = WA (always had problems with Friends)

69: 20/20 vs Abbey Road = AR

70: Sunflower vs Let it Be = S (with apologies and kudos to Uncle Phil)  

Early 63: Please Please Me
Late 63: With The Beatles
Early 64:Shut Down Vol II, but only because Meet The Beatles is redundant
Mid 64: Hard Days Night
Late 64: Christmas LP, but just barely
Mid 65: Today and SDSN
Late 65: Rubber Soul
Mid 66: F*ck! This is a hard one. Both are in my top 10 favorite albums of all time. OK. I'll go with Pet Sounds
Mid 67: SMiLE
Late 67: This is also a hard one. Magical Mystery Tour and WH are pretty close for me, and both are above Smiley Smile. Magical Mystery Tour
68: White Album
69: Abbey Road
70: Sunflower

Slightly OT but I feel it's worth a mention - after being forced to rush out two early lps, song for song The Kinks 60's records are as strong as any other group from this era (and all originals too). Add to that the many non album A- sides, B- sides and EP's of exceptional quality that they stuck out during this period and you have one criminally underrated band.

well allmusic awarded 5 stars to the following; face to face, something else, village green. Maybe I should check out their discography.

You absolutely should, if you haven't already - the Kinks were incredible and those are three of their best!  :)

wow, we could get really specific and go by songs recorded on the same day

For example let's start with two songs recorded on Oct. 13, 1965  Drive My Car vs. Little Girl I Once Knew.

Yeah I would agree. Just a shame that the production values of the Kinks stuff was always lacking compared to the Beach Boys and Beatles. Think it may have had something to do with Pye

I would take out each band's weaker albums such as Beatles For Sale because clearly they were being rushed out with lots of filler. I would limit myself to the 10 best albums by either band and would go for something like:

1) Pet Sounds
2) Revolver
3) Smile
4) Abbey Rd
5) Sgt Pepper
6) Today
7) Sunflower
8) AHDN
9) Rubber Soul
10) White Album

Beach Boys get 4 of the top 10 but I cannot honestly put another BB album above the three Beatles albums in 8-10.

Both bands could make great albums when they had no distractions.

It should be noted in fairness that The Beatles had George Martin whilst The Beach Boys had the Wrecking Crew, Tony Asher and Van Dyke Parks so we are not just comparing two groups of musicians, or Brian v L&M

I tend to think about comparing the catalogs too, but you have them lined up a little wrong.  I would omit the Christmas Album AND In Concert since The Beatles had nothing similar to compare to them.  Instead I would have Beatles For Sale vs. Today! and Help! vs. Summer Days.

But then you have the US or UK Beatles albums issue.  I'm going to go with the UK versions for now.

But The Beatles will always prevail guys because not only were most of their albums stronger, but you are forgetting the KILLER singles they deliberatly left off all those albums! 

Early 63:Surfing USA vs Please Please Me - Please Please Me

late 63: Little Douce Coupe vs With the Beatles  - With The Beatles (She Loves You AND I Want To Hold Your Hand were left off this album)

Early 64: Shut Down II vs Meet the Beatles - Hands down Meet The Beatles.  Shut Down has way too much filler. 

mid 64: All Summer Long vs Hard Days Night - Hard Days Night (but it's close)

late 64: Today! vs Beatles for Sale -  Today!    Beatles were running low on original material and still left off I Feel Fine and She's A Woman.

mid 65: Summer Days vs Help! - Help!

late 65: Party vs Rubber Soul - Rubber Soul and they still left off Day Tripper and We Can Work It Out

mid 66: Pet Sounds vs Revolver - Tie  but remember they left off Paperback Writer and Rain

mid 67: SMiLE sessions vs Sgt Pepper - Tie but again - Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields could have been on it and Sgt Pepper would have been even bigger.

late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey vs Magical Mystery Tour - SS/WH  Magical Mystery Tour is a 6 song EP.  If you count Hello Goodbye, All You Need Is Love and Baby You're A Rich Man, it's sounding better, but I'll give SS/WH the nod

68: Friends vs White Album - White Album   That's not including Hey Jude/Revoltion single or the Lady Madonna/Across The Universe/Inner Light/Hey Bulldog session of early '68.

69: 20/20 vs Abbey Road - Abbey Road

70: Sunflower vs Let it Be - Tie

You have to take the Beatles singles into this discussion to be fair. 

Increasingly, I think this album gets a bum rap.  Sure, there are a few duds on it and they resorted to some covers, but this was the point where John's songwriting really started to mature with his Dylanesque phase:  No Reply, I'm A Loser, Baby's In Black, Eight Days A Week, Every Little Thing, I Don't Want To Spoil The Party.  If Paul had been able to keep pace, BFS would have been regarded as a big step forward, IMO.

Both bands really had to churn the product out in these early years, so it's not surprising that these albums are uneven.

(Early) 63 - Please Please Me. I will add that the best tracks from Surfin' USA and Surfin' Safari would make it a fair tie.

(Late) 63 - Gonna have to go with the Beatles here, too. Again, though, I will say that Surfer Girl combined with LDC would make a killer album. I don't blame the Beach Boys or Brian at all - three albums a year means you have to skimp on consistency a bit.

(Early) 64 - Shut Down Vol. II vs. Beatles for Sale - I know this is technically out of order, but it would be criminal to compare Shut Down w/ Hard Days Night and All Summer Long w/ Beatles for Sale. I'd have to go with Beatles For Sale here, though. The filler isn't nearly as annoying on that.

(Late) 64 - I'll have to call this a tie. All Summer Long has stronger high points, but it's too short and there's that damn filler at the end. Hard Days Night may have a lot more fluff, but it's more consistent. Could you imagine All Summer Long combined with the strong points of Shut Down Vol. II, though?

(Early) 65 - Help! vs. Today! - I'll have to go with Today, simply because it's such a massive leap forward compared to the minimal advancement on Help. It is close, though.

(Late) 65 - Summer Days vs. Rubber Soul - Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Rubber Soul. It DID inspire Brian to record Pet Sounds, after all. This is when both bands started to enter into the halls of timelessness. It's interesting to note, too, that this is the first time either band avoids their typical filler (no covers on Rubber Soul, no talking skits on Summer Days).

66 - Pet Sounds vs. Revolver. This is when both bands start taking things seriously. Revolver is one of the greatest albums in the history of rock music, but Pet Sounds may just be the GREATEST, so I'm definitely going with the former over the latter, simply because it's a bit more timeless than Revolver, and it has more of that dammed emotional resonance.

(Early) 67 - Sgt. Pepper vs. SMiLE - Hoo boy. This is the tough one. The biggest released album ever versus the biggest UNreleased album ever. I'd have to give the award to Pepper simply for being complete, but I will say that a SMiLE finished as it should've been would have stolen the title, no contest, so I guess it's more of a tie than anything else. Sometimes I wonder how an album full of SMiLE holdovers ala Who's Next would've looked like.

(Late) 67 - (American) Magical Mystery Tour vs. Wild Honey - Tie. Flying is a bit fillerish, but Wild Honey is shorter, so it evens itself out.

68 - White Album vs. Friends - White Album. Sorry guys. I'm probably one of the biggest post SMiLE Beach Boy supporter you'll ever see, but in terms of sheer objective quality, the White Album dominates (despite that silly Revolution 9 excursion near the end). Not to mention it's literally three times longer.

69 - Abbey Road vs. 20/20 - Abbey Road, no question. Both albums are absolutely wonderful, though. But Abbey Road is the Beatles' final swan song. Sometimes I wonder how a proper early 70's Beach Boys swan song album might've looked.

70 - Sunflower vs. Let it Be - Sunflower. Too much damn Phil Spector on Let it Be. And you can tell that the Beatles' soul isn't in it throughout the whole album.

So the Beatles got a bit more victories in the same years. It certainly isn't the Beach Boys' fault, they just had an issue with properly ordering their albums and kicking out the filler. Carl or Dennis not blooming fully until '70 has an impact, too - and I will say that Surf's Up, Carl and the Passions, Holland, and Love You are all absolutely wonderful.

^this.
______

Also, have loved everyone's responses - what a fantastic idea for a thread!

Early 63:Surfing USA vs Please Please Me - PPM (Amazing Debut, recorded in 10 hours!)

late 63: Little Douce Coupe vs With the Beatles  - WTB (All my loving is amazing)

Early 64: Shut Down II vs Meet the Beatles - MTB is the same as WTB :P

mid 64: All Summer Long vs Hard Days Night - AHDN (Come on, any album with "And I Love Her" AND "Things We Said Today" is amazing)

late 64: Christmas LP vs Beatles for Sale -  BFS (I love Christmas, but originals vs originals, BFS wins)

mid 65: Today and SDSN vs Help! - Tie (Both INCREDIBLE, but unfair :P)

late 65: Party vs Rubber Soul - RS (Norwegian Wood is my acoustic style favorite song of all time)

mid 66: Pet Sounds vs Revolver - Pet Sounds (BARELY, but I can't listen to the entire Revolver in one sitting like I JUST did with Pet Sounds)

mid 67: SMiLE sessions vs Sgt Pepper - TIE (ADITL vs Surf's Up... oh man... too tough.)

late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey vs Magical Mystery Tour - MMT (Hit, Hit, Hit. and STRAWBERRY FIELDS)

68: Friends vs White Album - White Album ( Only reason I like friends is Little Bird and Busy Doin' Nothing)

69: 20/20 vs Abbey Road - AR (Oh man, not even close, Cabin Essence is still one of my favorites but AR triumphs.)

70: Sunflower vs Let it Be - Sunflower (Only for "Tears"

Pitting The Beach Boys against The Beatles? Forget that crap. BEACH BOYS WIN EVERY DAMN TIME.

GREAT points and excellent post.  Hard to argue with your list.

Early 63:Surfing USA vs Please Please Me

late 63: Little Douce Coupe vs With the Beatles

Early 64: Shut Down II vs Meet the Beatles

mid 64: All Summer Long vs Hard Days Night

late 64: Christmas LP and BB in Concert vs Beatles for Sale

mid 65: Today and SDSN vs Help!

late 65: Party vs Rubber Soul

mid 66: Pet Sounds vs Revolver

mid 67: SMiLE sessions vs Sgt Pepper

late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey vs Magical Mystery Tour

68: Friends vs White Album

69: 20/20 vs Abbey Road

70: Sunflower vs Let it Be

I went back to my facebook reviews, where I went song by song on BB and Beatles albums and gave them each a grade 1-10. Then I gave the album the average. Some of them surprised me.

What he said.

Agreed, this should be the new motto of this board.

Good post :)
So these are my preferences. :)
I'm a beatles and beach boys fan.

Early 63:s Please Please Me

late 63: With the Beatles

Early 64: Meet the Beatles

mid 64: A Hard Day's Night

late 64: Neither  :lol

mid 65: Today

late 65: Rubber Soul

mid 66: Pet Sounds

mid 67: SMiLE Sessions

late 67: Tie :)

68: White Album

69: Abbey Road :)

70: Tie :)

Brian Wilson > John Lennon.
Brian Wilson > Paul McCartney.
Brian Wilson > George Martin.

But Beatles albums > Beach Boys albums.

I like that :) & I agree.
But...........
Pet sounds > Every Beatles Album

The Beatles are the better group.
Brian is the better songwriter/arranger/producer.

That's the only way I can make the "Beatles are better but..." statements valid

Lyrically John Aand Paul > Brian
Musically Brian > John and Paul
Production wise I would say Brian = George Martin

So this all translates to a tie game for me.

Wild Honey, Sunflower, Today! > Pet Sounds

But that's just my little ole opinion, your mileage may vary (and probably will!)

Early 63:Surfing USA vs Please Please Me

late 63: Little Douce Coupe vs With the Beatles

Early 64: Shut Down II vs Meet the Beatles

mid 64: All Summer Long vs Hard Days Night

late 64: Christmas LP vs Beatles for Sale

mid 65: Today and SDSN vs Help!

late 65: Party vs Rubber Soul

mid 66: Pet Sounds vs Revolver

mid 67: SMiLE sessions vs Sgt Pepper --> impossible to call

late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey vs Magical Mystery Tour

68: Friends vs White Album

69: 20/20 vs Abbey Road

70: Sunflower vs Let it Be

I love all 3 of those albums but c'mon now it's PET SOUNDS!..then again you're entitled to your own opinion.

Nonsense.  I don't get some of the Beatles bashing that goes on around here.  Obviously, it's a Beach Boys board, so they come first here, but that's no reason to slam one of the greatest rock bands of all time.  I think Brian thought pretty highly of them. . .

I think highly of the Beatles as well from growing up with them, I just like the Beach Boys more these days.  I. Spaceman's answer was an awesome and funny way to say the Beach Boys were better. :lol

I think it says more about just how great The Beatles were, that they seem to be the standard that every other music act has to be compared to. Go any any message board devoted to a music act, and it's inevitable that you'll get a "...... vs The Beatles" thread at some point.

In my opinion, the Beach Boys had a greater up side, but also a greater down side then the Beatles. In other words, the Beach Boys came up with songs the Beatles could never match, but the Beatles never got too cheesey. Maybe a little, but nearly as much as the BB could. Jack Reiley was right.

Agree about Beatles quality control being better, the Beatles were lucky to have been long gone by the 1980s. The 1980s killed the Beach Boys with all the cheesy crap Mike spearheaded.

Naw. If we talk exclusively 1960-1970 (i.e. the only fair comparison to make), I'm not agreeing at all.

Also, the Beatles got cheesy in a way different to the Beach Boys, but cheesy never the less.

Both Groups had corny moments lol but the beach boys had way more corny moments than the beatles.
I feel bad for most of their work from 1971 - Now.
The beatles were amazing as a group, if it wasnt for brian wilson i probably would never give the beach boys a chance. They relied on him heavily that's way too much pressure.
The beach  boys best songs were way higher and better than the beatles best records.
even songs like "Wouldnt It Be Nice","God Only Knows","Good Vibrations" are better than anything released by the beatles except for a song they did called "Free as a bird".

