The Smiley Smile Message Board

The Smile Sessions Box set cleared a lot of stuff up for me after years of bootlegs,articles.etc.While listening again to it earlier today I realized how much The mjddle section of "Day In The Life" resembles the "Fire" section if SMiLE. :o :o

Nevertheless, The Beatles borrowed exactly nothing from Smile for Pepper.

With all due respect...this topic's title (to be blunt) simply reeks of the pungent stench of a thread on the Hoffman forum, yet with a Beach Boys twist. All the time these kinds of topics come up I just see Beatles fans who are ashamed to like the Beach Boys and are trying to find ways to justify their fandom. Wouldn't it just be easier to listen to the Beatles and not tarnish your memories?  :lol

Any relation between Smile and Sgt. Pepper is purely coincidental. The stated Beach Boys influence on Sgt. Pepper was Pet Sounds. It's been known for years. Even if Paul McCartney had heard anything Smile-related when he visited the United States in March of '67, Sgt. Pepper was pretty much finished. I HIGHLY doubt, even if he had heard some Smile bits, that Paul would run back to England and tell the other Beatles and George Martin to throw Sgt. Pepper away and start from scratch because "I heard some amazing stuff in California from Brian Wilson. It was more than just surf music. It was, like, out there, man. We have to step it up again, mates."

The Beatles borrowed, stole, filched, nicked and acquired exactly nothing from Smile, for the excellent reason that they never heard more than the "GV" single and a late-in-the-day "Veggies" session. Need to brush up on your Dumb Angel 101.

Could this whole "the Beatles nicked SMiLE" fallacy be the reason why VDP's profile is so muted in relation to the box set? I listened to a recent pre-box release interview with him and he was vehemently sticking to that story. If his contribution to the booklet was going to be based on that, it could be that the set's overseers decided to nix it.

That wasn't the reason.

Here's what I think happened.

In 1967, SMiLE is released and the Beatles career is left in tatters.

A few years pass, and whilst working on a new sound board for the band, their friend Magic Alex inadvertently creates a portal in the space / time continuum, (the sound board sadly is a pile of crap)

The Beatles travel back to 1967 to scupper the album which destroyed them.

John Lennon is able to brainwash Mike Love, (using mind meld techniques learnt from the Maharishi himself) He programs Mike to criticise the lyrics to Cabinessence, which as we all know is the paramount reason SMiLE was abandoned.

Meanwhile George, dressed as Phil Spector, sits outside Brian's window making funny noises to freak him out. Brian's mental health quickly deteriorates.

Paul gets a job at Capitol Records, and using his plucky, backstabbing nature, climbs to the upper echelons of the company. He then steals millions of dollars of royalties from the Beach Boys, anonymously tipping off David Anderle as he does so.

Ringo just sits on the beach.

With the album in turmoil, the Beatles hot foot it to Wally Heider's mobile studio where they steal the master tapes for SMiLE.

They then fly to London and proceed to Abbey Road where, disguised as Bruce Johnston they give the tapes to their 1967 selves. With the deadline for their new album just weeks away, the 1967 Beatles record a pale facsimile of SMiLE. It's name, Srgnt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

It's the only feasible explanation.

So we are living in a dystopian future like "back to the future part 2"? :thud

Exactly.

In a strange twist to the tale, two time agents from the distant future spotted the anomaly and travelled back to put it right. Unfortunately they had a malfunction and got stuck in 1986. The two agents, lets just call them Mark and Alan, burrowed their way into BRI and set to work on getting SMiLE released. Due to their diligence, hard work and anal probes, we now have TSS.

We've also got those animal noises in "Good Morning, Good Morning", which strike me as a bit "Barnyard".

Thank you.

Or maybe it's the case that "great minds think alike"?

Brian had already released an album with animal noises (Banana and Louie at the end of Pet Sounds).

All of the examples listed in this thread, from animal noises to the orchestra, can be traced directly to one of the Beatles or those folks in the studio.

I think one of the reasons these rumors/theories continue is how convenient it is to link the Beatles and Brian through Derek Taylor, who was working for both of them at this time. It's easy to suggest Derek heard something in Los Angeles and proceeded to take his excitement and descriptions back with him to England where he'd tell the Beatles of all the marvelous sounds he was hearing. Or some have suggested Taylor taking physical dubs or acetates with him, but that theory is ripped to shreds by the fact that Brian wouldn't give out a dub of a song he was still working on to an outsider. Although didn't Jules say he received some dubs from Brian? Can't recall.

