The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time-20120531

#2. Pet Sounds
#271. The Beach Boys Today!
#381. The Smile Sessions

Sunflower which was on the 2003 list did not make the cut this time but it's nice to see Smile which was not on the earlier list (as it had not yet been released).

381?  Joke.

It's not the greatest songs but albums.

And, lol Rolling Stone.

How did Sunflower miss the cut? Oh, I forgot, they can't give the Beach Boys 4 albums! Even though every Beatles album is on there!

I'm glad Smile finally has a place on this list, where it belongs, but placing it at 381 is a joke.

I wouldn't put it on the list. It's not even a finished album. If they want to use Smile they have to go with BWPS. It's the only finished record.

And I share a nice little laugh with Ziggy Stardust. Rolling Stone.... haha ....

Where exactly does it say an album must be finished in order to qualify for the list? As far as I can tell, the only requirement is that it needs to be released and have some sort of critical acclaim. I'd say it belongs.

And is Today really that much better of an album than Sunflower? I never particularly thought so.

Not sure the "screw RS magazine" would  ompletely work here when a lot of the voters who voted on this list are from the music industry such as Robbie Robertson, Jeff Tweedy, Fats Domino, Richie Furay, Ray Manzarek , Chris Martin.... Check out the full voters list.

But I am pretty tired of The Beatles always taking the number one slot.

I mean, how can you even take this list seriously when there's M.I.A. in it? com'auwn giwuyz

As I said "I wouldn't". To me an album has to be a finished piece (it doesn't have to be a concept album or whatever).

They continually screw Pink Floyd as well.  I don't get what's up with that.  They placed the BB's at the number 12 spot for most influential artists, which I thought was nice, but then how do they only get three albums?

I almost feel they included TSS on the voting ballot just to cover their ass.  No doubt excluding it from the running would cause a flash mob scene.  But as far as considering it an actual album...I can't sign off on that.

I'm not.  They deserve it more than anyone.

Oh sure, it's been a rough couple of years for The Beatles...it's good to see them finally get the recognition they deserve.  :-\

I'm stuck in the middle on this one.  I consider BWPS the "finished" product.  The album that ought to be on that list.  But then we have TSS, which, by all means, intended to fill the "finished" album performed by the Beach Boys void.  It's got a track listing.  It is, by all accounts, an album, whether it is finished or unfinished.  But if I had to choose one for inclusion on that list, I think they should be putting BWPS in there.  Give Brian his due.  For the greatest pop composer of the 20th century, he's sure as heck under appreciated by this list.  Are any of Lennon's solo records really better than the achievement that is BWPS? I'm not so sure.

I don't mind them taking the number one slot.  I ADORE the Beatles.  But the Beach Boys get no love.  Can someone explain to me how With the Beatles is superior to Sunflower in every way? Because I just don't see it.

Same here, it would have been a huge breath of fresh air if they gave it to BWPS over TSS.  Regardless of what people think of the production, the Wondermints or the new lyrics etc...this is the only "finished" version of that work ever put on tape.  As great as it is to listen to the actual BB voices and original musicians play on all those tracks on TSS..we're still left with songs with no vocals and incomplete thoughts.  TSS is mix-n-match compilation with a simulated "finsihed" album...BWPS is the whole thing brought to the finish line. 

"Finished" doesn't necessarily mean "better" though - even with the unfinished tracks, I think the original recordings are better than the finished ones on BWPS, so perhaps the voters in their poll felt the same.

The Smile Sessions:
(http://files.myopera.com/movierich0918/albums/859151/Queensboro%20Bridge%20Construction.jpg)

Brian Wilson Presents SMiLE:
(http://www.mightymac.org/blog090719c.JPG)


In a lot of cases "finished" would mean "better."

Perhaps, but this isn't one of them.  This is really a debate for another thread (that's been done about a thousand times already), but TSS is a hell of a lot more than an unfinished bridge.  If anything, I'd reverse the pictures in this case, but that's just me.

Today's ranking is the biggest bullsh*t. They got robbed on that one. Especially considering some of the things that ranked higher than it. The Smile Sessions being on the list at all surprised me though. I thought someone posted earlier on another thread that BWPS was on the list too?