That's why I said "exclusively 1960-1970", which I think is the only fair approach to make when comparing them. If the Beatles had stuck together well past the point of disagreeing over direction and occasionally hating the f*ck out of each other, they would've put out Keepin' The Beatle Suits Alive, too. Can't tell me John and Paul didn't put out several corny and outright bad songs after 1970, so yeah.

And you "feel bad for" their work from 71-74? Srs?


"Free As A Bird" is the best Beatles song? Interesting choice, I suppose.

Ok it's hard 2 say who's better in the 60's out of the bbs and the beatles.. it's a tie. They both are absolutely amazing groups..and well "free as a bird" is my personal favorite. :)
this might be a bias message board but i'm being honest and i feel like neither one of these groups are better than one another.
beatles had catchier songs, beach boys had sweeter melodies :)

I agree about "Free as a Bird".... one of my faves too.  Beautiful track!

you have great taste :) that song has an amazing melody. I always been more of a paul mccartney fan than a john lennon fan but that song makes me reconsider.

Yes, you got what I was saying, as you are one of the prized few with a sense of humour around these parts. The Beatles were great. The Beach Boys were beyond that. Period. End of discussion. Otherwise, head to a Beatles board, right?

Am I one of the few Beach Boys fans that prefers Lennon over McCartney? It seems that most BB fans praise McCartney over Lennon.

besides the fact that mccartney is a fan of the beach boys/brian wilson. most of the beatles songs i liked he sung lead on and written most of it :)(oh darling,all my loving,,getting better)..then again the ones i really loved john did too(free as a bird,dont let me down,across the universe)..now i'm confused :/

what about the ones they wrote together?


Brian was a better songwriter technically, but not in terms of 'pop' - I Get Around v. I Want To Hold Your Hand, say, one is a technically complex piece rife with keychanges and harmonic intricacy and the other is just the key of C played about with glee. But both work, so Lennon and McCartney cannot be denied. Brian was a better producer than George Martin.

But that's just me.

your just speaking the truth :) what brian did by himself neither john nor paul could ever do musically :)
i'm not being biased but BRIAN WILSON IS A GENIUS!!!

I'd take Lennon over McCartney, but it's really close. John was more experimental to me and I really like the large majority of songs he wrote from '64-'67.

The songs that made me get into the Beatles were Strawberry Fields, I am the Walrus and Lucy in the Sky. Now I would say that Because and Across the Universe are on that list.

Not to say I hate McCartney, but I am not too high on songs like Hey Jude and When I'm 64. However, songs like Elenour Rigby, Michelle, and Let it Be are excellent.

how about a list of Beatles/BBs songs with a common element?
i used to have a mixtape like that. it went something like this:

Ticket To Ride ... Girl Don't Tell Me
I Went To Sleep ... I'm Only Sleeping
A Day In The Life ... Surf's Up
Passing By ... Flying
God Only Knows ... Here There and Everywhere

and so on.

Seems like you only know their hits compared to the album songs.(from the choice of songs you've brought up)

A Day In The Life ... A Day In The Life Of A Tree  ;D

Tough call in the Beatles, but I'd go with Lennon, I just love his voice and Strawberry Fields, Rain, I am the Walrus, Lucy in the Sky, A Day in the Life are all amazing, edgy creative lyrics, great use of speech rhythms.

But I can no longer listen to his solo albums, still had the voice but his idiotic belief that he should only write songs about himself and Yoko was an artistic strait jacket that crippled his writing. I do like Imagine and Mind Games (the songs not the albums).

Paul's solo career has plenty of cheese, but his musicality shines through, there is also a lot of invention and diversity.

But I'm coming to like George's solo career the best, the care and craft he puts into his albums is fantastic, there is a sincerity and emotional connection in his song writing and All things Must Pass has by far the most great songs of any Beatles solo album, it also helps that I feel attuned to his spirituality.

Seems like i'm the only one that prefers mccartney's work over lennon's...Paul's work began 2 increasingly develop and his creativy began peaking more as the beatles grew...He sounds so different in every beatles song ..He's the only that can come from a song like "hey jude" to "helter skelter" to "oh darling" to "get back" effortless.(so many styles)

Lennon over McCartney for me too. Perhaps because of a spirituality or depth or something he has and Paul hasn't. Totally agreed on George and ATMP.

You're sorta missing my point - You can't go round saying 'Brian's better cos he used major seventh chords in pop' or something when The Beatles got the same effect on the early stuff without similar technical innovation. It's not about the technical stuff, even though that is amazing.

Another George fan here, for the reasons Keri cites. Guess I'm just partial to the "quiet ones."

I'm saying what got me into them originally. I love plenty of deep cuts. Such as In My Life, Tommorow Never Knows, You Know My Name, Dr Robert, A Girl, Mr Kite, Because, etc...I have all the albums!

I rate Lennon/McCartney equally but starting with Revolver I tend to prefer McCartney over Lennon, I still think John wrote some fantastic songs afterwards but Paul carried the band through their last period IMO and his solo career is more fulfilling to me. His songs might not have the same depth as John's but he still made great melodies which just appeal to me more. (Ram>>>>>>>Imagine)

She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand have a raw excitement that early Beach Boys singles lack, presumably because The Beatles were channeling Little Richard and Roy Orbison whilst The Beach Boys came out of the Four Freshmen, Everly Brothers and so on. This doesn't detract from the genius of the chord changes on Fun Fun Fun; it just means that Fun Fun Fun was not as revolutionary in it expressiveness by the white pop standards of the time. Brian was more of a continuation of Brill Building pop, whilst The Beatles were more connected to the reasons why Rock and Roll was culturally important.

Similarly, although Macca was by far a better composer than Lennon, it was John who connected with the edginess and speed-fueled dissatisfaction of the mid-1960's, especially in his Revolver-era tracks (She Said She Said, Rain, Dr Robert). Macca was observing the 60's from a position of comfort, whereas Lennon was unhappy and brooding. Brian was also unhappy and brooding but with greater beauty but less wit and without the lyric-writing ability.

Would you care to explain your last sentence? How was what was coming out of the Brill Building not rock and roll? Not all Brill Building was Neil Sedaka pop.

I wrote 'Brill building pop', so I did qualify it.

Respectfully, I asked you to explain it, not qualify it. While Brian did write pop, a la Pet Sounds, the songs he was writing from 63-65 were rock and roll. There is plenty of rock and roll that didn't have the harder edge that some Beatles songs possessed. A good portion of what Macca was writing during that time was pure pop.

The Beach Boys rock songs of the early 60s were closer to punk then classic rock. Songs like Surfin Safari, Shut Down, Custom Machine, I Get Around and Girl from NY City had an edge that didn't need screaming vocals and guitars to make it rock. It is what came natural to them. But Brian was motivated by getting a right feeling as opposed to being the heaviest rock band.

Exactly! Great post.

Does anyone else here really hate it when people present their opinions as fact?

'Cos I completely disagree. I think Lennon's chord changes, melodies and his inventive use of unusual time signatures far surpass most of Paul's efforts. I'm not a great Beatles fan anyway, but to me, songs like Julia, and Sexy Sadie, beat Yesterday and Eleanor Rigby hands down in a compositional sense.

Though it's all crap compared to Brian, IMO

I mean, after all, Lou Reed got his start in the 'Brill Building'....

Brian's 'rock' still maintains the unique chord sequences and harmonies of his 'pop' - what changed was his proficiency of arrangement, mostly, with the wrecking crew affording him that luxury.

And even then, just because it doesn't have prominent guitars doesn't mean it doesn't rock! Good Vibrations, WIBN, Heroes and Villains, Wind Chimes... these are heavy tunes, everyone is playing them heavily.... they rock! They just don't have guitars.

Wouldn't It Be Nice, love them rockin' accordians. Has to be a rock and roll first. :)

Curtis - I really enjoyed reading your analysis...I am going to stretch this time-line a little...I sort of put Rubber Soul up against Pet Sounds and the only way I could justify the time line is to almost bring it into a "fiscal-year" model which runs from July 1st (1965) to June 30th (1966) which would bring those two against one another in that context.  Sort of a "B.C. v. A.D." analysis, Pet Sounds/Rubber Soul being the lines of demarcation forwards and backwards.  I have always had  the impression that Brian's Pet Sounds was his "response" to Rubber Soul.  A fiscal year calendar would permit that.   ;) It also re-designates the images of both bands, from teen idols to serious artists, making a mark on society as a whole.  

*replaced "calender" (a machine in paper making) for "calendar"- the correct spelling.  Mea culpa - incorrect spelling!

Fair enough. I am defining rock and roll in a narrow sense of something that sounds quite primitive and as if it is about to spin out of control (edgy as 'on the edge') but you can also define it as a particular kind of beat and swing that Fun Fun Fun definitely has. Another way might be to say that the Beach Boys comes from the rhythm side of R&B than the shouter side that was derived from gospel and which The Beatles got via Ray Charles etc. Brian seems to me to come from a smoother harmonic tradition than that, as do Goffin & King and Bacharach & David (but not Lieber & Stoller or Doc Pomus, who were the harder side of the Brill Building)

I'd say John was the best songwriter of the group when they first started. By 1968 he was the third best.

If one is to play the utterly silly comparison game, comparing the groups in question's singles output is much more to the point. For most of the 60's, both bands considered their major output to be singles, not albums. And in the future, songs will be the major criteria for judging an artist, rather than the album as "statement" model, which I believe gets more antiquated by the year, and is used to unfairly judge the work of artists who don't intend their work to be seen in that way.

I do not agree.

Well who else's opinion is it other than the person who's stating it? We know it's their opinion as it's coming out of their mouth/fingers/b'hole. Does everything really need to be followed with "imo"?

imo.

Also, Paul wins all for writing "Temporary Secretary", which is better than like 90% of Beatles songs I've heard. Not better than Brian, of course, but of the Beatles, I like Paul quite a bit. So many of John's songs just make me feel like I've smoked some absolutely horrid weed. At least several of the the mid/late-60s songs of his, anyway. John's not a bad kid, mind you, and he's written some great stuff, I just very much prefer Paul's work.

imo.

Wild Honey live with Blondie Chaplin
All I Want to Do
Student Demo

It's an impossible question really. For numerous reasons.

The Beatles could do more things. They could rock much better
and harder. They got into more styles of music than the Beach Boys
such as Harrison's eastern songs, and more avante gard with backwards
guitars and technology. They Had three great writers, they had George
Martin to help. I could go on.

On the other hand, all things considered, after mulling it over I tend to believe
that Pet Sounds and SMiLE is the best one two punch in the history of pop or
rock or whatever you want to call it.

Pet Sounds and SMiLe are better than Revolver and Sgt Pepper. Thats quite
a statement.

Many people won't agree however, because the Beach Boys  didin't have tough
rock songs like the Beatles. Half of Smile doesn't even have drums on it. But still
the sheer majesty of Hero's and Villans , Surf's Up and Good Vibrations trumps Pepper
period.

Other than those two, the Beatles win easily, Help rubber Soul, the White Album Abbey Road
they win hands down, against the respective Beach Boys albums.

No No No

Can't someone just repost this fucking thread to the Hoffman board so we can get on with more important things?

Oh thats nasty.

It's a fun question which band is better during the sixties.
But there is no absolute or real answer. It cant be answered
not really.

I'd say the Beatles overall, because they were more diverse.
But many especially here, will disagree.


On the other hand SMiLe has more great songs on it than Pepper
I wouldn't say Surf's Up is better than a Day In The Life, but Pepper
doesn't have as many great songs as SMiLE

A similar case can be made for Revolver vs Pet Sounds.     

It's all subjective. There is no right answer.

Technology which makes some of their music sound very dated, and not in any charming way.


I still say it took three great writers and a George Martin, and they still couldn't top Brian by himself as both a writer and producer. Add in the other guys, namely Dennis, and there's no question who was better, in my mind.

Just me.

I would, x 10. A Day in the Life is an artist and a band trying to sound psycodelic...(for Tobelman)...Surf's Up is Psycodelia realized, personified, deified, and rectified all in one. No friggin' comparison...besides, Surf's up is still unfinished....


Exactly. Well put.

yeah everybody can have an opinion. It's all valid.

I could parry with some answers and dispute your conclusions,
as anything more than opinion. Frankly I think both bands and
the songs and albums in question are high art. To Dismiss either
A Day In The life, Pepper or Surf's Up or SMiLe is a fools business.

Brian Wilson could do things McCartney and Lennon could not.
and the reverse is true also. I think it becomes more a matter
of personal taste. We are in my opinion talking about the greatest
genius minds in the history of contemporary music. To dismiss either
Lennon or Wilson or McCartney is just foolish.

Wilson may indeed be a better composer than either Lennon or McCartney
I don't agree with you, but your view has merit. But there is only one Brian
Wilson and both Lennon and McCartney, and even Harrison wrote classic
hall of fame songs. Which overall makes for a stronger group.. So what you
are saying is a weakness, oh well it takes three Beatles to do what Wilson did,
well there were three Beatles capable of doing that.. Certainly there were not
three Beach boys capable of writing songs like that on a consistent level.

Furthermore you discount the importance of lyrics. The Beatles could all write them
the Beach boys were a bit spotty and needed to add or bring in people to write
lyrics because they couldn't do that on their own. Or play the tracks on their own.

So you see you can make an argument for anything either point of view. The fact is
they are both the chopins or stravinskys or Beethovens of their age.  Who is better
Van Gogh or Picasso ? the correct answer, they are both so good it defies comparison....

But then thats just my opinion.

The poster asked which band is better in what year or corresponding album. So I answered
the question as truthfully as I could based on my belief. Pet Sounds and SMiLe trump Pepper
and Revolver, but in the other years and overall, the Beatles trump the Beach Boys because of
more diversity, more songwriters and a better ability to rock.

as far as the Beatles backewards guitars and things being dated, I disagree with that as well.

I love them both and along with a handful of other people, Simon and Garfunkel, Bob Dylan, early
CSNY, The WHO the Stones., these are the best people who ever lived in the history of modern music.
thats just my view.

and of all those people the best were Wilson and the Beatles. You don't have to agree, but try and have an
objective view.