The only sonic similarity I can point to is a tape of McCartney working out keyboard parts for Penny Lane, then later doing the horn and woodwind overdubs which appeared on a Beatles boot. It was 45 years ago this month, and certain parts of that tape where they're messing with tape delays and such sound damn close to what Brian was doing in fall '66. Do I think there is a conspiracy? I think it was two artists thinking alike with some of the same influences, including one another.

And it's 100% correct that the Beatles were constantly listening to Pet Sounds while recording Pepper. Geoff Emerick says a turntable was requested to play albums in the control room, and Pet Sounds was in heavy rotation. You hear the Pet Sounds influence (especially WIBN) *all over* McCartney's keyboard and bass work on Penny Lane.

Small correction - DT was only working for Brian at that point: he'd stopped being Beatles PR and moved to LA to go freelance.

Exactly, I was just repeating what has been speculated about Derek Taylor being that link. Like many a conspiracy theory, the facts tend to get in the way.

One question I did have, maybe it was answered in another thread: Derek was working in Los Angeles in April '67, did he and Paul meet up or did Derek have anything at all to do with setting up the Brian-Paul-Papa John meeting at that time?

Again, if that was already addressed I can't remember. Just curious.

Exactly. I think the tag to Good Morning, Good Morning is one of the places where the influence of Pet Sounds is the most overt.

That is a stretch and I don't think it can be substantiated that the influence came from Pet Sounds - Paul seemed to be far more interested in Pet Sounds than John, and John Lennon had the idea for the animal noises which he wrote down and presented after recording his vocals for the song. He had a the animals sequenced as he had envisioned one after the other being capable of devouring the one heard previously. Once he explained it and showed the list, they got the animal noise tapes from Abbey Road's library and began cutting them together with John in attendance. It seems to be a different concept to have a specific sequence of animal noises based on dominance in the wild versus recording two dogs barking.

If wrong I'll stand corrected.

Yes - Derek facilitated the meetings with Brian & John.

Except that dogs barking are actually prominent throughout that sequence. I don't think it is possible to find evidence for what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting that John heard Pet Sounds (which, inevitably, he did) heard the dogs barking and thought, "Blimey, I'll use some of that." He might not have even thought about Pet Sounds at all. Rather, the animal noises at the end of a track (and, really, how much of THAT was happening on pop tunes pre-Pet Sounds) suggests perhaps more than anything on Pepper (maybe aside from Mr. Kite and She's Leaving Home) the kind of subconscious influence that Sounds was having on the album.

Clarence Frogman Henry already had the 'animal noises in the song' thing down pat anyways, what's the big deal?

Why is everyone overlooking the concept behind the GMGM animals, that each one was "eating" the previous?  Was that Brian's concept too?  Seems to me like two completely different set of ideas, and some people are sort of grasping for straws... 

Except of course for the idea of inserting real animal sounds at the end of a track. In that case, they are entirely, 100% the same set of ideas.

IMHO, there's only one Beatles song that in any way sounds even slightly SMiLE-esque, and that's "You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)". And that's stretching it a bit.

I've always thought that one was the most similar too, but I think it just comes down to the repetition of theme that Brian embraced, and of course the modular way in which it was recorded.  I think that song (you know my name) was a result of the Beatles trying Modular recording, which would have been a direct influence from Brian, although everybody had started doing that after good vibrations.  Also You know my name was a minor song for the Beatles, so it's not like they ripped anybody off or anything, I'd view it as a compliment before I viewed it as a ripoff. 

Said animal sounds were actually a link track to the "Pepper" reprise. As "C, N" was the final track on Pet Sounds... kinda falls apart there, doesn't it ?

You Know My Name is in no way a modular composition or recording. If anything it came from a song idea Lennon had, and skits they used to perform at his home (studio) with his Mellotron adding sound effects and audience reactions and nightclub feel. Almost the entire progression of that song is available on Beatles boots...fascinating for some, tedious and unfunny for others. But it's all there.

And nothing modular about it.

If the Beatles copied Smile for Sgt Pepper, then why aren't we calling bits like, "You're under arrrest," a copy of "Yellow Submarine"?  These desperate attempts to legitimize music that doesn't need to be legitimized really just make me embarrassed to tell people I like Smile.  Who cares if the Beatles made similar music?  All these bands copied and reacted to each other, anyway.