It just a magazine, everyone bashes it all the time. I dont think Pink Floyd were in any way massive innovators or nearly as legendary as the myth would have it, but they still got a few better albums than some of the Beatles albums which are overhyped beyond anything else. Also making the list ordered from 'best to worst' is kinda pointless with all these genres floating around. pretty pointless list really, but I guess people who look into it find new artist they learn to like, including many of the old 50's and 60's acts.

Also, Neil Young only enters in the list around the 80 or smthng, wth ?

f*** the Beatles and every damn music critic sucking them off since they debuted.

Well that IS a bit too much of Beatles albums in a list, yeah.

The Beatles were an album band. The Beach Boys weren't. And by that I mean, that primarily The Beatles are known for there collective bodies of work or albums, the Beach Boys are known for individual songs, but they aren't a singles band by any means.

I guess my point is, no two beatle albums sound alike. But nearly all those pre-pet sounds records could swap tracks with each other and it wouldn't be a big deal.

What other Beach Boy albums were expected to be on there? I'd put Pet Sounds, Sunflower, and Smile.

I'd put every beatles album except With The Beatles, Beatles For Sale, Yellow Submarine, and Let it Be.

i think the beatles were the best/most important "band" of all time, yet still overrated. i mean look at this sh*t
http://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-beatles-mn0000754032#discography

not all those albums are worth that praise imo

See, that is incorrect though. That is all their US and UK releases. The only ones viewed as official are the UK releases.

Please, Please Me ('63)
With The Beatles ('63)
A Hard Days Night ('64)
Beatles For Sale ('64)
Help! ('65)
Rubber Soul ('65)
Revolver ('66)
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band ('67)
Magical Mystery Tour ('67)
The Beatles ('68)
Yellow Submarine ('69)
Abbey Road ('69)
Let it Be ('70)

All of that plus the following singles is their entire catalog...

From Me to You/ Thank You Girl
She Loves You/ I'll Get You
I Want to Hold Your Hand/ This Boy
I Feel Fine/ She's a Woman
---/ Yes it is
---/ I'm Down
Day Tripper/ We Can Work it Out
Paperback Writer/ Rain
Lady Madonna/ The Inner Light
Hey Jude/Revolution
---/Don't Let Me Down
The Ballad of John and Yoko/ Old Brown Shoe
---/You Know My Name

oh i know.  That makes it even worse!

Please Please me - 5/5 stars
With The Beatles - 5/5 stars
Hard Days Night - 5/5 Stars
Beatles For Sale - 5/5 Stars
Help - 5/5 stars
Rubber Soul - 5/5 Stars
Revolver - 5/5 Stars
Sgt. Pepper's - 5/5 stars
Magical Mystery Tour - 5/5 Stars
White Album - 5/5 Stars
Yellow Submarine - 3/5 Stars
Abbey Road - 5/5 Stars
Let It Be - 4.5/5 Stars

Some of those absolutely are 5/5 albums, but not all but two.  To me, greatest band of all time but still overrated.  In comparison with the beach boys, i usually say i think the best of the beach boys is better than the best of the beatles, but the worst of the beach boys is SO much worse than anything the beatles ever approached, so beatles are the better band, but i'd take the boys every time.  

That is not what i meant, like, at all.

I'm not creating a Beatles vs Beach Boys war here, it's useless, and i'm not saying Beach Boys needs more albums in it..  
i'm just sayin' that is way too much Beatles albums, this is not the greatest Beatles albums list far as i know, it's the greatest albums of all time list.

Of all the albums that has been made and released each week since the last 7 decades or so,
whether it is profound piece of art work or indeniable entertainment popular impact/influential, i believe there is a lot of stuff to go through and many great stuff that deserves much more spot than some Beatles albums.

I mean come on, Let It Be part of the 500 best albums in music history EVER MADE ? and not even ONE album by Cat Stevens or Deep Purple in the list ?
let go the fan attitude and be pro again, RS, this is beyond ridiculous.

But, but...Kanye!

And yeah there's that too : there must like a billion Kanye West albums in that list but zero Tupac ? jesus christ, RS.

This would be more accurate if the second bridge was built with Legos.

'Summer Days (and Summer Nights)' deserves to be on the list. It's better than Today.

They deserve it period.