All it comes down to is this IMO: The Beatles were the better band. In the sense of 4 guys rocking and writing Rock n' Roll tunes. No question about it. .... on the other hand... the Avante Garde belongs not to the White Album but to Smiley Smile onwards....

Up until the recent controversial Smile Sessions release (around November this year, fyi), the Beatles ruled - totally turned on head with said November release,  Wilson is the baby in the manger

That's a pretty good synopsis. I can see that. I don't think the truth is quite that simple
but that's pretty well put.


It also creates an incredible one, two punch of historic back to back albums. More really
but Pet Sounds and Smile in particular.

Early 63:Surfing USA vs Please Please Me = PLEASE PLEASE ME
late 63: Little Douce Coupe vs With the Beatles = LITTLE DEUCE COUPE
Early 64: Shut Down II vs Meet the Beatles = SHUT DOWN VOL. 2
mid 64: All Summer Long vs Hard Days Night = ALL SUMMER LONG
late 64: Christmas LP vs Beatles for Sale = BEATLES FOR SALE
mid 65: Today and SDSN vs Help! = TODAY & SD(&SN)
late 65: Party vs Rubber Soul = RUBBER SOUL
mid 66: Pet Sounds vs Revolver = PET SOUNDS
mid 67: SMiLE sessions vs Sgt Pepper = SMILE SESSIONS
late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey vs Magical Mystery Tour  = MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR
68: Friends vs White Album = FRIENDS
69: 20/20 vs Abbey Road = ABBEY ROAD
70: Sunflower vs Let it Be = SUNFLOWER

Who cares about "ROCK N ROOOLLLL"? I care about music, I care about songs. I know you weren't implying it, but the popular notion that Brian, Dennis, Mike, Bruce, Al and Carl were all talentless hacks who needed session players for their albums is blown to God damn pieces once one listens to Live In London. They could very much "rawk", too, while we're at it and if it really matters to anyone. Totally competent band who played just as well as the Beatles, at the very least.

This oversimplifies or outright ignores too many things to an astonishing extent. Don't agree at all.

CSNY?  Once reasonable voices in search of some decent songs. Saw Crosby and Nash the other week.  People who harp on about Brian and Mike's poor voices ought to listen to those two...

Oh come now, those first two albums were about as good as it gets, (in search of some good songs) come on man.
I mean of course Crosby Stills and Nash 69, and Deja Vu 70.

And they all did some good stuff before that as Byrds, or Buffalo Springfield or Hollies.
That's why I include them on a short list of the all time greats. Those two albums are
about as good as albums get.

Yes saying SMiLE makes Brian Wilson the actual or new baby in the manger, is an oversimplification.
however, My God what a cutting edge album. Arguably the best rock album ever done. Or pop or whatever
you want to call it.

Personally I also happen to believe that when comparing these albums against each other, the non album
singles and B sides should be included with the corresponding album. The non album nature of these singles
was largely a marketing strategy by record companies , and the work should be included while making qualitative
measurements and comparisons. I mean Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane were intended for Sgt Pepper, when
one includes those two songs in a comparison of Pepper versus SMiLE, you may choose to give SMiLE the win
(as I did) but man, think how strong Pepper actually is when you include those two.

What I'm saying is, define the criteria a little more if you really want to make comparisons. It's impossible measuring
these albums against each other, theyr'e approaching fifty years old and we are talking about them, I think that indicates
the artistic merit of both bands and both albums.

As far as the Beach Boys ability to play on record, thats probably true, but you either did or you didin't. Maybe Lennon
could have made another five solo albums by 1980, but he didin't. Maybe Harrison could have written more great Beatles
songs, but he didin't. Maybe Carl Wilson could have written more great songs, but he didin't.

Are we judginig what could have occured, or what actually did occur. You see my point, a lot of these comments are about
the potential of what might have been , instead of what actually was.

I never said it wasn't, I was saying noname's statement is somewhat strange and either oversimplifies or ignores many things. Also saying I didn't agree with it at all, but to each his own etc. etc. etc.


No - you're talking about them not playing on some Beach Boys albums. However, I'm strictly talking about their actual ability as musicians. Again, extremely talented musicians, and likely just as good a band, technically speaking, as The Beatles ever were. Still, I could give a f*ck less who "rocked" harder. Not what music is about, to me.

"Oh come now, those first two albums were about as good as it gets, (in search of some good songs) come on man.
I mean of course Crosby Stills and Nash 69, and Deja Vu 70."

 We'll have to agree to differ.

Yeah, that was a really sloppy post on my behalf.  What I should have said, in the spirit of personal opinion, when it comes to Beatles v BB's, the Smile Sessions release has really changed the game.

Fan gripes aside, I think the material presented (I'm talkin' disc 1) has provided the recordings with a coherence and direction (sonic and historical) previously lacking in the scant official releases and myriad various boots.

It's provided a better context to the Smile Sessions and how they fit in to the overall BB oeuvre - I now listen to the post Smile Sesh albums differently, and I think we can now see clear(er) links back to the pre recordings, especially PS; which reminds me of a Terry Melcher quote where he could connect Good Vibes to Surfin' USA (from the Tom Nolan Article of many years ago)

And it's altered my feelings towards Pepper and post (Smile Sessions better), and I hope that's not just me.

All of which means that Brian W's already stellar esteem is set to go Universal, what with Smile well and truly out there and the 50th anniversary items around the corner.

Yes SMiLE has given me an increased appreciation for Brian Wilson's talent, and comparing
him to the Beatles.

Comparisons are so hard, but when I listen to the first 19 tracks on disc one of the Smile Sessions
To me I am just hearing this great album period. I am not thinking about how the actual sequence
might have been different, or how this song didn't get a lead vocal.

I mean Pepper you could say the same thing, The album was supposed to have Penny Lane and
Strawberry Fields included. But EMI intervened and requested a non album single for Xmas 66
and so, only for that reason, the songs didn't make the album

So all albums could have been different, mine yours theirs. But when we listen to whats there, and
if anything I am biased towards favoring the Beatles, but I vote for SmiLe and Pet Sounds as being
the two best albums ever done right now. Its so very cool to finally have SMiLE and the extent of
what Wilson was reaching for musically in 66 is , my jaw just sags, and I think Oh My God, he did this
in 1966 on four track machines? 

Then As Wilson begins to fade creatively, and the other Beach Boys pick up the slack, it was really good
stuff, but not as good. And its different Beach Boys running the band and writing, so the name says Beach Boys
but its I mean Holland is almost like a different group, and the Beatles no longer exist at that point.

But if we look at the Beatles solo output in the early to mid seventies, if we imagine all those hit songs if
they had recorded that as "The Beatles" they would have continued to blow everybody else away for another
several years I think.

I dig both groups, and I dig the Beach Boys much more after studying, and listening to stuff in the last few years
and With SMILE they even surpass the Beatles at their peak, what higher compliment can be paid ?

But Yeah SMiLE all assembled into a proper album in good fidelity has opened my eyes and I cant believe how
good the material, arrangements, cutting edge production ideas I just can't believe it.

Sgt Pepper is so English, and SMiLE so American, and they were (both groups) competitive and The British Invasion
kept exceeding the American Bands, and now in Retrospect, the quintessentially American SMiLE, trumps Pepper for
genius  just fab

sgt. pepper would've been more amazing if it had penny lane and stawberry fields. and smile woud've been even more amazing if child is the father of the man,look,holiday and i love to say dada had lead vocals :]

This comparison is kind of unfair; it is obvious to all that The Beatles made much better albums than The Beach Boys did. Not only do the Beatles have the quintessential rock masterpiece (Sgt. Pepper) but made many more albums, particularly in later years, that rank highly in critics' polls of the best albums of all time. The Beach Boys have well... Pet Sounds and... Pet Sounds. I personally prefer Pet Sounds to every Beatles album, but that's just one album. The SMiLE Sessions do not  really count as an album, in my opinion. Half of the material on the approximated album are unfinished scraps with vocals flown in from demos and  other odd sources. The "real" Smile, in my opinion, is the one Brian Wilson recorded in 2004.

I enjoy albums such as Smiley Smile and Wild Honey very much. But to compare those rather slight and badly produced albums with the heavily orchestrated and masterfully sequenced albums made by the Fabs is completely unfair.

Really, with the one exception of Pet Sounds, the Beatles own this competition, far as I'm concerned.  By the time the Beach Boys got themselves together for the next inarguably great album (Sunflower), the Beatles had already hung it up and all gone solo.

I'm not considering the SMiLE Sessions in my response, because they simply didn't exist in any released form at that time.  That said, I think that if a finished and released '67 SMiLE had been as good as my LP length fan mix or better, it would get my vote over Sgt. Pepper.

I was going to disagree that the Beatles were more diverse. In the 60s that may be true with songs such as Helter Skelter, Revolution 9, Within You Without You and Tomorrow Never Knows. The Beach Boys were quite diverse themselves with All I Want to Do, Pet Sounds (song), Woody Wood Pecker's Symphony and Diamond Head.

I can't help it, to me Beach Boys win each year! Though 1968 is probably a tie... What the hell, I'll give that one to the moptops, but other than that it's all BB to me.

You seem conflicted.

How do you figure that the Beatles made MANY more albums? They failed in 1970.

Early 63:Surfing USA vs Please Please Me = PLEASE PLEASE ME
late 63: Little Douce Coupe vs With the Beatles = LITTLE DEUCE COUPE
Early 64: Shut Down II vs Meet the Beatles = MEET THE BEATLES
mid 64: All Summer Long vs Hard Days Night = ALL SUMMER LONG
late 64: Christmas LP vs Beatles for Sale = BEATLES FOR SALE
mid 65: Today and SDSN vs Help! = TODAY & SD(&SN)
late 65: Party vs Rubber Soul = RUBBER SOUL
mid 66: Pet Sounds vs Revolver = PET SOUNDS
mid 67: SMiLE sessions vs Sgt Pepper = SGT PEPPER'S (I like the finished albums)
late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey vs Magical Mystery Tour  = MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR
68: Friends vs White Album = WHITE ALBUM
69: 20/20 vs Abbey Road = 20/20 (I think that Abbey Road is one of the most overated albums of all the time IMHO)
70: Sunflower vs Let it Be = SUNFLOWER

Early 63:Surfing USA vs Please Please Me = PLEASE PLEASE ME
late 63: Little Douce Coupe vs With the Beatles = WITH THE BEATLES
Early 64: Shut Down II vs Meet the Beatles = MEET THE BEATLES
mid 64: All Summer Long vs Hard Days Night = HDN
late 64: Christmas LP vs Beatles for Sale = BEATLES FOR SALE
mid 65: Today and SDSN vs Help! = HELP
late 65: Party vs Rubber Soul = RUBBER SOUL
mid 66: Pet Sounds vs Revolver = PET SOUNDS
mid 67: SMiLE sessions vs Sgt Pepper = SMILE SESSIONS
late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey vs Magical Mystery Tour  = TIE
68: Friends vs White Album = FRIENDS
69: 20/20 vs Abbey Road = TIE
70: Sunflower vs Let it Be = SUNFLOWER

It's great to see that beach boys fans are being honest and admitting that the Beatles have some amazing records.
The worst thing is when people try to go against the Beatles because they are so popular or praised so highly...good music is good music.

Couldn't agree more.

I agree with these 100%

;D

I think if singles were pitted against each other, I'd end up choosing the Beach Boys more often than I did for the albums. Not to say that the Beach Boys were a singles act only....

One of the great things about this era of music is the array of different artists/performers who sprung up at about the same time, influenced and inspired one another, yet were really not alike.  For all the influence the Beatles and Beach Boys may have had on one another - they each did their own thing with it.   To me they're like bookends.  They sit side by side just fine, and often compliment one another beautifully.  Had Smile come out originally as scheduled/intended I think it would have been fantastic but Peppers would still have been fantastic too.   Those two albums are of a similar idea perhaps, but they are nothing alike.    They each achieved amazing things in completely different ways.   That's true for the other records they each released too.  They're the yin and yang of pop.  they go together in harmony.  Like apple pie and ice cream.  Hot dogs and buns.  Apples and oranges.   ;)

Good music is good music, but an overrated band is still an overrated band.

you're right u2 are overrated  ;)

Nope U2 just plain suck - The Beatles are overrated.

Ah, good old vintagemusic. (sniff, sniff) We barely knew ye.

Same with Shakespeare, Mozart, Michelangelo.

well sure - naturally the beatles are the apple, and the beach boys the orange   :p   
i enjoy both fruits, and find they often go well together   :lol

The Beatles were a far more consistent band and far better marketed.  For the most part, you knew you were going to get a quality product from each album and each song.  The Beach Boys made questionable decisions with nearly every step along the way.  Even using just the Beach Boys' 60s material, my worst between the two bands would be Beach Boys-heavy.

But on the other hand, if I had to list my favourite songs of each artist the Beach Boys would dominate that list as well.  It's for this reason that I gravitate toward them every time over the Beatles.   Their best work provides me with a listening experience very few songs from very few other artists can do.

The Beatles always entertain me, but the Beach Boys speak to a much deeper emotional place for me. Both put out excellent work from 1962-70, and I think any dismissal of either doesn't make a good case for the other being better. I think some amazing music was cut from the early fifties to the early seventies and I'm just glad to hear it all.

I'd put it like this:
Meet the Beatles vs Shut Down Vol2
Hard Days Night vs All Summer Long
Help vs Today
Rubber Soul vs Summer Days
Revolver vs Pet Sounds
Sgt Peppers vs Smiley Smile
Magical Mystery vs Wild Honey
White Album vs Friends
Abbey Road vs 20/20

Let it Be was posthumous not worth a comparison.

I take the Beach Boys albums over the Beatles ANY DAY. 

Did you seriousley pick Rubber Soul and Revolver over Pet Sounds????!!! That HAS to be a joke/////////////////////////////

EXACTLY!!!
And why the hell would anyone even bring up Beatles for Sale, that album is as important as 15 Big Ones, same goes for Please Please Me.

For anyone and everyone in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA we didn't have the Beatles UK albums to compare. So starting with Meet the Beatles.
And Abbey Road was their last album, Let It Be was posthumous.  