So thus by your logic, if I can find a song containing animal noises that predates Pet Sounds, then BW ripped them off, correct? 

It is the same chord progression played in a variety of styles and genres. I am not saying that IS modular, but if Brian did the same thing, EVERYONE would be calling it modular. That word is just a way for Brian Wilson fans to make themselves feel hip and sophisticated, anyway.

I'll go in a different direction here.    Everytime I listen to I'm Only Sleeping on headphones, I'm struck by how the background (oohs and aahs) harmony parts remind me of Beachboys harmony....just not as full.  It is actually what MAKES the song, IMO.

I think these bands influenced one another.  Seems I've read that in several places over the years.  Is this news to some people?

Did The Beach Boys invent vocal harmonies? 

Also, when did The Beatles start singing harmonies?  1959? 

Of course they influenced each other, but I think there is a tendency to over-credit Brian Wilson as much as the Beatles have been over-credited through the years. Not saying they don't deserve heaps of credit for their work, but some of it goes too far and isn't historically accurate. The animal sounds are one example, as is the notion of modular songwriting, along with the whole notion of editing sections of a song together to form a complete recording/composition, which was done before "Good Vibrations", maybe not to the same degree of commercial success but experiments were being done with tape editing in less commercial genres before Brian did it.

I'll list plenty of Beatles tunes which I think are directly influenced by the Beach Boys, but how do we know? I'll stand by Penny Lane as *the* example of Paul taking a direct cue from one of Brian's productions, yet no one here seems to back it up or dismiss it. Have a listen to Penny Lane next to Wouldn't It Be Nice, minus the Bach trumpet it's like a British version of a Pet Sounds track. And no doubt "Here There And Everywhere" was the Beatles pulling a Brian Wilson vocal trick, but how do we know? John, Paul, and George were harmonizing before the Beach Boys were on the commercial map, but it was coming from early Motown, Spector, and the like.

I really like the fact that there never was a competition between the Beatles and BB's. The one time the BB's slipped off the high road was that silly Four Seasons throwdown crap they put on a throwaway track, and it made them look silly. But between the powerhouse Capitol bands of 64-65, there seemed to be mutual admiration.

Of course the Beatles were KNOWN for harmony from the early days.  Sometimes compared to Everly brothers with three voices.   What I was describing was the SOUND of the background harmony on I'm Only Sleeping.  Sounds more like a BB harmony sound and style than the well known  Beatles harmony.  And it sounds really good.  Just an observation.  Go have another  listen to this song, paying close attention to the background nonword harmony part,  and see if you hear what I heard.  

"Penny Lane" is always the first track that comes to mind when I think of the Beach Boys' influence on the Beatles.  That bass line is Brian all the way.  Same for "With a Little Help From My Friends."  I would also count "Because" as being Beach Boys influenced, but as you say, it's hard to know for sure.  Given that they could have heard "Our Prayer" by that time, it's certainly possible.

Paul McCartney says that the Here, there and everywhere intro was a very deliberate attempt to do a Beach Boys harmony. I've lost count how many times I've read and heard him say how influenced they were by them across the Revolver and Sgt Peppers albums. This was the real creative/competitive surge in both bands at the same time. Neither has ever done anymore than openly praise the other during this period as far as I'm aware. And certainly not shied away from admitting any influence from the other.

Oh and i've defintely read Paul McCartney say that walking basslines was one of the biggest influences he took from Brian, or really took note of. Something to that effect.

In the Beatles Anthology, there's a discussion between Paul, George & Ringo, where the influence of The Beach Boys on "Penny Lane" is mentioned by both Paul & George.

That's what I was getting at, the 'feel' of the song is the same, and it was recorded after Brian largely pioneered that sound, so you COULD say that it was influenced by the 'Boys... but not in a sinister way, more in a that's what everybody was trying musically at the time type of way. 

The definition of modular songwriting tends to become bastardized into something it's not. Recording a song in sections then editing them together to form a composition is not necessarily modular writing by definition or by design, but maybe those methods can be stretched and shaped into being labeled modular by the results. If that were the case, anything in the past 30 years recorded on a sequencer or using a sequencing tool of some kind would be called modular, and I'd disagree with that.

There is also the age-old concept of "variations on a theme" which I think would better describe a lot of what is called modular.