That being said as a huge Beatles fan I'm starting to worry that this is an obligatory gesture made more out of habit than anything else at this stage in the game. 

I feel the same way about Citizen Kane.

Why don't they print a magazine every month that just says "THE BEATLES THE BEATLES THE BEATLES THE BEATLES THE BEATLES THE BEATLES THE BEATLES THE BEATLES THE BEATLES" in it over and over and over for 100 pages with the occasional photo? A website featuring the same? A person screaming in the middle of a field that people can go up to and shout "THE BEATLES THE BEATLES THE BEATLES" back at?

They were good, but Gosh Darn. You're assaulted with them from the moment you're born and they're absolutely everywhere to the point that voluntarily listening to them sorta feels like voluntarily staring at the back of your hand for a few minutes. They're inescapable, and the absolutely horrid cover versions in multiple commercials at any given time don't help. New rule: Having anything to do with the creation of a punk rawk version of "All You Need Is Love" (never with the horn part because lol hornz are silly and dumb) gets you the death penalty. No questions, no trial, it's your fault, pick out your coffin.

There is indeed something obligatory and habitual about it, it feels. You can't make a list of albums you feel are historically important without including several of their albums lest you look like you don't know anything. You aren't allowed to say you don't care for them or one of their more important songs, because again, people will accuse you of not knowing anything or having *OHNO* bad taste.

Also, while we're at that, how about a "PET SOUNDS PET SOUNDS PET SOUNDS PET SOUNDS PET SOUNDS" magazine, a "TWILIGHT TWILIGHT TWILIGHT TWILIGHT" magazine, a "JUSTIN BIEBER JUSTIN BIEBER JUSTIN BIEBER JUSTIN BIEBER JUSTIN BIEBER" magazine, a "'REAL' MUSIC DIED WITH KURT COBAIN 'REAL' MUSIC DIED WITH KURT COBAIN 'REAL' MUSIC DIED WITH KURT COBAIN" magazine (and I've been a big Nirvana fan most of my life), etc.

inb4 "runnerz ur just a contrarian" or something. ^_^

I thought Sunflower was the one dropped?

They weren't good.  They were GREAT.  Capital G R E A T.  There is a difference. 

Like it or not they are and probably will forever be the measuring stick that all bands will always be held against.  What The Beatles were able to accomplish the the relatively small period of time they were making records is something that will likely never be duplicated again in terms of both popularity and significance.  Are we inundated with The Beatles in pop culture to this day?  Certainly but there is a good reason for that.  What they have been able to accomplish during the decade of the sixties and beyond has been nothing short of remarkable in terms of their brand.  It goes beyond popularity, it probably goes even beyond legacy.  I believe that The Beatles will NEVER reach a point in time when their brand becomes irrelevant.

I've been a Beatles fan for over thirty years now but something I heard on television recently gave me new appreciation for what they've been able to accomplish.  There was this commentator who made mention of the fact that in the entertainment industry no matter what field you are working in, you are going to need an exit strategy because every person or act has an expiration date.  My first thought was: You fool!  Here we are four decades removed from the last new Beatles record and their albums still fly off the shelves, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are still two of the most recognizable musicians in the world and the music of The Beatles is still everywhere.  They are the greatest example of entertainers whose brand has never expired and in my opinion never will.

G R E A T

Oh, you're one of those Beatles fans...

Yep and always will be.  After the members of my immediate family they are probably the four people who have most shaped and influenced my life.  After that there is really not much else I can say except for the fact that I love their music, will forever miss John and George and will always support the group.

I think The Beatles were good. Why am I not allowed to feel that way?

Feelings are neither right nor wrong.

Nuff said.

Heh, so is that a "Fair enough. Agree to disagree," response or a "You think the Beatles are just good? You can feel whatever you like, but it doesn't change facts," response? Sincerely asking.

Probably the former because any attempt to debate it would inevitably lead to the the "Musical taste is subjective/not subjective" debate anyhow.

Just askin', and true enough :)

I think the Beatles were great songwriters (well, maybe not Ringo :lol ), but I don't really care for the vocals at all.

*runs*

Ringo was a below average vocalist, George was an acquired taste but I'd be interested to know why you don't care for either John Lennon or Paul McCartney, who many consider to have two of the best "rock and roll" voices in the history of the industry?