Lennon was in NO WAY shape or form better composer than McCartney. Lennon was to the Beatles what Mike Love was to the Beach Boys. All the beatles best songs were either McCartney/Lennon or just McCartney.

THATS WHAT I BEEN SAYING FOR YEARS!!! I mean for christ sake the beach boys influence on the ramones was more prevalent than any of their other influences; joe strummer got into music thru the beach boys and joe queer is a huge BBs zealot. The beach boys early output was so raw and garage-y, very much in the punk vein. But even tho there were several prototypical bands like the stooges and mc5 the ramones were THE first punk band; punk got its name from punk magazine- legs mcniell and holmstrom. excuse my spelling.

With all due respect that is one of the most asinine ignorant statements I've ever heard. How the hell did the beatles "rock harder"???? I'd like a detailed synopsis of that for sure.

It really boggles my mind how this is a board for the Beach Boys and how so many people talk down on them. I Don't care how many more records the Beatles sold. The Beatles were quantity, the Beach Boys were quality.

Apples & oranges, to each is own, bla bla bla....  . . .

Just because a band sells more records doesnt mean they made better music, it just means they had better marketing and promotion. The Beatles were classic, but the Beach Boys were classic and TIMELESS! Their music transcended thru several decades, the beatles didn't.

Are you insane?

What you mean is 'The Beach Boys made increasingly sh*t albums throughout the rest of the 20th and 21st Century because they couldn't or wouldn't split up, whilst The Beatles have an arguable perfect track record, a totemic body of work, leaving the eventual (inevitable?) decline into mediocrity and irrelevance that befell every sixties pop star after that decade for their solo careers.'

That's what you mean. If anything, The Beach Boys music hasn't 'transcended through the decades' because people go 'f*** yeah Barbara Ann is amazing' rather than the masterworks of Smile or Holland or All Summer Long. The entirety of The Beatles' career has musical legitimacy. The Beach Boys made Summer In Paradise, the worst album I ever heard.

On another forum there was a long Beatles-vs-BB discussion going on, so I signed up and started "contests" starting at the top of this page:
http://www.musicbanter.com/pop/49280-beatles-vs-beach-boys-62.html

With all due respect that is one of the most asinine ignorant statements I've ever heard.

Yeah I know Summer In Paradise was a waste. But to say that the Beatles output was flawless or whatever is insane and this is a BEACH BOYS message board so why would anyone criticize them???

Because we're people with basic critical faculties. The Beach Boys have made some of the worst music ever made.

I wish the BBs broke up after "love you" to save the world from the horrors of the later recorded output.

Or at least stop making new albums.

To say the Beach Boys made some of the worst music makes no sense to me. Id like to know what the criteria is.

Not even close to the worst. There is some terrible sh*t out there that passes for music. It is all a matter of taste or lack thereof. I'll include myself has having fit in both categories. ;)

First of all from 62 to 67 the Beach Boys had already put out just as many albums as the Beatles had put out in their entire existence!!
,
And all those albums were PERFECT! Sure there was filler here and there with cassius love/sonny wilson, bugged at my ol man, fav' recording sessions etc. but that doesnt mean sh*t, the rest of the songs on those albums are killer!

I mean you can break it down and look at those ten albums individually or look at the whole enchilada,
Beach Boys, 62-67: Surfin Safari, Surfin USA, Surfer Girl, Deuce Coupe, Shut Down Vol2, All Summer Long, Today, Summer Days, Pet Sounds, Smiley Smile.
Beatles: Meet the Beatles, Hard Days Night, Beatles 65, Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, White Album, Abbey Rd.

And yeah I'm comparing the Beatles american releases and using the BBs up to 67 because they had the same amount of albums out at that time as the Beatles did altogether.

You could even compare the other BBs albums.... Wild Honey, Friends, 20/20, Sunflower, Surfs Up and Holland - ALL great!

kookadams, while you're high enthusiasm for The Beach Boys is great....I think you're confusing the lack of public awareness of The Beach Boys' material (beyond the hits) as a fault of The Beatles' huge success. The Beatles deserve every bit of acclaim they have, this band DEFINES timeless. There is a lot of emotion in your posts and it seems to me you are just taking it out on the Beatles because you want them to have the level of artistic awareness that The Beach Boys may not have.

Even if you're choosing The Beatles' USA albums instead of the UK ones (which is batshit crazy, but whatever), you're missing a bunch. Introducing (or The Early Beatles - similar in tracklisting but not identical), Second Album, Something New, VI, Yesterday & Today, Yellow Sub, you should def. be counting Let It Be, Hey Jude aka The Beatles Again.

The Beach Boys worst music (MIU, Still Cruisin, KTSA, SIP, BB85, Kokomo, The Battle Hymn Of The Republic, Sweet Insanity, Country Love, etc) makes me laugh, weep, or just shut off the stereo. I find no merit, besides the fact it's being played by one of my favourite bands. The writing is almost uniformly lazy at best, and outwardly offensive at worst, the production is limp and foul, and they just sound bad to me, and to vast swathes of the human race.

I know a bunch of people here like those records, and that's cool. But the only merit to those records for me is that a member, or all, of one of my favourite bands is responsible. Of course, the fact that they made such weird, bad records is kind of appealing, but not that appealing.

OTM. And yeah, why not judge The Beatles on the albums as they intended them. Stacking the deck, much?

Yeah but I'm not including the un-important BBs albums like the Christmas Album, Concert, Stack-o-Tracks, etc. So I don't need to include the compilation albums that Capitol made/the ones you just listed. I know the Beatles UK discography is what they actually recorded but there were certain albums like Meet the Beatles that are integral.  Second album, Yesterday/Today are comps and Let It Be is posthumous; I'm saying the legit studio albums, and it the US the Beatles UK catalog was non-existent. And in response to the later Beach Boys albums yeah I'm aware that after Love You their albums were a waste. I never said otherwise.

Integral how? They didn't have the singles on them, or what?

Well Meet the Beatles is a better album that With the Beatles, it excludes the covers and includes the important US debut single. Hard Days Night and Help were different versions in the UK and US but the 7 songs that were in the film is all that mattered on the albums anyway.

The fact that this began with the premise that The Beach Boys are timeless while The Beatles are not is enough to dismiss the entire argument, as far as I'm concerned.

This is downright silly. Any Capitol album released pre-Pepper is just as much of a "compilation" than any of them. Meet The Beatles is just as much of a hack job as Yesterday And Today. Just because you like the tracklisting a lot doesn't mean it's "integral". Integral to American fans in 1964 - yes, but to judge it against The Beach Boys albums of the same era, no - because The Beatles didn't have control over the sequencing of those albums.

 Just because LIB was released after their break-up doesn't mean you shouldn't judge it critically.

You're saying this like we should all be agreeing with you.

I'm done.

SO,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,does that mean I'm the only American in this discussion? I know that the UK albums were the legitimate ones but they didn't exist in the US. When you break it down by album Meet the Beatles was the first album that the American public received even if it was a re-worked version of W/ the Beatles it was still what the American public knew, it didn't know W/ the Beatles because it wasn't released in the United States correct? A Hard Days Night and Help were different in the US and UK but both still included the songs that were in film, Rubber Soul and Revolver were also both released in the US and UK but with different songs and sequencing, so what is it that needs to be clarified?

There's much worse music out there than the horrors of SIP. I half agree with Hypehat's statement; the Beach Boys have made some of the worst music a great band has ever made.

I don't find it surprising (considering this is a beach boys forum) but I do find it interesting how many fans here chose the early beach boy albums over the early Beatles albums. No two Beatle records from their whole career sound alike but, you can lump beach boy albums into eras or make your own mix tape, and not know that the songs came from different albums (within reason). The Beach Boys were not an "albums" band.Yeah, there are a few exceptions from Pet Sounds and beyond, but the general body of work is best reflected as singles. I don't think the general body of work The Beatles created is best reflected through singles.

The Beach Boys out put from 62 to 72 (Surfin Safari thru Holland) and Love You (77) were ALL great albums! So when you look at just those albums their music was perfect.

Funny thing about me...I'd rather listen to the worst Beach Boys song that the best Beatles song. :/

Personally, I disagree. That was definitely true of the earlier albums, but not really true of the 70s material.

What? The beatles were no more of an album band than the beach boys. The beach boys best work was 63-68 and the beatles best work was 63-66. At least when brian had his breakdown the band went on- the beatles werent even a band after revolver, they were a studio group.

That's what I mean...from Pet Sounds onward are where the few albums appear...SMiLE, Wild Honey, 20/20, Sunflower, Surf's Up, and Holland. IMO.

I'm sorry but this is merely rhetorical acrobatics. The Beatles were no more of an album band than The Beach Boys because they "weren't even a band after Revolver"? Give me a break. You are doing nothing here but repeatedly constructing arbitrary and artificial parameters in order to make the claims you  want to make. This is the same mentality behind your claim that the Beatles career output was the same as the Beach Boys output between 62-67 because, you know, Let it Be was posthumous and doesn't count, etc.

When their best work occurred, is all opinion, regardless of the artist. I'm a bit confused as to why you say "the beatles werent even a band after revolver" though. It's true they almost only recorded from 1967-1970 but, why does that matter? Take into perspective how historically game changing they were in that period of time. I believe that The Beach Boys of 1967, were the same Beach Boys of 1970. The Beatles were VERY different. And besides, isn't a true BAND a group of musicans who are BANDED together? The Beatles HAD to be John, Paul, George and, Ringo. The Beach Boys could call in dozens of studio musicians, appear at concerts as they please practically (Dennis...Brian) and it didn't quite matter so much as to who was on stage to the general public, or even the general sound. How else would Mike and Bruce get away with it these days? Except for Mike and Brian (the majority creators) the music is bigger than all the other Beach Boys. The Beatles music is not bigger than John, Paul, George and, Ringo BUT, in a weird way, that strengthens it and honestly, makes it more durable than The Beach Boys catalog.

Same here. Personally, i don't "feel the love", so to speak, when i'm listening to The Beatles like i do when i listen to the boys. It's hard to explain.

Exactly. I dont care how many more records the beatles sold or how much more hype the media gave them, the beach boys just made better music, period.

That has been precisely the point of no-one in this thread.

But how does "the beach boys made better music, period" provide me with a reason to agree with you? It sounds to me, like you don't have any good reason and you just happen to prefer their catalog more...which is fine. But just say it...

What was/is the point of this thread? I forgets.

Any truth to the rumor that kookadams is actually newguy? I'll buy it.

(http://i.imgur.com/7pfKv.gif)

We get it kookadams. You have an opinion, now stop.

Whether it is actually true or not, only a person's musical taste will know for sure. In my heart & soul, The Beach Boys music moves me in ways that only The Beatles' wish they could. But that is only me, YMMV.

Great summary. :lol :lol :lol

I feel exactly the same way - but alas, statistically many millions think otherwise.

Exactly. Kook seems to want to prove to us his tastes are valid (when many people here would have agreed to begin with) by creating all sorts of strange and arbitrary rules. It is enough to just say "I like The Beach Boys music better." Why all this "music they created between 62-67" nonsense is given is utterly meaningless and, also, spectacularly dishonest.

  I kind of match up ABBEY ROAD and SUNFLOWER. Both albums are immaculately produced (slick maybe?) with sonic nuance, detail, precision, and a deep emotional core in spots.

 I think The Beach Boys probably beat The Beatles on singles going head to head through 1967, but The Beatles made more consistent albums. 

  YESTERDAY & TODAY is a great hack job.

That's a very interesting comparision Moon Dawg. But honestly, I'm having a hard time making it!  :lol

For the singles, the beach boys definitely beat the fabs mathematically at least. They put out way more singles. Chart-wise, I'm sure The Beatles beat The BB's though. And in my personal taste, The Beatles singles are still better than The Beach Boys, but that is only me. No doubt, The Beach Boys are number two in my book though.

Early 63:Surfing USA vs Please Please Me
Please Please Me

late 63: Little Douce Coupe vs With the Beatles
With the Beatles

Early 64: Shut Down II vs Meet the Beatles
Uhh...

mid 64: All Summer Long vs Hard Days Night
maybe All Summer Long

late 64: Christmas LP vs Beatles for Sale
Tie. Neither are favorites of mine.

mid 65: Today and SDSN vs Help!
Today. Not a fan of Help or SDSN.

late 65: Party vs Rubber Soul
Rubber Soul...

mid 66: Pet Sounds vs Revolver
Pet Sounds

mid 67: SMiLE sessions vs Sgt Pepper
Sgt. Pepper

late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey vs Magical Mystery Tour
Smiley Smile and Wild Honey

68: Friends vs White Album
The White Album. It's kind of unfair to compare a 90 minute double album to 25 minute album. But The White Album just has much better material. One of the best records ever made.

69: 20/20 vs Abbey Road
Abbey Road. 20/20 is a pretty embarrassing album, in my opinion. Only a few songs are worth listening to.

70: Sunflower vs Let it Be
Sunflower. Let it Be is a mess, kind of like 20/20 was (but with much better material)

I sometimes wish they broke up after "Good Vibrations" to save us from atrocities like "Transcendental Meditation," "All I Want To Do," and "The Nearest Faraway Place." They released so much bad music even before Endless Summer.

one side note is that what genre would you classify the Beatles from about 66-69. They're not really a hard rock group in the sense of Led Zep or Hendrix, but they're definitely not a pop group either. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNTOwMD1mC0

^
You're forcing me to get off topic.

One of the most mesmerizing things ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAN7HByXXxY

The sound they achieved on Revolver is incomparable.

With that the beatles shoulda broke up after revolver.

The Beatles released nothing truly embarrassing like The Beach Boys did during that era. There are plenty of good tracks on albums like Friends but there are plenty of turds as well -- turds far below the standards of The Beatles weakest material.

I'm quite glad The Beach Boys didn't break up, but I find it unnerving when people talk about 1967 - 1973 as some sort of "golden age" when it was really an inconsistent time for The Beach Boys.

Very true. I like Friends but I would say it was their weakest album in the 60s.

Every album from Surfin USA thru Wild Honey were fuckin amazing. Friends was a little weak, 20/20 was killer, Sunflower was great, Surfs Up was good not great, and Holland was good. After that with the exception of Love You they were DONE making good albums.