I'd go out on a limb here...a rather thin one I'd admit...and say maybe the only example of a true modular composition in the Beatles' catalog was John's "Revolution #9". The piece was conceived as a collage of found sounds and tape loops, and I'd argue the composition itself could replace, re-sequence, and reorder any of the sections which form the composition at random and it would still fit. Every section (in this case each loop or tape splice) becomes both dependent on and independent of its surroundings for the piece to flow as a composition. Brian was doing this with all those Heroes sections, and as fanmixers for years have shown, you can scramble them up any way you want and it's still a cohesive Heroes. They were written/designed to be that way. Is Heroes then the most true example of modular writing in Brian's work? Or was it Good Vibrations?

Penny Lane for sure is the best example of the Beatles showing their love of the '66 Brian/Beach Boys feel and production style. In fact it says so on page 62 of The Beach Boys FAQ book.

Must be true, then.

I have not read the FAQ book yet, but intend to add it to my library soon! So Penny Lane is a definite, admitted influence on a Beatles recording from Brian, we can take that one to the bank. Now, are there any other references to specific songs that have been mentioned as influences on either band, apart from Penny Lane? Just curious...we could make our own lists based on listening to the tunes but I want to know if band members have cited any specifics other than Penny Lane.

I have a little section in the FAQ book that deals with this subject...very selective, very brief, by no means definitive. But among the songs I bring up are Girl Don't Tell Me, Here There and Everywhere, Penny Lane, Back In The USSR which IMO are the obvious Beachles cross pollination examples.

On the one hand, "Girl Don't Tell Me" is great.  On the other, it pretty much goes all the way past "influence" into blatant mimicry.

Incorrect and since you cannot even begin to conceive what I am talking about, I am not going to go any further.

You lot should just throw away your Beach Boys CDs and embrace your Beatles fandom. It would make you a lot more happier than having to continually justify your Beach Boys fandom.

That's not what it's about though. The Beatles were influenced by Pet Sounds, just as The Beach Boys sound was influenced heavily by Spector, the Four Freshmen, and Chuck Berry. Spector was inspired by doo wop and doo wop was inspired by jazz vocal quartets and so on. It doesn't hurt to bring it up.

Agreed, but then you get sh*t like "did the Beatles hear POB" or "did Sgt. Pepper rip off Smile" and it reeks of people trying to find ways to justify their Beach Boys fandom. People are trying to find common ground that isn't there. It becomes tiring after a while. This is coming from a HUGE Beatles fan.

And that is a perfect description of You Know My Name (Look Up The Number).

Well I'll give you the chance to explain yourself.  Elaborate.  :)

The central point of your argument is that
A) Since Pet Sounds contained animal noises before the Pepper, then
B) The Beatles must have "at least been influenced subconsciously"

And my retort is that if I can find a recording with animal noises that pre-dates Pet Sounds, that means Pet Sounds must have "at least been subconsciously influenced" by that...  by your logic.

I think it's pretty simple.  Don't you? 

And whilst we're at it we'll add "Nowhere Man" and "Paperback Writer" to the list...

So, then do you now admit that there is a world of difference between being subconsciously influenced by something and ripping it off, as you suggested in your previous post?

Furthermore, maybe we could say that Wilson was "subconsciously influenced" by an album pre-Pet Sounds that had animal noises at the tag of its song. That being said, you'd only have a strong case if Wilson as writer and producer admitted to listening to that particular album regularly and being influeced by it in the preceding nine months before he himself added animal noises to the tag of his own song, as was exactly the case with Pepper, The Beatles, and producer George Martin. So if one would offer some song pre-May 1966 that had animal noises at the tag and then say, does this mean Brian was influenced by it, I would say, again, that you don't really understand the point that I'm making. In fact, not only do you not grasp my logic, as you put it, but in previous posts, you fail to show any understanding of what it means to be influenced by something, as you conflate it with ripping something off.

I suppose the concept you don't comprehend is exaggeration?   :lol

But why is this necessary? Artists can be influenced without even knowing it.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Nothing on this board is necessary, is it? I'm curious as a musician influenced to do what I do probably as much by the Beatles and Beach Boys as anything or anyone else, and I'm making a living at it. Any look into their creative process and influences, no matter how small, interests me.

I like the minute details, I like finding that one interview where an artist lets something slip that appears nowhere else and sheds more light on the music they create. If it's McCartney saying he was influenced by something specific Brian recorded, I'm all ears and ready to hear the influence for myself.