I don't know what it is. I do like the later period better, but.. I don't know. Mr.Moonlight, for example, makes me gag. The "heeeeeelp" part in "Help!". Gah...I can't explain it. I don't know if it's the accents or what. Oddly enough, solo I like their voices better.

I don't see how you can be a Beach Boys fan who doesn't like the Beatles.  They were probably Brian's greatest influence when he was at his songwriting peak.

Actually, let me rephrase that.  I don't see how you can like music at all and not like the Beatles.  That just doesn't make sense in my mind.

Does it have something to do with the fact that you like harmony based vocals better?  I can appreciate both schools with The Beach Boys obviously having the best harmonies I've personally ever heard.  Honestly though if you put Brian/Carl vs. John/Paul just on the vocals and asked me to choose I'd have a hard time.  I'd probably go with the boys but John and Paul could do some amazing things.  For example Lennon's vocal on "Anna" to this day is still something that blows my mind.

The vocals on "If I Needed Someone" are probably some of my favorite harmonies in any song ever.

"You Won't See Me" is pretty awesome too.  That and "Here There & Everywhere" are on the level of The Beach Boys in my opinion.

Maybe that's part of it. I hit submit too soon, and I edited my post a bit. Hopefully I explained it well enough.


I do think they were great songwriters, but I prefer some of the covers of their work to the originals. It's mainly stuff like 'Love Me Do' and 'Mr Moonlight' that grate  on me. I do like the later stuff. The thing is, I hate how most people act like they were the be all and end all of 60s music; they weren't. Culturally, well, yeah. And yes, they influenced a lot of artists. But (and again, this is only my opinion), other artists took that influence and improved on it.

"here, there and everywhere" is one of the songs i just never got, it's really overrated for me and the harmonies are pretty mediocre too.  "Because" though, thaat is some great harmony.  And "this boy" is soooo good.

Huh...that's actually one of the songs I *do* like. :lol

I disagree but will admit I never fully appreciated the harmonies until they got a fresh mix for "Anthology 2" where they paired them with Paul's scratch vocal.  I really like that outtake and it's probably one of my personal highlights of the entire "Anthology" series.

well i'm kinda weird and "revolver" overall just kinda grates on me.  I like some individual tracks, but meh.  There's a lot of beatles i love, but then there's other stuff other people love and it just doesn't hit me at all.  I think my analogy is gonna be my opinion on asian girls, i can look at them and appreciate that they're really pretty, but i'm just not attracted to them.   :smokin

I have to disagree with you there Billy.  In my opinion the sixties produced a ton of great artists and great songs for that matter but to me each one of those acts were flawed in some way The Beatles weren't.  I'll just use The Beach Boys for example:  The Beach Boys to me have both the greatest album of all time ("Pet Sounds") and the greatest single of all time ("Good Vibrations") in their trophy closet along with a ton of other well deserved kudos and accolades.  That being said there are songs in the canon (and I'm not talking post sixties either) that are downright cringeworthy and embarrassing particularly coming from an band of their high standards.

For me The Beatles don't have anything remotely like that in their closet (that they released officially anyhow).  "Mr. Moonlight" isn't a great song, but it has a great vocal by John Lennon on it.  Likewise a few months ago I made the point that "Little Child" wasn't all that great either but it's once again saved by a great Lennon vocal.  The point being that in my opinion every Beatles song has something to recommend it.  Most of the time both the songwriting and the execution were there but even when only one was present the result was better than what most of their contemporaries could muster.

i've said i think the best of the beach boys beats the beatles, but the worst of the boys is worse than anything the beatles ever approached.  However, sometimes i don't believe what the beatles are singing.  Sometimes i felt like they were just singing lyrics instead of feeling them.  That's probably blasphemy, but i don't mean it for every song or something.  I don't feel like they exposed themselves emotionally very much, and that kinda dampens certain songs for me because it doesn't feel real.  and that's really the only problem i've had with them.  they're still objectively the best ever.  

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/who-is-paul-mccartney

Morons.  Nuff Said.