Friends is in my top 3 albums, and sometimes it's at number one depending on my mood.

I love the first half of Friends but the second half really drops for me. Anna Lee, Be Still, and Transcendental Meditation are pretty horrendous. Busy Doin' Nothin', on the other hand, is one of my absolute favorite Beach Boys songs. Brian still had it -- he just wasn't using it enough.

(http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/6126/3ph8eo.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/109/3ph8eo.jpg/)

You wish they would've broken up for the occasional bad track on each of those albums? You seriously wish that neither Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends, 20/20, Sunflower, Surf's Up, CATP and Holland would exist? Do you hate all of those albums?

There are two extremely absurd arguments that are running through this thread now.

I've always loved transcendental meditation. It's totally rocking with blues/jazz sax chords and not something you could meditate to. Hilarious and brilliant.

Early 63  Please Please Me

late 63: With the Beatles

Early 64: Meet the Beatles

mid 64: All Summer Long  & Hard Days Night  (can't call it)

late 64: Beatles for Sale

mid 65: Today and SDSN

late 65: Rubber Soul

mid 66: Pet Sounds

mid 67: SMiLE sessions

late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey

68: White Album

69: Abbey Road

70: Sunflower

That's another amazing aspect of it. Let's just breakdown Revolver for a moment...

1. Taxman- Heavy Pop Rock (for the time at least)
2. Eleanor Rigby- Baroque Pop
3. I'm Only Sleeping- Psychedelic Pop
4. Love You To- Indian Pop (George Harrison Hybrid Genre  :lol )
5. Here, There, and Everywhere- Soft Rock Ballad
6. Yellow Submarine- Children's Song/ Pop
7. She Said, She Said- Acid Rock
8. Good Day Sunshine- Ragtime/ Sunshine Pop
9. And Your Bird Can Sing- Electric Folk Rock?
10. For No One- Baroque Pop
11. Doctor Robert- Rock
12. I Want To Tell You- Pop Rock
13. Got to Get You Into My Life- R&B
14. Tomorrow Never Knows- Progressive Rock

Did I repeat any genres?...

Baroque pop.

Also, Good Day Sunshine is hardly ragtime. It's in straight fours for most of the song (except the chorus), not syncopated.

It was the best term I could come up with to describe the instrumentation, not so much the musical structure.

My point is, when I listen to Pet Sounds as an album, I hear....Sunshine Pop, Folk Rock, Baroque Pop and Pop Rock...and all four of those are very close obviously, with Pop Rock being the root...leaning heavily on the pop side.

don't you mean Revolver? Pet Sounds isn't really a rock album as it is sort of a classical one.

Well, I think its pointless to argue about taste in music. People have the right to disagree with me (but not kookadams apparently). I started this thread because of the constant comparison of Pet Sounds and Sgt Pepper. When my point is Pet Sounds was closer to Rubber Soul and Revolver in time. I think Sgt Pepper is a bit more of an advanced production than Pet Sounds, but now that we have the SMiLE session, I think that would be more appropriate. Thus I made this list to see where they were at the same time. Perhaps makes more sense to think about to those of us too young to have lived through it. May be pointless if you grew up with it and were able to compare where the two bands were at any given time. 

Who said anything about rock albums? The thread is comparing Beatles albums and Beach Boys albums...that's what I was doing.

Didn't Rollingstones fans look down on the Beatles because they weren't pure rock n roll? I am not as much into that scene, but I thought I heard there have been Beatles vs Rollingstones conversations similar to this. I love them all for different reasons. But I think the quality of an art can be more than mere opinion. There are a lot of things I really like that I don't think are quality (early Bob Dylan, the Kinks, etc). Other things I find to be of high quality art, but don't really like (Yes, Muse, etc). So I think there can be a little more to discussions rather than taste.

Although I care not for these threads and only wish canker sores on those who clutter our message forum, I'll cave and participate on this one.  Here goes:

Early 63:Surfing USA vs Please Please Me

Please Please Me.  Sorry, but have you tried actually listening to early Beach Boys stuff?!  Yikes.

late 63: Little Douce Coupe vs With the Beatles

With The Beatles.  The Beatles' sophomore album had a variety of different songs to listen to; whereas with Little Deuce Coupe, you had a number of car songs.  Most of which were instantly forgettable.

Early 64: Shut Down II vs Meet the Beatles

Shut Down, Vol. II.  This is where the Beach Boys albums start to take a little shape and provide some memorable material.  The Beatles first Capitol Records venture offers songs we've already heard, only with a crappy toilet-bowl stereo mix.

mid 64: All Summer Long vs Hard Days Night

A Hard Day's Night.  Sorry Beach Boys, while All Summer Long has some classic songs on it, it also has a lot of filler.  A Hard Day's Night?  Nothing *but* classic hits, and absolutely no filler!  And it doesn't hurt that this was the soundtrack to a classic movie as well.

late 64: Christmas LP vs Beatles for Sale

Beatles For Sale.  The Christmas album is great, but only worth listening to during the holidays.

mid 65: Today and SDSN vs Help!

A three-way tie.  This one's a bit unfair.  You're comparing two of the Beach Boys best pre-Pet Sounds albums against one Beatles album?  Had it not been for said Beatles' album containing the most covered pop song of all time on it, the edge might have gone to the Beach Boys.

late 65: Party vs Rubber Soul

Now this one is totally unfair.  Rubber Soul all the way.

mid 66: Pet Sounds vs Revolver

Pet Sounds.  But this is really a tougher call than you'd think.

mid 67: SMiLE sessions vs Sgt Pepper

Sgt. Pepper.  Sorry, but the Beatles actually *finished* their masterpiece.  All the SMiLE boxsets in the world ain't gonna finish the album.  Had it actually been completed and released like it should have, this would be a much more interesting comparison.

late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey vs Magical Mystery Tour

Magical Mystery Tour.  Even though a couple songs on there are generally regarded as filler, the Beatles' album also contained several of Lennon's best (and weirdest) songs.  Sure, the Beach Boys had "Good Vibrations", but this is where the decline began. 

68: Friends vs White Album

The Beatles (White Album).  Interesting to see the directions both bands were taking with their respective albums, but this is really like pitting a puppy up against Godzilla.  Friends offered light pleasantries, but at this point they were no longer competitive with the Beatles.

69: 20/20 vs Abbey Road

Abbey Road.  Nothing against 20/20; it just suffers from some spottiness when compared to the Beatles' unofficial swan song. 

70: Sunflower vs Let it Be

Sunflower.  A true group effort by the Beach Boys.  And while none of the songs here are as memorable as some of the stuff on Let It Be, you could tell the effort was much more present with the Beach Boys. 

So yeah, I'm giving a lot of edge towards the Beatles.  Their albums just managed to be more all-around consistent.  That's not to say the Beach Boys albums they were being compared to were bad; it's just something magical was going on with the Beatles and they made few mistakes along the way.

No, just no.

These are two of the more preposterous statements I have read on here in a while.

Balls in your court - go rep for MIU, LA, KTSA, or SIP without resorting to 'Brian wrote it', 'it's good for the time', 'Carl/Al/Dennis saves this song', 'there's worse to come' 'in spite of the production', or any other thousands of excuses fans make for those absolutely awful albums. Do it. If you listen to it for the sole reason that it's by The Beach Boys, you're not listening because it's 'good', it's fan service. I don't have to spend my precious life listening to Keeping The Summer Alive just because it's by The BB's when I honestly think it's crap.

Who said I had to like everything they did, anyway?

IMO, those albums have about five or six tracks of any worth between them (I didn't mention BB85 because, well, I like BB85). The rest I'd listen to out of curiosity or a sense of duty, because I'm a fan. But I'd never say they were good albums - they're all fatally flawed!

Wow, pretty presumptuous of you to have everything so worked out; like our good and bad taste. I really love the L.A. (Light Album). I always kind of considered it a "Friends" type album. Here Comes The Night sticks out similar to Transcendental Meditation, but on the whole it is a nice chill out album, with more of a true Beach Boys singing style. I bought this album on the day of release and loved it ever since. So, please don't tell me that I like it out of duty. If you want to go on thinking that all these albums are fatally flawed, then be my guest, but there are some us here who don't feel that way at all. For the most part I find redeeming values in all of the albums. You know, we say here that Carl's voice was/is so great that he could sing the phone book and it would sound great. Well, I find this to be true on some of the lesser songs on these albums. They may not all be great songs, but in just about all cases there is great singing, and that is and always has been my main reason for my rabid fandom of The Beach Boys.

MIU through SIP is awful, I cannot listen to the bad vocals and production even though I am a hardcore fan. Carl couldn't save these albums with a circa 1966 voice.

Then don't, is all I can say.

drbeachboy, why must we fight?

That's not a bad reason, tbf - although surely you must concede that, say, MIU has some of the ropiest singing on any Beach Boys record?

I would say BB85, while better than the last two albums, had bad vocals due to the fairlight and Steve Levine being no BW when vocal arrangement.

I hate fighting too, but when I read stuff like what you wrote above, it just bothers me. I like what I like, and I don't like being told that it is because it's through a sense of duty that I like it. Think about it?

I know of a few older fans then myself who liked MIU a helluva lot more than Love You or 15 Big Ones. Mainly, because it sounds more like the Beach Boys of the early & mid-60's. For years, my older brother who got me into the band in the first place, really never cared for anything but the hits from Pet Sounds through Holland. He only went back to them after he listened to my copy of 15 Big Ones back in 1976. He is not a big fan of Love You either.

This post has nothing to do with The Beatles; maybe there should be another thread.

I'm one of the older fans. I like the albums MIU through TWGMTR, some more than others, of course. And, yes, I suppose I like some of the songs, or should I say I gave them more of a chance because they were Beach Boys' songs.

That being said, and it pains me to say this...but you could take away every song after Love You, including "Kokomo" - maybe every song after "Good Vibrations" - and it would barely have an effect on The Beach Boys' legacy.

You are absolutely correct. So, we should enjoy what we have or not.

I'm a sucker for anything by the beach boys. L.A album, M.I.U, I can stand them all.

I actually love KTSA and BB85, Two favorites of mine.

As for Awesoman's post. I disagree with most of it, not surprising though...we're on a Beach Boys message board.

Tbh, after getting into The Beach Boys I more or less completely abandoned the Rawwwkk scene in music, both old and new. Beach Boys and good pop rule the roost in these ears!

Well, that too...

Just trying to look at both bands objectively.  The Beatles' albums were in general superior; they had little to no filler on their albums where the Beach Boys had a fair share of it.  There are only a small handful of Beach Boys albums as a whole that could stand up to the best Beatles albums. 

I'm in the same boat as you.

This is far from objective, sorry. This is just your opinion. I can prove its just your opinion because I think the opposite. Apart from a few Lennon songs, I just don't get what the fuss is about. As far as I'm concerned the Beach Boys had the Beatles licked by the opening bars of Surfer Girl.

You're welcome to disagree, but don't tell me yours is an objective view.

OK I'll clarify:

As a Beach Boys fan, I'm looking at these albums objectively. Sure I love the Beach Boys, but I'm not simply going to give them the nod because they're my favorite band. And that's what being objective is all about: not letting your personal feelings and opinions affect your judgement.

You are right to your own opinion, but I feel that the Beatles had plenty of rubbish filler before Rubber Soul. Hard Days Night and Help were better, but still had filler. I think Sgt Pepper had a filler song as well in When I'm 64. Lots of rubbish on the White Album and Let it Be as well. But yes, I agree, the Beach Boys had a lot of filler in the early days, like everyone else. But from All Summer Long til Holland, they didn't have a lot IMO. Save for 20/20.

You're right there. Sgt Pepper is full of what I would class as filler. Lovely Rita, Good Morning Good Morning, and that dreadful track that sounds like you're sitting in an Indian restaurant. This is supposed to be their masterpiece!
I quite like Lucy In The Sky and Mr Kite, but I've never been that impressed by Day In The Life. Compare that awful string bit with Mrs O'Leary's Cow, It's just shite.  Even in it''s unfinished state, Smile urinates on this overrated pile of crud from a great height.

In my opinion of course......... ;)

MTR, just out of curiosity, which 20/20 cuts do you consider "filler"?

Man, reading Beach Boys nutters' opinions of Beatles music makes me laugh.
Sgt Pepper is a masterpiece. Opinion or fact. Its music - superb music, brilliantly written, performed, arranged, engineered and so on.

Comparing the Beatles and Beach Boys is almost pointless.
Its like comparing the sun and the moon.

Shine On

"Are you telling me you think the Atlantic is a better ocean than the Pacific?"
- Radio Days

They are flawed, and inferior to their great stuff....but to say they "made some of the worst music ever made" is BS. Their bad/lackluster stuff is not half as bad as the worst music ever made.
And as for Smile Brian's "they should have broke up after Love You"......give me a break.

And since this is another BB's vs. Beatles inane thread I'll point out that McCartney put out tons of crap with and without Wings yet his stuff always ended up on the radio simply because he had been a Beatle. I'd take Goin On, Baby Blue, and even the disco version of Here Comes the Night any day over Ebony and Ivory or Say Say Say. I have a CD by Paul called Wingspan and disc 2 is lesser known Wings stuff (I think) that is so bad it's like listening to paint dry.

And I like Paul and the Beatles, but the bias and pass he/they have gotten over the decades is really annoying to say the least.

They actually did break up briefly in 1977 after the tarmac fight. One of the main reasons they got back together was for the money from the rich CBS contract. The band's live shows from 1978-1998 (with a couple exceptions) were full in autopilot mode. Add the horrible studio albums in the mix and its not a surprise people didn't take them seriously anymore. The 1993 box set and its tour were the first steps to restoring the legacy.

See this is the main problem I have with the Beatles really, their fans. It's like religious indoctrination. They're conditioned from birth to believe that the Beatles are above criticism. Any negative view is met with an incredulous cry of "b-b-b-but it's the Beatles!!!"

Well sorry, I'm just not that not impressed by them. I'm not trying to be clever, or different, I just find their music boring on the whole. And really, calling me a nutter just because I don't buy into the whole Emperors New Clothes scenario that is Beatle fandom just makes you come across like a moron.