I don't mean to say that the inquiry itself is unnecessary. I agree, it is interesting to hear if someone says that a certain work was influential on their own work. Nevertheless, what I am saying is that it is not necessary to only deem something as having had influence if you have the artist's word that this is the case. For one reason, and this is not the only one, it suggests that the artist has complete agency over what influences their work when this is not the case at all.

That's a good point, and anyone who creates anything will be influenced by their surroundings, everything from another work of art or music to the rhythm of rain hitting a rooftop or something similar. It is curious to find out what those who have reached the apex of popular success with their songwriting would cite as direct influences. I know with things I've worked on going back to the 90's, I can cite nearly every influence I "borrowed" from when doing it if there was a direct influence (minus the success part...). If someone hears it and says "hey, that sounds like McCartney's part on I Will...", it's either true for me or only true for them or both, but it's very interesting to hear all of that.

True story, just yesterday: I heard "She's Leaving Home", randomly, and for the first time ever I heard bits of Brian's "Caroline No" melody and vocal performance in Paul's lead vocal melody. When Brian sings and holds some of those falsetto melody notes, Paul is doing a very similar thing with his sustained falsetto on the chorus "Sheeee, is leaviiiiiing, home...". Because of these comments in this thread, I connected those tunes and to my ears, there are similarities which Paul may not have done prior to hearing Pet Sounds...just my opinion. Subconscious, indirect influence, perhaps.

If you're looking for a modular Beatles song that is seemingly inspired by a modular Beach Boys song, I would suggest "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" which strikes me as similar to "She's Goin' Bald". Particularly, both tracks open with a segment consisting of surreal, almost stream-of-consciousness lyrics followed by a series genre parodies, at least one of which (doo wop) can be heard in both songs.

NERD FIGHT!!!!!!!!!

Geoff Emerick stated in his book "Here, There and Everywhere" (chief engineer for the Beatles from Revolver through Pepper's, left during the White Album, returned for Abbey Road for anyone who cares  ::)) that Pet Sounds was always being played in the studio, and he specifically states he and Paul McCartney would stay late at night in the studio after everyone else had gone home to perfect Paul's bass lines, bass lines Paul himself stated were influenced by Brian's work on Pet Sounds.  So, in addition to Penny Lane, I think it is fair to say that many of the trademark bass lines on Pepper's were influenced in part by Brian and the Beach Boys

That's actually more the case of several song fragments that were linked together.  Take note of the omitted "Oh Yoko" fragment from the Esher Demos.  I think that would be the main difference: Brian saying "Ok I'm going to write variations of the same melodic theme and link them together" and Lennon saying: "OK I have several unfinished songs, might as well link them together to make a finished song." 

That's selective reaosning, because McCartney also stated they were dissecting James Jamerson's bass sound. 

Specifically on Pepper? Because it seems to me that the important figures in the story suggest that Pet Sounds was the key influence on Sgt. Pepper.

I do not disagree with you, because this is indeed true, but how am I being selective? Why can't they BOTH be influences on Pepper's? I was only bringing up The BEACH BOYS influence on Paul because this is a BEACH BOYS forum and a thread talking specifically about the BEACH BOYS.  Not James Jamerson.  

They could have both been an influence, but the fact that one would only zero-in on one influence would in a way bend the data to appear that he was the sole-influence, rather than one of several influences. 


Hmmm, specifically, I don't believe McCartney said anyone influenced Pepper's basslines, only that he intentionally worked to make them colorful and Emorick and him worked to get a good sound, take after take, late at night when everyone went, usually devoting a sole track to the bass guitar.  I believe Mecca said BW was a general influence on his bass playing, while identified Jamerson as specifically influencing Rubber Soul's bass tone.  Someone should quote HT&E if I'm mistaken, or that long Mecca interview about it from the 90s. 

McCartney has said this:


And on Pet Sounds influence in general:


And from George Martin:

Someone needs to tell Paulie the truth about that...  ::)

I don't think the Beatles or Brian needed to "borrow" from one another in those days.  I Brian's admiration for the Beatles, and the Beatles' admiration for the Beach Boys and Brian's artistic vision, were a case of gifted artists spurring each other on to greater creativity and originality.

If anything was ever "borrowed", I would say that Brian and his bandmates in 2003 did some borrowing from side two of Abbey Road to come up with the seamless segues that create the "movements" of BWPS.  But that's not a bad thing at all.  It's a very cool thing.