Well, yeah. Actually, the clunkers from the pre-1965 era I find worse than even the cheesiest post-1976 material. That being said, even the worst songs from 1967-1972 to me (stressing this is only my opinion) are better than 90% of anything else ever recorded. I find even the misses fascinating. Hell, I can find something to like out of just about every song from Pet Sounds on, even when the material is terrible. They may be a lot of things, but they were never boring. Sometimes,it comes just from being interesting from a trainwreck standpoint. So, (repeat after me: in my opinion) even at their worst they have that going for them.

Hmm...that may be a part of it for me, too. I think that may be why a lot of the poppier earlier songs just leave me cold. I find songs like 'Can't Buy Me Love" and "She Loves Me" to be great pop songs, but I don't get that charge out of them. They just don't get my buy-in. Now, take something bad from the Beach Boys. Let's say...um...'I'm Begging You Please'. Horrible vocal, yet there's something endearing in its awfulness. Brian's vocal imparts this kind of desperation, this tortured soul craving love and warmth, as his ruined voice struggles to hit notes that he used to hit effortlessly. Yet, if anybody else were to try to sing it, it'd not be worth even listening to.

DON'T YOU GET IT ?

THEY WERE GREAT.

G R E A T.


(http://maptonn.info/img.php?fl=o506x5m4f4s2n2t436w44424l4p4u2e5j4l5z394j4j494u2u5b416p2u5n564q534n2v214t214t224b4d4242364v2s284j5c4o5t2x274d4j503j52404h4s2e4o4n5)

(http://www.polyvore.com/cgi/img-thing?.out=jpg&size=l&tid=593958)

(http://www.ourdesigns.com/sites/odi/images/fullsize/REX00LB1E.jpg)

(http://a248.e.akamai.net/origin-cdn.volusion.com/swkxh.awrcc/v/vspfiles/photos/ught-iron-house-letter-a-LET-A-2T.jpg?1337223610)

(http://images.kaneva.com/filestore8/4658266/5791464/theUletterUt.jpg)

GREAT. Isn't this GREAT? GOD DAAAMN, THIS IS GREAT. Look, they're gonna kill that guy, isn't that GREAT? THAT'S GREAT.

(http://alllayedout.com/Comments/Compliments/graphics/thats_great.gif)

At least they heard his name and took the time to say that, do you think they even gave an f--- when they heard the name...Mike Love! They were probably too busy watching Maroon 5 to even wonder why their grandparents were on stage.

That post didn't really make any sense at all brah, just sayin'.

TBH

I am a big Beatles fan myself, but when it comes to my beatles list, hardly any McCartney tracks make my cut. A coulpe of George songs are around, but its predominantly Lennon material. I think it is better, I can connect with it, his vocals had much more soul attached to it, Lennon was a more interesting person (this ultimately cost him his life). Lennon was the main guy, even in Hamburg he was beyond anything people had ever seen or seen since. Lennon's death was a huge loss. I value him much higher than McCartney who generally wrote pointless ditties about nothing (Hello Goodbye, Helter Skelter, Let It Be etc...). He just didnt make Lennons level in my eyes.

AND YES, there are 4-5 too many Beatles albums on that list.
IMO the only ones that should make the cut are:
Please Please Me
Hard Days Night
Rubber Soul
Revolver
Sgt Pepper

White album is too long and filled with too much junk to make it really, Abbey Road is sugar, rest is self explaining...
And I'm a big Beatles fan mind you, just a balanced one, not a slave of their legacy.

Much more a fan of McCartney's voice (very much so - there are only a few Lennon performances that I actually enjoy), songs, and as a person. Those "pointless ditties" connect with me more than most of Lennon's stuff. Not saying I dislike John's stuff, but very much prefer McCartney.

Also, Ringo sounds fan-fucking-tastic on "With A Little Help From My Friends". Don't be h8in'.

Yeah! f*** rolling stone, what a joke!! The Beatles get too much goshdarn credit-
The Beach Boys should have Pet Sounds, Smile, Today, Sunflower, Little Deuce Coupe, 20/20, Surfin USA and so on..

I don't like The Beatles. I appreciate their influence but they're not for me. No amount of sensible discussion or trolling (I see Ziggy's kindly stepped up since some of the other resident trolls have become less active) is going to persuade me otherwise. Anyone who says I can't be a music fan because of this needs to get off their high horse.