Sgt Peppers is consistently voted the best album ever. I just don't think its that good even by their standards. Rubber Sole and Abbey Road are consistently better. This is why I call it overrated. I think it is. And the reason I say Beach Boys albums are better, because I think they are.

Shall we agree to disagree without the insults?

Preach it brother. And I say this as a (minor) Beatles fan. Sgt.Pepper is not their best album. Not even the best album of 1967. I think "Forever Changes" by Love kicks it's a$$ on every conceivable level.

edit

The greatest trick the Beatles ever pulled was convincing the world they didn't record filler

Taken seriously by who? Moron critics for rags like the Rolling Stone? The clowns that hand out meaningless Grammy awards? I'll admit they could have changed up the set list and really missed something after Denny died but they put on many great shows during those years you mention. I was at a lot of them and there were thousands of people on their feet year after year.

Can you tell me why Paul McCartney was taken seriously when he was putting out Say Say Say? Do you think on any level that deserved the airplay it received? How about Silly Love Songs or Ebony and Ivory? Big hits that are embarrassingly bad.

I also remember Summerfest in Milwaukee trying to book Paul for a concert in the '70's and not being able to reach a deal because he demanded a minimum of $60,000 dollars and in those days that was unheard of for a head line act at Summerfest.

Again, I'm a Beatles fan and have seen Paul in concert twice and both times he was great. He and the Beatles however are also overrated pains in the butt on many levels to me and lots of other people.

You're so unbelievably Eurocentric.

I disagree. They weren't being taken seriously from Smiley Smile onward. The reasons why some these later 70's albums are below par was mainly from trying too hard to find a sound that worked and a Brian Wilson who was not quite up to the task.

Them working too hard and BW being out of it are good reasons why the group should have taken a break. Brian and Dennis could have gotten more help to become functional again and therefore making songs to revitalize the band.

You guys and this "Filler" crap. Who cares? Every song on an album does not have to be a masterpiece. If they were, you'd be bitching because their albums were like Greatest Hits packages. ;)

Why? I am quite happy that my favorite band has been around for 51 years. At least they tried something. Just didn't sit on their asses and collect royalty checks.

That is a great fact about the band, but I just think so many of the years were in autopilot touring mode. Touring non-stop with a bizarre stage show with poor albums did a number on the BBs reputation in my opinion. The boxsets of the 1990s had to remind the general public of why the BBs mattered beyond the crass stage act they became.

You really don't like this band very much, do you? Crass stage act? Geez, even at the top of their game, they were constantly on the road touring. Nothing changed in that respect. Think about it, their best two songwriters were having plenty of issues in the late 70's until Dennis' death, and Brian through till the end of the second Landy era. If nothing else, the concert tours were the one ggod thing that kept them in the public eye, especially from the mid-80's until Carl's passing.

.

.

Crass? Don't even understand what is meant by it. Bizarre- Yeah, for a few years. Basically, the years all the Wilson brothers were having one issue or another. Autopilot? I enjoyed every mo-honkin' one of them. When you play what the fans want to hear, over & over for 30+ years, yep, you can go into autopilot. They were still good shows autopilot or not, from the mid-80's onward.

.

Just expressing my honest opinion on the BBs, thats all. This thread is another BBs vs. Beatles thread, so I am trying to answer why the Beatles have a god-like reputation and the BBs don't. Doesn't matter if I went to a show, bootlegs and full concert videos on youtube are a source to make decisions.


I love the BBs, but I am not afraid to call them out when reviewing them if I see fit to do so.

Great band name right there.

Yeah, well it does matter when you call the shows crass, bizarre & autopilot. Even watching videos and listening to boots is not quite the same as experiencing it in person. You act like beyond Pet Sounds & Smile, your interest in the band is Brianista-like, at best. And that is my opinion of you.

Exactly! Although...at least Silly Love Songs had a cool intro and bassline...

To be fair to SMiLE Brian, who is not someone I agree with often, a lot of the shows in that period fit that description fairly well. Cheerleaders, Adrian Baker, Al looking at his watch, cheesy synths, Billy Hinsche rapping, Mike exaggerating his nasal vocals, Stamos, that awful 25th anniversary special... there were peaks and troughs, and I wouldn't dismiss that entire period (there were clear efforts to up their game in 85, 88, 93 and 96, for example, and I think the shows I've heard from 77-80 are extremely good more often than not), but there were some very, very poor shows during that time, though it does depend what your criteria are. The audiences clearly went away happy more often than not, so they must have been doing something right, but aesthetically/artistically a lot of those shows were just plain bad.

With all due respect to The Beatles, if it is between a Beach Boys album and a Beatles album, it'll always be a Beach Boys album.

I agree

Glad we agree on something, those flaws you mention are what I was hitting at with the crass and bizarre terms. This youtube video is a prime example with cheerleaders.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpSwdQMn8xs

It's one song, 3:00 mins of a 90 minute show. That is being overly critical of a whole show. Cheerleaders are not crass, nor bizarre in the context of Be True To Your SCHOOL. Even the 45 version had simulated cheerleaders doing cheers in the song. Next you will be telling me how bizzare it is to have surf boards on stage too.

Another video from the same concert with cheerleaders, whole show is posted on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMU1tF64_Uc

.

This may have happened in Japan, but I saw them many, many times throughout the 80s & 90's and they rarely had them for more than a song or two, at least here at the Philly shows that I attended.

Fair enough, I will take your word on it.

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

What is your beef with me? I am just posting my thoughts on this thread.

SmileBrian, you need to face the facts that they are not the Pet Sounds/Smile Beach Boys that you fantasize them as. They haven't been that band since 1967, or the less than mainstream band since 1975.

.

I disagree, C50 proved the artistic part of the BBs never went away and they can still be about the "music".

.

.

.

Go troll somewhere else, you add nothing of value to this discussion.

.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the meaning of crass. In America, they are a part of the culture. They are looked at in a very positive way. So, it may be a bit corny or whatever, but not what I call crass.

Boy, the pot calling the kettle black.

Depends which Americans you ask. I just asked my wife, who's from Minnesota (the home of cheerleading) and she said that the only reason she wouldn't use the word "crass" about cheerleading is that she'd use a lot of ruder words...

Wait a minute here, if the college cheerleaders agree to go up and do this and they are not forced, then it is not crass. They are doing it of their own volition. Just about every high school & college, as well as pro sports teams in America have volunteer or paid Cheerleaders.

Plenty of people choose to do crass things of their own volition.

In my opinion, the use of cheerleaders at BBs show was crass. Nothing more could distract and block the view of the band for the hardcore fans. Plus they couldn't change the setlist anymore without messing up the cheerleader changing schedule. Hence Al's anger in the Carlin book.

.

Nobody said that you had to like it, but they never blocked my view of the band. Hell, they don't even block my view at a football game. Besides, you have 30 plus other songs to watch the band, just in case they did happen to block your view. Listen to the words of the song and Honeys singing cheers. It's just Show & Tell, baby!  ;)

I am. I'm a fairly crass person myself.

Not sure why we're defending cheerleaders. It's the closest The Beach Boys got to Spinal Tap!

Andrew, please look up the meaning. It has to be a man saying or doing something against women. So a woman cannot be crass against herself.  

Can you people act more like adults, i.e. disagree without taking potshots at each other?

DrBeachboy & Smile Brian....you two don't agree with whether or not the cheerleaders on stage were crass (I think a better word would be 'tacky', actually). That's fine.  I'm not that crazy about them personally, but to each his/her own.

This, however, is not fine...


So hal, you're saying you're intentionally trying to provoke SB so that you can get him banned? Please clarify, because if so that's not cool at all.

I don't know where you got that, but that possibly explains why we're disagreeing, because that's not what crass means:

From Merriam-Webster:
Crass:
1
a : gross 6a; especially : having or indicating such grossness of mind as precludes delicacy and discrimination
b : being beneath one's dignity <crass concerns of daily life>
c —used as a pejorative intensifier <crass flattery> <crass propaganda>
2
: guided by or indicative of base or materialistic values <crass commercialism> <crass measures of success>

From the Oxford dictionary website:
adjective: showing no intelligence or sensitivity:

From dictionary.comcrass
[kras]
adjective, crass·er, crass·est.
1.
without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; stupid: crass commercialism; a crass misrepresentation of the facts.
2.
Archaic. thick; coarse.
Origin:
1535–45; (< Middle French) < Latin crassus thick, dense, fat, heavy

Related forms
crass·ly, adverb
crass·ness, noun

Synonyms
1. dull, boorish, oafish, indelicate.


Nothing there about "a man saying or doing something against women". I'm not quite sure what word you were thinking of...

Billy, you are correct. Tacky is a better term. If people are going use those terms, at least know the meaning. Using it as something it doesn't mean just confuses the issue. I wasn't sure, so I took the time to go look it up in a dictionary.

.

In a way, though, it would fit...

I wouldn't agree, but I can see how it would fit.

Understood, but next time can you just avoid the putdown? You're not the only one guilty of it this thread...not by a longshot, so I'm addressing several others at the same time. Good time management.

Back to the cheerleaders...Brian's vision for 'Be True to Your School', as mentioned above, included the sound of cheerleaders, so the BB using cheerleaders on stage was a bit of a throwback. Personally, I don't like it. Hell, I didn't like it when Brian did it.

Adjective: Lacking sensitivity or due consideration. Crass assumptions that men make about women.

Example: So, since women are primarily cheerleaders, the Beach Boys are being crass making women be cheerleaders.

But, the women are already cheerleaders and perform at the concert by their own volition. Hence, no lack of sensitivity or consideration. Beach Boys are not being crass.

The live "be true to your school" from 1964 is about the only time I have liked that track and the cheerleaders were the BBs themselves. ;D

I think in this case, it's referring to lacking sensitivity towards the band's legacy, not the cheerleaders themselves. That's how I read it anyway.

Damn my head hurts now. :lol

Ah. I see where the confusion lies now. In that first line, "Crass assumptions that men make about women." isn't part of the definition, but an example of the word being used in a sentence. The definition part is just "lacking sensitivity or due consideration."

The definition I was using was closer to sense two of the Webster definition I quoted -- "guided by or indicative of base or materialistic values". I suspect SMiLE Brian meant either that, Webster's definition 1b ("being beneath one's dignity") or the dictionary.com definition ("without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; stupid").

http://youtu.be/p3MiD_U4CHQ

Bluebirds Over the Mountain and Cotton Fields mostly. Maybe All I Want to Do, but at least it rocks and is an original.

Well, I thought SB's use of crass was the Beach Boys forcing these women to be on stage. So, now that I understand how he is using it, crass is now in the eye of the beholder. You and he think it is, and I don't. We are now back to square one. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. ;)

Yep. Like I said, we can agree to disagree -- now we've agreed what it is we disagree about, anyway ;)

.

I tend to agree with that, but would they really release "filler" as a single with Bluebirds...? Mine were All I Want To Do, TNFP and NLNTL. Still, not too bad for "filler". Personally, as an album of songs, it is still a pretty strong album.

:lol And like Billy, my head now hurts.

The interesting thing about that album and what it says about the band's attitude at the time is that they only ever performed *one* of Brian's songs from it (Do It Again) live at the time, but performed every single other song on the album except Be With Me live at least once -- I Can Hear Music, Bluebirds, All I Want To Do, Nearest Faraway Place, Cottonfields and Never Learn Not To Love were all performed live around the time of the album's release, but not I Went To Sleep, Time To Get Alone, Our Prayer or Cabinessence.

So I suspect that if they saw anything as filler, it might have been Brian's tunes...

You might be onto something Mr. Hickey....

Except for TTGL, I would think the other songs would be tough to do live and do well with the small band they had in place. Of course Al revamped Cottonfields.

There is a difference between filler and a deep cut. Neither would make good singles, but a deep cut is actually good music. A Day in the Life, With You and Without You  are deep cuts IMO, When I'm 64 is filler. I didn't realize Bluebirds was a single, but I don't believe it should have been.

As for the tacky discussion, I think a lot of things were tacky in the 80s not just the Beach Boys. The Monkees anyone? Mullets? Having said that, I like new wave music especially The B52s and Devo. Also some of BB85 has grown on me. California Calling is not one of them!

I think the Beach Boy history is frustrating for many hard core fans. Where might Brian have gone if he completed SMiLE and continued in that vain? What if Blondie and Ricky stayed around and they progressed beyond Holland? And the fact that most Beach Boys 'fans' have limited knowledge of the band. I have only been to 2 Beach Boys concerts,  The 50th anniversary was awesome, but the Mike and Bruce show circa 1999 was awful. The deepest cut was Do it Again! But I suppose that is the curse of being hard core about them. Most people aren't. Most on this board are out numbered. For every Good Vibrations, Pet Sounds and SMiLE box sets, there are hundreds of greatest hits releases.

But I am thankful that we have gotten so many great things over the last 13 years. I got really into the Beach Boys in 98 and thought I'd never experience anything worth while from what I saw in the Mike and Bruce show. But since then I have seen Brian Wilson's Pet Sounds and Smile tours, POB release, TLOS, BWRG, Postcard, TSS, TWGMTR and the 50th tour. I can appreciate these things and let the tacky masses have their thing! :)

I'll play along and stay with the thread.

I find very little filler on Beatles' albums. Very little. Actually, I find almost ALL of their albums to be five star albums, as do most music publications which rank albums. No other rock group has approached the Beatles in the CONSISTENT excellence of their recordings. They rarely recorded anything that was less than great, in my opinion, of course. :-D

Brian Wilson was as talented, if not more talented than Lennon and McCartney. But, Brian's bag was the hit single. Brian was a disciple of Phil Spector, and Spector wanted the hit singles. Brian recorded a couple of singles, they packaged them together and called it an album. Only when Brian heard Rubber Soul did he focus on making an album. By the time Friends was done, Brian was back to making "songs" again. By that time Brian lost the focus to do a whole album, Love You being the strange exception.