Yeah, but outside The Beach Boys, The Beatles were quite open to pilfering from other sources. John did it more than any of them, I think. He stole lyrics on more than one occasion. The beginning of the electric version of Revolution was taken wholesale from the beginning of Pee Wee Crayton's Do Unto Others, etc. To me, his pilfering made him an even more sophisticated artist, as far as I'm concerned. Artist like Lennon, Van Gogh, etc. understand that art is really as much about borrowing as it is about creating - or, that creating and borrowing are not necessarily different things.

Really can't disagree with you.  Brian was a borrower from earlier sources as well, and did so with a sophistication perhaps more profound than that of his Liverpudian peers.

It's a beautiful thing when someone backs you up with three definitive points, even better when they're three definitive quotes. I knew I had read these somewhere at some point or another.  ;D

I'm not.

Let me say first that I am a fan of Noel Gallagher as a songwriter, and I know bringing up his name can cause some negative reactions, but would this reasoning apply to Noel in the way some folks for years have accused him of nicking and "borrowing" too many obvious ideas from other songwriters to use in his own songs? If not, why not apply it to rebuke criticism of Noel as well? I think I agree with what rockandroll posted above - and that an artist or creator simply can't escape what they've heard or seen in the time leading up to that spark of inspiration which leads to creating a new work.

Yes, and in fact, I have defended Noel on this very board with that point of view. I think "unoriginality" became a particularly unoriginal line taken by critics who were critiquing Oasis once it became fashionable to hate them.

I hated them long before it became hip. Likewise The Smiths, or rather that caterwauling twat Morrissey.

You mean, those were Carol Kaye's basslines?   ;D

Seeing as Andrew beat me to the Oasis rebuttal, I'd just like to add that I always hated Coldplay before it became 'cool' to slag 'em. Chris Martin - what a wanker.

Same here. I've hated them before they were even famous! Then watched in utter disbelief as they became more and more critically acclaimed.

I don't think it's going too far to say that Noel Gallagher should be executed for crimes against music ;)

I knew it, just as soon as Noel Gallagher or Oasis are mentioned the anger starts to spill over. It's gotten so predictable it's funny to read the variations on the "they suck" theme. :-D

Crimes against music? Do we really want to compare notes on that one, on a Beach Boys message board? All I can say there is "wipe it out wipe out, wipe it out wipe out" and "Whhhhhheeeennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.......etc." Before reaching for Pet Sounds and Sunflower, play those chestnuts for someone you're trying to turn on to the Beach Boys. ;D

I know, I know. Maybe executing him is a bit too far.

Just a knee-capping then.......

Well, I meant at the critical level. The critical reaction to Oasis from Definitely Maybe to Be Here was such an overwhelming embarrassment that it should have ended small scale music criticism for good. Unfortunately, the self serving enterprise limps on.

At the level of popular reaction to Oasis, there are clearly many detractors and, yes, some of them are responding to the critical reaction and some of them are responding to their own internal subjective standard for what is good music. Nevertheless, the importance that Oasis had on popular culture was enormous. Their only real 90s rival was Nirvana. As far as I'm concerned they headed up the last important era of music, precisely because they helped in no small part to not only create a musical culture but more importantly to get large masses of people heavily invested in music again precisely because they reflected the concerns of the people - something popular music has rarely done since the 60s and something that most high-falutin self-proclaimed complex original artists rarely ever do at all.

I'm not afraid to stand up and say that both Oasis & The Smiths are great!

Bono once wrote "every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief" in the lyrics to the song The Fly and that statement somehow sums up the beauty of music: great art feeds itself from other great art! It's a constant evolution that's doesn't deny the past, but that actually uses it to project itself into the future :)

Take the example of MGMT and psychedelia rock. This band released a top charting album, Oracular Spectacular, in 2008 which went gold in this time & age with songs heavily influenced on 60s rock. 3 singles made the top20 and one of them, the superbly psychedelic Kids, managed to reach number 9 (US Billboard 2008)! We're talking just 4 years ago, when top charters were still Black Eyed Peas, Eminem (which I don't mind) and some really merda stuff!!!
 
And nowadays we're getting a whole new wave of indie rock influenced on MGMT. So kids that buy albums from Florence and the Machines, for ex, they'll be curious (like we all are) and get back to the beginnings of psychedelia with Pink Floyd, The Yarbirds, The Beatles and of course our beloved BBs :love

So if imitation and strong influence leads to interest in the original source...I'd say hell yeah, bring'em on!