Please just accept this as my own worthless opinion.

The Who have 6 of their 10 studio albums on the list and one live album.

WHY IS NOT 'IN CONCERT' ON THAT LIST?
It is an impeccable live album by any standards, lots of very well known songs and many deep cuts. Why it is not more recognised as one of the best live albums out there i don't know.  

The performances on that live album are quite remarkable and the arrangments are unique and often very different from the studio versions thus adding to its special feel. If there really were to be 4 BB albums on Rolling Stone's list I would vouch for In Concert's inclusion as a great live album.

funny the who is all over the list.  RS did rank as #13 artists all time though.  Just a little odd why they don't have more album showings.

I thought the oddest thing was the inclusion of greatest hits sets by a few artists- Madonna, Credence, Bob Marley, etc.  I could maybe see if they were not including any other albums from those artists and they used the greatest hits records to represent them, but that was not the case.

And yeah, no Tupac Shakur but three Kanye albums?  Four or so from Jay-Z?

The fact that there are greatest hits albums included to me at least brings the validity of the entire list into question. 

To the people who are saying that TSS isn't really an album:

Bullshit. The LP release / CD Disc 1 is the definitive "official" mix and release of what we have of Smile.

If you really want to get technical about it, Let It Be isn't a finished album either.

A new poll at gamefaqs...



:lol

For the record, I voted for George Harrison.

Without the Beatles we would have never had the Monkees (no HEAD). Without the Beatles we wouldn't have had the record label saying that the Bay City Rollers were going to be bigger than the Beatles (I still laugh to myself about that one). Without the Beatles we wouldn't have had the Rutles (my first exposure to Rikky Fataar). And the Beatles Rock Band is easily my favorite video game to play. Having said all of that most of the music I listen to currently is Beach Boys and classical.

Uh, wow. The thing is, I'm sure a lot of those 40.49% votes don't even know who the Beatles are or haven't bothered to listen to their music.

Also, Live In London beats the pants off of In Concert.

Also, no Tupac albums and three Kanye albums? Four Jay-Z albums? Holy fucking Christ, that's awful.

Also, greatest hits compilations making the list? Between this and the last thing, well, there went any credibility (as if Rolling Stones lists ever have much to begin with).

So now not liking any of the Beatles is more popular than John Lennon which means not liking any of the Beatles is more popular than Jesus.

 ???

The "Hanson generation" strikes again.  Seriously while I can't say never I've found it very hard to carry on a conversation about music with someone who was born in the nineties.  The reason being unless they had parents who were music fans and exposed them to the music of the sixties and seventies, these kids have no clue about any music prior to the year 2000.  They just have never been exposed to it the way that previous generations were and I guess I find that a bit sad.  That being said you can't know what you're missing if you've never experienced it so it is what it is I guess.  The point being is that I tend to write off the opinions of this generation (not even sure what the name of their generation would be honestly) as being irrelevant as they have no legitimate foundation on which to base their viewpoints on.  Polls like these are a prime example of what I speak of.

The key words in your message are "of what we have".  Had the Beach Boys actually finished the album like they were supposed to (in the 60's), I imagine SMiLE would probably have fared high on this list.  But the album was never completed.  I'm a bit surprised to see it appear on this list at all; Sunflower was more deserving.  At least the band managed to finish that one!

I dig In Concert quite a bit, but it's by no means a classic.  There are far more deserving live albums than this. 

TSS, to me, is somewhere between an album and a compilation, but is a bit closer to a compilation focused on a very specific period than an album. Its inclusion, like many Beatles albums, seems almost obligatory. The Smile material is probably my favorite stuff by the band, don't get me wrong, but it was just released last year but zomg mythical unreleased album with Beatles connections Brian quit the music industry for 40 years after hearing "Strawberry Fields Forever" it has to make the list.

Ah, more worship at the cult of Sgt. Pepper, I see. God, I'm so sick of that g*ddamned album. I'm a very big Beatles fan, but I don't like that album. I never listen to it. It's got a few good songs, but as an album, I can't listen to it from the first track to the last. To me, it's incredibly overrated.