Yeah, the cheerleaders were tacky and crass and whatever. But I forgive Mike. Mike knew that The Beach Boys had become a traveling juke box. He knew that in 1968! Why do you think Mike recruited the Maharishi to ride along? Why did Mike dress in turbans and sequins and bed sheets? Why did he bring "The Chief" Charles Lloyd on stage? Why did he teach corny sing-a-long songs like "Country Pie"? Why did he recruit The Beatles' drummer for a D.C. Beach Party (how blasphemous was that?) Why did he have Billy Hinsche dress up in that hideous costume and rap to "Wipe Out"? Why does Mike embrace a soap opera/TV sit com actor to play drums and rhythm guitar? Why did Mike kick Al Jardine's ponytail out of the band?

Yeah, Mike looked like an ass many times, and many of the things he's done have not made the band look any better for it. But I forgive him, because he tried. He tried to do SOMETHING to save a band that was on the decline for many of those 46 years since 1967. Yeah, Mike had something to do with that decline, but, damn, look at the others in the band, too. Look at the lives of the others in the band. Is it any wonder that the band had was on autopilot at times? They were just trying to survive, not just on stage but off stage. Mike was misguided at times, no doubt about it. But he wasn't getting a lot of help. He was surrounded by some very dysfunctional people, who weren't doing very many positive things for the group.

What's that old cliche. Give me the errors of enthusiasm over the wisdom of complacency. Or something like that. How about That? :o

Brian Wilson is a greater songwriter than Paul or John as individuals IMO. The Beatles had less filler than the Beach Boys, but than again, one guy was doing it alone. On the other hand Pet Sound and SMiLE may have eclipsed anything Lennon/McCartney and George Martin did together. But it is like a handicap match (for WWE fans out there). Imagine if Dennis was as gifted as he would eventually become as early as 1962? Wow!

Also, I agree that I don't blame Mike for everything. The 3 guys with the most creativity in the band were unable to overcome personal issues. If Brian, Dennis and Carl were more stable imagine what great albums they could have released in the 70s!

Great post, Sheriff

Snigger snigger....
OK i get it. Youre not keen on the Beatles. Point well made. Words like " shite. overrated pile of crud" only clarify your point. Understood.
But ive got no insults. Im a Beach Boys nutter. We are on a Beach Boys message board - surely we are all nutters?! Or harmony morons?

Good posts Sheriff and Andrew, been some strange times in BBs world.

I must've missed this earlier, but of course I agree completely. For years, I felt something was wrong with me, because I felt  was the only one who felt that way.

That's cool, I misread you, happens with text sometimes. Apologies to you :)

You're not alone. Hating the Beatles is a perfectly natural and healthy thing. If more of us could "come out" I think the world would be a better and fairer place, but until the stigma of being a Beatle hater passes, we do face ostracism and intolerance wherever we go.

You took the first step into a brighter future today, and I'm proud to call you my brother.

I'm not a big fan either after my family overplayed them when I was a kid.

The Mike love thread was a lot less offensive than this one  :lol

Of course, there's no reason why anyone should or has to like The Beatles but justifying your dislike on the grounds that you are some kind of oppressed group struggling to overcome some kind of massive brainwashing by unthinking sheep is ridiculous. What it is is this - you don't happen to like a band that is loved by many, including many who know a tremendous amount about music, and having heard a great deal, believe that The Beatles are the best of rock and roll. Tastes are tastes. I have a cousin whose knowledge on music I respect a great deal and he finds Pet Sounds entirely uninteresting. And it's not because he hasn't given it a fair chance. And it's not because he has gone into it with preconceived notions about The Beach Boys. It has everything to do with the fact that he has listened to it and doesn't like it. The end.

Anyone with a passing interest in world-class pop music of the 1960s who can't find the whole spectrum from Giddy Pop Euphoria through to Devastating Emotional Punch (to say nothing of Mould-Breaking Innovation) in the music of BOTH the Beach Boys and the Beatles is, at the very least, missing a trick, and quite possibly also deserving of pity.

I don't hate them and respect their music, its just on a personal level I don't get much out of them anymore.

Twas satire

Well, it was exaggeration, surely. But it's not completely unlike anything I've seen people suggest seriously on this board. This is why I didn't respond directly to your quote.

Ha, I wondered when pity would come up. You pity me all you want, my musical tastes span about 8 centuries, so believe me, I'm missing out on nothing, I was brought up on the Beatles, so I've heard about all I need to hear thanks.

Just bear in mind, a lot of what I say is tongue in cheek, if I've seriously annoyed anyone I apologise. Musical taste is very personal, I know that.

Well, you quite literally are missing out, compared to somebody whose musical tastes span 8 centuries but who also likes the Beatles.  They simply enjoy more music than you do.  But I will defend to the death your right to hold this silly opinion.

Tbh I never listen to the Beatles anymore, killed my enjoyment by overlistening in my youth. The are good ofc, very good, but Beach Boys music is the only music I can listen to death and still enjoy.

I'll let this speak for itself

I rather assumed that it did already, unless the "tongue in cheek" card is yours alone to play.

Silly opinion, Trix are for kids!

Life's too short. Lets just say we were all joking before this gets out of hand.

Basically, I don't really want to end up getting annoyed. I still think I'm right, but I want to back away whilst still saving face. At least in war there are rules for this sort of thing.

I'll stick Shameless on, the proper UK one

Night night

I don't hate The Beatles but I hate all the music critics and writers who feel the need to include pretty much every one of their albums whenever a 'best of list' is compiled.

I hate the fact that they are given endless acclaim even when it is undeserving (Sgt Pepper is NOT one of the first psychedelic albums or the 'first' concept album - it's not even a concept album for fecks sake!).

I hate how despite using many additional session players on their songs they are given a free pass while equally great band such as The Beach Boys and The Monkees are chastised for doing so.

And most of all I hate the fact that people seem to have this undisputed notion that they are hands down the 'best band of all time' and everyone else no matter how talented are just gunning for second place.

Right. And my cousin could likewise hate the fact that Pet Sounds is regarded so highly when he finds it uninteresting in comparison to what he considers to be albums deserving of acclaim higher than Pet Sounds.

And they'd both be opinions. Neither right nor faulty

Perhaps he does?

Except that you seem to be suggesting that these critics who think so highly about The Beatles are wrong.

OK, perhaps he does. And suppose he said it on this board with the frequency that people say that Sgt. Pepper is overrated. Do you think the overwhelming reaction to him would be, "Meh, it's just an opinion as valid as any other"?

If it is or isn't, it still won't invalidate his opinion . Why are you taking this so personal?

Hard to say. I know that after a while I would start to wonder what he was doing on a Beach Boys msg board.

I'm not taking it personal at all. All I keep seeing is people taking it personally that The Beatles are given so much acclaim. I'm attempting to demonstrate the weakness of these ongoing arguments against The Beatles because it rests on a fundamentally paradoxical premise - that people overrate The Beatles because their subjectivity prevents them from seeing the objective truth that there was better music being made.

I don't take it personally either; I just don't like their music nearly as much as most other people do. I just don't understand their popularity to the extent that they are popular.

Well, I'm sure I could offer an explanation in the same way that I could offer an explanation as to why Shakespeare, Picasso, and others are considered to be the best of their respective fields but if you don't like them then no explanation no matter how accurate would ever been satisfying.

If push comes to shove I'd have to admit that I think this often the case. But that would be very presuming of me to flat out say this to a Beatles hardcore fan. I can't possibly second guess what someone else is experiencing when that are listening to a Beatles record so I won't. I can only give my personal experience of having listened to Sgt Pepper since my early teens, thought it was pretty good at the time then discovered a ton of records I consider a zillion times better since.

Of the top off my head from 1967 alone;

Love - Forever Changes
The Monkees - Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd.
The Mothers of Invention - Absolutely Free
The Byrds - The Notorious Byrd Brothers
The Doors - Strange Days
Jimi Hendrix - Are You Experienced
The Rolling Stones - Their Satanic Majesties Request  
Harry Nilsson - Pandemonium Shadow Show
Gorilla - Bonzo Dog Band
And ironically enough  The Beatles - Magical Mystery Tour

I don't see why it has to be an Either Or kind of thing. You can love both bands, equally or not, without it becoming some grand statement of overall quality. None of us are responsible for the critical canon, and we shouldn't have to answer for it.

OK - but like I said it doesn't quite work as an argument. You can't say that better is subjective and then go on to name other albums that are better.

Personally - I love many of the albums you mentioned in particular Forever Changes, Pisces, Byrds, Experienced, Satanic, Pandemonium, and Magical. Yet despite that I still prefer Sgt. Pepper to any in that list that you "consider a zillion times better."

I'm as huge a Beatles fan as they come, and I'd agree with you that at least six of those (Pisces, Absolutely Free, Pandemonium Shadow Show, Gorilla and Magical Mystery Tour) are better than Sgt Pepper. And I'd add in The 5000 Spirits or the Layers of the Onion, And His Mother Called Him Bill, Francis Albert Sinatra & Antonio Carlos Jobim, Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Something Else By The Kinks... and 1967 wasn't even a particularly good year for music.

I've never seen what was considered so special about Sgt Pepper. There's some really, really good stuff on there (as there is on every Beatles album), but I might go so far as to say that Pepper was the Beatles' *worst* album...

I'd say I prefer Something Else to Sgt. Pepper's too. Of course I'm not prepared to take critics to task for my particular point of view.

Que?

That honour surely belongs to the fucking dreadful Beatles For Sale.

Heh. That's the response everyone has, pretty much, when I say that. I have a lot more time for that album than anyone else I know, mostly because it was the first Beatles album I owned of my own and I played it to death when I was seven. Even despite that, though, I'd argue that any album with I Don't Want To Spoil The Party, Every Little Thing, What You're Doing, No Reply, I'm A Loser and Eight Days A Week could hardly be called "fucking dreadful". The covers let it down, but even there I don't think they're as bad as all that -- even Mr Moonlight, for all the cheesiness of the Hammond part, has one of Lennon's best vocals.

But I accept that this is very much a minority opinion.

Well, I could have easily said Let It Be, were it not for the same reasons you said, so I understand  ;D

No Reply
I'm A Loser
Baby's In Black
I'll Follow The Sun
Eight Days A Week
What You're Doing
I Don't Wanna Spoil The Party
Every Little Thing

How can you call Beatles For Sale a dreadful album? They were still at the top of their game!!! What BFS lacks is a skillful choice of covers (I do love "Mr Moonlight", though, and it's my favorite of the covers on that album).

http://youtu.be/GT0AEdWJ3FQ

Haha Ego, it just really doesn't hang together for me - I'd listen to those songs individually and think they're ok, but I'd never listen to Beatles For Sale as a whole. Only Eight Days A Week, Every Little Thing, I'm A Loser and No Reply do it for me as huge Beatles tracks for me, tbh. The rest sort of seem forced, which I totally get as they were the busiest men in the world. I do like the Words Of Love cover, but then that's just one of those songs.

Apart from "What you're doing" and "I'll Follow the sun" none of those songs do anything for me.

I always found that album and most Beatles stuff pre-rubber soul pretty boring

I'd take Hard Day's Night or With The Beatles over any post-'65 album.....but that's just me. I think The Beatles hit their zenith in late 63 into 64...when they took over the world pretty much. You can hear their persona on those records. The one-two-three punch of It Won't Be Long/All I've Gotta Do/All My Loving on WTB, I don't think I've heard that much enthusiasm on any record by anyone!!!!! That's what makes the Beatles so special to me, no one else could have made the sounds of those records except those four people at that exact time.

Please Mr. Postman, Beatles version, is my all time favorite song. Just the way it sounds, I'm in love with it. You don't have to explain merseybeat to someone, just play that record.

I enjoy the whole Beatles catalog, but Pepper and The White Album (just as examples) will always fall short of their earlier work because of that almost undiscribable magic I feel on those early ones.

A Hard Days Night is so good, that and Help! (I know, it commits many of the cardinal sins I damn Beatles For Sale for, but the overall effect is better on Help, they sound like they give more of a damn on the covers and sh*t material, and it has eternal jams such as Ticket To Ride, The Night Before, You're Gonna Lose That Girl, I've Just Seen A Face.... I've Just Seen A Face, goddamnit!) that are the epitome of that early Beatle sound. 

OK, when you're doing these, you have to take into account that the White Album was a double album and, thus, should be compared to not one, but *two* Beach Boys albums.

Similarly, Smile had enough material for ~1-1/2 albums, maybe more, so maybe you could compare it to 2 Beatles albums. Or maybe do Smile & Smiley Smile vs 2 Beatles albums (and mix and match the 2 BB albums since they were "almost" the same album).

I personally wouldn't bother including "minor" albums like Party!, Christmas album and Yellow Submarine. Same with concert/live albums.

Finally, the BB had a year's head-start over the Beatles in turning out albums, so I'd exclude Surfin' Safari.

The biggest problem, of course, is that the BB released more albums in the same amount of time that the Beatles did.

Here's my list. I will use only the Beatles' UK discography. "Excess" BB albums without Beatles analogs will be left without a match and with an *, and that's the case with one Beatles album, too.

(Spring 1963) Surfin' U.S.A. - Please Please Me
(Fall 1963) Surfer Girl - With The Beatles
*Little Deuce Coupe
(Spring 1964) Shut Down Volume 2 - Hard Day's Night
(2nd half of 1964) All Summer Long - Beatles For Sale
*Today!
(Summer 1965) Summer Days - Help!
(Late 1965-early 1966) Pet Sounds - Rubber Soul
(mid-1966 to mid-1967 "High Psychedelic Era") Smile/Smiley Smile - Revolver/Sgt Pepper
* not sure what to do with Magical Mystery Tour
(1968-ish "Immediate Post-Psychedelic Era") Wild Honey/Friends vs 'White Album'
(1969) - Let It Be vs 20/20
(1970) - Abbey Road vs Sunflower

The material on Let It Be was recorded prior to Abbey Road, so I've put it in the 1969 category instead of 1970. But the last 2 pairings you could easily switch around.