As far as the Beach Boys on the list three times, and TSS being that low, I, obviously, find that an egregious insult. I don't care about whether TSS represents Brian's true vision from the 60s of how it should be, and therefore whether its' completed or not (whatever that even means). All I care about is: Is the music on it great? It is? Wonderful.

And it is great; seriously great. I listen to it more than "Pet Sounds," and I think it was more more daring and ultimately more interesting. Guess I agree with Dennis' controversial (in Mike Love's eyes, at least) statement about "'Smile' being so good it makes 'Pet Sounds' stink."

I'm not a Kool Aid drinker who thinks everything the Beach Boys ever did was classic. I understand their entire discography can't be on the list. But no "Sunflower"? No "Wild Honey"? I adore "Love You," but I understand why it's not on the list. But the other two I can't. Oh well, I can't vote on the list, so...

Don't be a fucking idiot, Landlocked. Those albums would take up space that is better deserved by Kanye West and greatest hits albums. "Forever", "All I Wanna Do", "This Whole World", "Darlin'" are a flaming pile of shit when set alongside "Gold Digger" or "Stronger".

To me it seems that the obligatory nod towards "Sgt. Pepper" as being the greatest album of all time has caused it to fall out of favor with some music fans and that to me is upsetting.  The reason being is because the album is no longer judged on it's merits and instead is asked to be held up on a pedestal as the unquestioned greatest record of all time which it isn't.  However, it is a great album full of wonderful songs that completely captures the spirit of the era it was created in.  I mean it has "A Day In The Life", "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds", "With A Little Help From My Friends not to mention some great hidden classics as well such as "Lovely Rita", "Getting Better" and "She's Leaving Home".  It's a great record, but unfortunately one that has been asked to stand up against every other record as the greatest of them all when in reality it's probably not even The Beatles' greatest album.

That all being said, I find it really hard to fathom how anyone can get their shorts in a twist over "Sgt. Pepper" being voted the greatest album of all time in any poll.  Objectively it does obviously qualify for that honor.  It's not as if them voted an album that was entirely unworthy of mention as their number one pick.

I see what you're saying about the constant deification of it actually backfiring and making some people resent it. For me, that's not the reason--I don't think it is, at least. It's not my reasoning in a conscious manner.

I understand why it was important. I don't think that can be denied, its influence. But I don't think the music is as timeless--that is, just as fresh now as it was then, great in an of itself and not because of any movement(s) that it spawned--as something like "Pet Sounds" or even "Sunflower." I mean, "All I Wanna Do" is a great example of the timelessness of some Beach Boys songs. Honestly, if I wasn't a fan of the Beach Boys, and you played that song for me, first of all I'd love it, and second of all, I wouldn't know if it was recording in 1970, 1990, or 2010. Timeless, beautiful music that is just as great now as it was then. Maybe "Sunflower" or "Wild Honey" weren't as influential, but were they as "great" as "Sgt. Pepper's"? I think far greater.

I also agree with what you said about "Pepper's" not being the Beatles' greatest. I know I'm in the minority, but I'd even put "Abbey Road" in front of it. Hell, I'd put the universally maligned "Let It Be" before it. The Beatles made some great music, and a lot of it should be on the list, I just think they picked weaker, less timeless music of theirs to put as number 1.

I think that Sgt Pepper is a fine and creative album with some of pops best songs. Sadly the McCartney material on it does not match up to Lennon's contribution, the material bears no relation to the album cover art (except title track) and it pales next to Rubber Soul/Revolver and the good songs from White album, it is way better than Abbey Road (too much gloss and sugar from McCartney again with his grand suites).
Even George Martin agrees with that assertion, he wished Strawberry Fields and Penny Lane had been on the cut. Then I would perhaps agree to it being among the greatest albums.

I think Sergeant Pepper's is a great album.   I'm not sure if it should be alone in #1 or that it can beat Pet Sounds, except by the fact that it was more influential upon its release, but then we're making "hype" itself one of the criteria for judgment, rather than the quality of the album itself.

In my opinion,  I think just about every note the Beatles wrote from "I Saw Her Standing There" to "A Day in the Life" is absolutely amazing.  My problem is with the fans who focus solely on Magical Mystery Tour onward as being the source of the Beatles' greatness.  I've always thought that much of what the Beatles did during that period was self-indulgent garbage!