If you've not yet done so, go read the Internet-infamous essay by Piero Scaruffi on The Beatles (http://www.scaruffi.com/vol1/beatles.html). Choice quotes include:


Maybe Scaruffi posts here too! :lol

There really is a startling amount of attention paid towards The Beatles from within The Beach Boys camp. And I don't say this because I think one is so vastly better than the other but because it perpetuates such a poorly informed understanding of how the music was being inspired at the time. I mean, yes, the two bands influenced each other. But the whole Beatles/Beach Boys conversation has entirely overshadowed other potentially interesting conversations. Rather than seeing The Beach Boys within a context of 60s rock and roll, why not consider them through the lens of Californian music. Doing that you can see how, say, the drive towards something like Pet Sounds may have been motivated not by Rubber Soul but by what was a landmark California album - Mr. Tambourine Man, which was a major post-British Invasion attempt to re-locate a particularly American sound. From that point we can look at an album like Pet Sounds as part of a particularly American movement rather than merely an attempt to capture the magic of a British record. And let's not forget that Brian would have been particularly inspired, motivated, and challenged by the groups that were around him - Byrds, Love, Mamas and Papas, etc.

That Scaruffi is on to something

Note that what I wrote was albums 'I' consider better. The fact that Pepper may pretty much outsell most of that list combined is proof that a majority of people think otherwise.



I did consider putting Something Else By The Kinks on the list but felt the Dave Davies songs let it down somewhat. Ray must have been in a good mood that day because he had much better tunes of his own lying around.


I find the first two of their albums incredibly bland. A Hard Days Night had them upping their game considerably, but much of their catalogue is hit 'n miss for me.

Now them's fightin' words! Death Of A Clown and Funny Face letting it down?! Funny Face may be the best thing on the album -- and that's on an album with Waterloo Sunset, David Watts and Two Sisters on it.

Please Please Me every single time.


Neither is a huge favourite of mine, but I'd go for Surfer Girl just because of In My Room
Shut Down had the better individual tracks, but Hard Day's Night is much better overall.

All Summer Long has to win here. Not even close -- and I *like*  Beatles For Sale.

Help! has to win here. Yesterday, I've Just Seen A Face, Ticket To Ride, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away... good as Summer Days is, it's not *that* good.

The first genuinely difficult choice here. Pet Sounds *just* scrapes it for me.

Revolver beats Smile in the unfinished form we have now -- but a finished Smile following the 2004 structure but with 1967 vocals would have beat Revolver comfortably.
Smiley is ten trillion times the album Pepper is.

Another genuinely difficult one, but the White album just edges out those two for me. Split into single discs, White album disc one beats Wild Honey, but Friends beats White disc two. But taken as a whole the White album wins.

20/20, easily,

Abbey Road, no question about it (I've always found Sunflower the weakest of the 1967-74 albums).
So for me, on this list, the Beatles beat the Beach Boys six albums to five. But it's *incredibly* close...

I like The Beatles, and was brought up on them to a certain extent.

(But) some of their songs remind me of wartime Britain.

The Beach Boys > The Beatles.

Here is the problem I would have agreeing with your assessment of most of those tracks you listed as being filler.  For me, when it comes to The Beatles there is something worthwhile about almost every track in the canon that validates it's inclusion in the canon.  So while some tracks are obviously stronger than others, there are in my opinion very few weak tracks something I've never been able to say as profoundly about any other band of whom I'm familiar with their entire catalog.

William Mann of the Times is yelling "Aeolian cadence" very loudly as a result of seeing "Not A Second Time" on that list.

The Beach Boys at their 66-67 peak were well above what the Beatles did or were even capable of.

But the Beach Boys at their low points were also far below the worst of the Beatles.  List every song the two groups released during the period of their co-existence, and the bottom 20 will all be Beach Boys.

IMO of course.

Well, yeah, but consider the Beach Boys only until 70, when The Beatles broke up. It's not that embarrassing anymore

He did -- he said "during the period of their coexistence".

Haven't listened to enough early 60s by these two...

mid 65: Today and SDSN vs Help! - Ya can't beat SD&SN!

late 65: Party vs Rubber Soul

mid 66: Pet Sounds vs Revolver

mid 67: SMiLE Sessions vs Sgt Pepper

late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey vs Magical Mystery Tour - That's a toughie. I think I'm gonna have to draw.

68: Friends vs White Album - but only just!

69: 20/20 vs Abbey Road

70: Sunflower vs Let it Be

I'm gonna cheat and use this as my list, since I agree with it with only two very minor exceptions.  I would most likely consider Today/SDSN vs. Help! to be a draw, because they are all strong albums in my book.  And Friends vs. White Album would also be a draw, but for the opposite reason....neither of them does anything for me, except for some of the individual songs.  I might even give Friends the edge just for being a more cohesive album. 

As I said before in another thread, if it is between Beach Boys and Beatles, it'll always be Beach Boys no matter what year. The Beatles are essential listening however.

Even with Party vs Rubber Soul?

For personal listening pleasure, yes.

Personally I think if we're going to have Party! in the list though, the Beatles fan Christmas LP's should also be included.

Fair enough. I guess I'm inclined to relate "Beach Boys' low" with their post-Love You output and everything that happened since.

They released 6 albums in a two year period (62-64). That's where we'd find the majority of "lows", because there were bound to be some fillers. After that (and until Sunflower), I don't see many low points (less than exceptional, of course) to be fair, but that's me.

Yes sir!

The Nearest Faraway Place

[/quote]



Personally I think if we're going to have Party! in the list though, the Beatles fan Christmas LP's should also be included.
[/quote]


Why?
The Beatles Christmas LP (singular, not plural) was not commercially released. Party! was.

But the Beatles were just about as prolific during that time, even though they started a few months later.

Remember that the Beach Boys' albums only had 12 tracks each, and one of the six albums had four repeated tracks on it.  So that's a total of 68 unique tracks, not including Christmas songs.

Three of the Beatles' four UK albums in 63-64 had 14 tracks, and the fourth had 13.  They also released 12 tracks that were not on those early albums (four A-sides, four B-sides and an EP).  That's a total of 67 unique tracks, not including Christmas songs.

True, but The Beatles had quite a few covers. I did some quick counting, and, whilst The Beach Boys covered 9 songs in their studio albums until 1964, The Beatles did 18.

Regardless, it's not that much of a difference anyway. I guess, after all, it's more of a question that The Beatle's fillers and even covers were better.

It's just that, as a BB fan, I tend to disconsider those early fillers and pass them as a minor necessary evil, especially considering that it was pretty much Brian composing all the work.

In my opinion the Beach Boys' cover of "I Can Hear Music" is one of their best songs.

The originals vs. covers argument might be a good one, except that some of the Beach Boys' "originals" were blooper tracks or aimless instrumentals.  I don't think Brian can take much credit for Denny's Drums.

What Brian can take credit for is being essentially Paul, John and George Martin rolled into one.  There's no question that he was doing an amazing job, given the record company's enormous demands and the relative lack of producing and song writing resources.

But at the end of the day, the results are the results.  The Beatles were simply far more consistent on their early albums.

This seemingly endless contrast with The Beatles as well as Brian's "genius" label are the biggest albatrosses The Beach Boys have had to continually deal with throughout their career.

Absolutely agreed. I don't imagine that on Beatles message boards people are starting endless threads about "who was better, the Beatles or the Beach Boys?"

Well because its part of our culture to accept that the Beatles were the best band ever. Even on this board to question this marks you out as some sort of pariah. We can talk about the Beach Boys greatness as much as we want, but the Beatles must be in there as a measuring stick.

As soon as the last of the baby boomers have gone, we may be able to start piecing together a real unbiased history.

Any history that begins with "There was all the boring music our parent listened to, and then there was rock n'roll, which had absolutely no relation to swing or big band" is bullshit. And yet that's the bullshit we're fed.

Nearly as good as "Rock n roll died in 1959, and all American and British pop was sh*t and sterile and manufactured till the Beatles came along" Another of my favourites.

You said the same in this thread as well. And yes, I agree that the Beatles are essential listen, I'll even go further saying they're the kings of the 60s music & decade overall. That's my objective idea, agree or not agree. On the other hand, The Beach Boys to me, with all their drawbacks & flaws, are 10.000 times better than Fab Four. There is magic in their music, even the worst. Which I can't say about the great, the legendary, their Highness The Beatles. In other words, The Beach Boys rule!

Btw, I read somewhere that there are only 3 great BB figures: B.B. King, The Beach Boys & Brigitte Bardot. Don't know about the latter, since I didn't watch a single movie with her, but with others I agree. The rest BB were trainwrecks, as I got from that article. So, seems like The BBs are in a good company.

I'm no hip hop fan, but the Beastie Boys can't really be describes as a train wreck. They did some highly influential albums, including one which is often referred to as the "Pet Sounds of Hip Hop"

Wow, really? I must check it then. Anyway, I think the author of the said article was a bit too rough when he used this "trainwreck" term. Every artist, be it JJ or KK etc., has sth. to offer, their moments of greatness, so to speak.

Yes, Berthold Brecht and Billy Bragg as well spring to mind also  :lol

Bobby Brown though........ stick him in the train wreck pile

Bix Beiderbecke, man.

I've also had someone tell me that The Beatles made the first ever psychedelic record. Members of the Hoffman board will tell you they invented Heavy Metal with Helter Skelter. I'm sure we can trace the origin of Hip Hop to one of their songs if we look hard enough....  ::)

Indeed. And Bobby Bland, Big Bill Broonzy, Blind Blake...
And in non-musical fields (since Brigitte Bardot counts) there's Brian Blessed...

Easily. Baby, You're a Rich Man has a kind of hip hop beat. And that fast gibberish in Everybody's got something to hide... That's Lennon inventing rapping right there. Oh, and Come Together!

Surely The Surfaris did one of the first raps, Surfer Joe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD6LKzhQcDc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD6LKzhQcDc)

Smacks head. I've just bought a double CD, how could I have forgotten Bix!

Ummm.  I've seen people on this board claim that the Beach Boys invented everything from rap (Games People Play) to the concept album (Little Deuce Coupe).  More recently, I've seen people claim that the Stones are to old to be on the cover of Rolling Stone, but at the same time complain that the Beach Boys should have been on the cover.

Exactly. It seems as if it's only acceptable to do that if you are talking about any group BUT The Beatles since The Beatles are attributed with so much already.

Well I agree they are talking out of their backside but it doesn't make my Beatle fan examples any less stupid.

Every fan base has its share of people who exaggerate a group's importance and accomplishments.  Visit a board devoted to any well-known group, and you'll find some of them there.  Certainly we have plenty of them on this site.

But that doesn't justify dismissing a group's legitimately good or great work.  I just don't get the compulsion some have to drag down other bands just because some of their fans are silly.

I don't have a problem with the Rolling Stones being on the magazine cover. But I do think that the Beach Boys should have been on there for their 50th tour.

Really? I heard something different, i.e. it were The Beatles who first invented rap with Rocky Raccoon (imo one of the best songs by the group). To me, that sounds more credible, because Games 2 Can Play has very tiny amount of rap talk & obviously it isn't the most memorable bit of the song.

I think in Rocky Racoon, Paul is just emulating that sort of spoken introduction which was common in many US folk songs. It's that whole Woodie Guthrie sort of thing.                

It seems to me these people claiming "firsts", on behalf of any group, often have a very limited knowledge of musical history.

The earliest examples that I can think of of someone speaking in rhythm over music in what we'd call pop, are Monster Mash, and Surfer Joe. There are probably older examples. I'm sure I've  heard this sort of thing in jazz, and swing, and, as noted, american folk music. It probably predates all of this. Suffice to say, neither the Beach Boys or The Beatles invented rap.

Yep, forgot about Monster Mash. Very nifty & cool song, I would say. No wonder it got to #1 in Billboard Hot-100.

Early 63: Please, Please Me
Late 63: With The Beatles
Early 64: Shut Down Volume II
Mid 64: A Hard Day's Night
Late 64: The Beach Boys' Christmas Album
Mid 65: The Beach Boys Today and Summer Days (And Summer Nights!)
Late 64: Rubber Soul
Mid 66: Pet Sounds
Mid 67: The Smile Sessions
Late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey
68: Friends
69: 20/20
70: Sunflower

I would have dropped the Christmas album and put the Party album in it's place, and moved Summer Days against Rubber Soul.
Also, I would have put Smiley Smile up against Yellow Submarine.

Problem is, this thread is about putting BB's and Beatles albums up from their same year, so...

I don't really listen to the albums before 65.

Mid 65: The Beach Boys Today and Summer Days (And Summer Nights!)
Late 65: Rubber Soul
Mid 66: Pet Sounds
Mid 67: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Late 67: Smiley Smile and Wild Honey
68: The Beatles
69: Abbey Road
70: Sunflower

I overall think The Beatles made more consistently brilliantly music than The Beach Boys. I just love The Boys' aesthetic so much that it doesn't matter.

That's the way it goes with every band that isn't The Beatles, I guess.

A thought provoking thread here, to be sure. But I think one very important element is missing in the discussion, and that is the Rolling Stones, who, along with the Beach Boys and Beatles dominated the 60's. All three bands deeply indebted to Chuck Berry, with the Beach Boys on one side drawing heavily from jazz, the Beatles in the middle drawing heavily from popular song, and the Stones, obviously, remaking the blues. Although the three bands emerged virtually simultaneously, the Beach Boys seem to have peaked first and have never been able to shake that fun-in-the-sun legacy, the Beatles absolutely owning the mid-60's, and the Stones justifiably billing themselves "the world's greatest rock n roll band," at the end.

Smiley Smile - The Magical Mystery Tour - Their Satanic Majesties Request - three very odd dogs, and all outclassed by any number of bands that year.

Early 63: Please Please Me

late 63: With the Beatles

Early 64:Meet the Beatles

mid 64: All Summer Long

late 64: Beatles for Sale

mid 65: Today

late 65: Rubber Soul

mid 66: Pet Sounds

mid 67:  Sgt Pepper

late 67: Magical Mystery Tour

68:  White Album

69:  Abbey Road

70: Sunflower

Id say itd be: shut down vol 2 and meet the beatles, all summer long and hard days night, today and help, summer days and rubber soul, pet sounds and revolver, smiley smile and sgt pepper, wild honey and magical mystery, friends and white and 20/20 and abbey rd.....maybe sunflower and let it be but let it be was posthumous....