The Smiley Smile Message Board

wooo, what a year..

Also, Sounds of Summer certified triple platinum today  ;D

The Boys have albums on the billboard 200 this week

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/beach-boys-beatles-billboard-337926 (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/beach-boys-beatles-billboard-337926)

Sounds Of Summer moving up to #136...impressing for a comp that has been around for many years!...just ahead of Alan Jackson's older album at #137!

Good for them. f*** the Beatles.

:)

+1

 :brow

And yet again, a fine example of "Beatle envy," as I like to call it...of course, what's not taken into account is that part of the reason the Beatles have a longer chart span is that here in the USA they weren't around as long, not even catching the public's attention until December 1963. I wonder if the same will hold true when Giles Martin's secret Beatles project comes out...

I think it's understandable for someone to be tired of hearing about the beatles.  "beatle envy" aside. 

This is great news, regardless of what you think about the Beatles.

There should also be a phrase for beatles fans on youtube who think the understood greatest band in history need constant defending

No "beatles envy" here, just a case of the better band winning out this time

Don't worry if it's of anything worthwhile it will never come out anyhow.  If it's another video game or a bunch of familiar Beatles tunes mushed together then yeah we'll all be seeing that in short order.  

Oh yeah and don't forget to stock up on the fab coffee mugs and napkin rings they have on sale right now in celebration of their fiftieth anniversary as well!

BOOOOOOOOM

This a pointless "record."  The Beatles could release just about anything anytime and it would make the top 10 nowadays.  The difference is they'd be doing it with music that is over 40 years old.  Most of us love both bands, but we know the Beach Boys will never come close to outselling The Beatles.

Glad to see the new album debut at #3!

Blasphemy!  At least in the eyes of the voting members of Camp Beatle which is why we continue to get releases that will easily find modern audiences such as "Rock Band".

Astonishing !

Can't believe there's so much Beatles hate out here....you all know it's ok to love more than one band, right? 

I love the Beach Boys, and count Brian Wilson and his writing/arranging as a significant part of my life, but there are some days when my love for the Beatles outweighs even that.  That doesn't make me less of Beach Boys fan, it just means sometimes the Beatles music speaks more to me. Sometimes it doesn't.  Life/Art isn't black and white...join me in living in the grey, won't you?  It's much more interesting.

Yeah, The Beatles are my favorite band. The Beach Boys are my second favorite. I'm quite happy with that order and am still pleased with this story.

I would actually say the amount of Beach Boys fans that hate The Beatles isn't very significant.  In fact given that "SMiLE" is such a huge part of this particular forum's lore, I wouldn't be surprised if there are a significant number of younger Beach Boys fans on this forum who came to know the group through The Beatles.  Paul McCartney has always been gracious in his praise of "Pet Sounds" and for those of us that didn't live through the sixties many of us may have not been aware that The Beach Boys ever made anything other than surf records until a lot of Brian's contemporaries began heaping praise upon "Pet Sounds" as one of the greatest records of all time.

Likewise interest in "SMiLE" for many of us began to take hold once the well of Beatles rarities ran dry and those same collectors started receiving word that The Beach Boys had an unreleased project that had been heavily booted that was of the same quality of some of The Beatles' best music.  Many of those collectors then went out, got some SMiLE stuff, fell in love with it and began collecting and appreciating The Beach Boys just as much as they did The Beatles.

Just my two cents.

And you do know its ok to just not be a beatles fan right? (not that im one of those).

It's obviously okay but as a relative once quoted to me for someone who grew up in the sixties or even digs the music of that generation it's also exceedingly rare.  Usually The Beatles are the gateway band into the music of that era.  From there peoples tastes tend to vary although in my opinion anyhow the link between The Beatles and The Beach Boys fanbases tend to be among the strongest out there in terms of crossover appeal.

Of course. But then there are those that call them overrated...  ::)

In their day they were probably underrated or at least unappreciated given what in hindsight they contributed to the broad spectrum of popular music.  In 2012, they might be slightly overrated but only by those who know nothing about the band comparatively speaking and still continually rank their albums in pole positions based upon either what they've been told or what they feel will be accepted by the general public.  I'm not sure if that makes much sense but I think those who complain that "Sgt. Pepper" is continuously and without question ranked as the greatest album of all time might have a bit of a gripe.  

Greater in relation to what?

I agree with every bit of that.

Heh, well im the weirdo that thinks theyre objectively the best band ever but still overrated lol.

But they had such a profound impact on culture and society, it is impossible to say they are overrated. If one doesn't like their music, fair enough. But whether one likes it or not, the incredible impact it has cannot be ignored.

Sure, I certainly understand that some people are not Beatles fans. And that's fine.

But, The Beatles are not overrated. Period. Few (maybe none?) artists in history changed the world in so many ways, including the Beach Boys.  And, while the Beach Boys as a whole mean more to me and most of the people on this board, I don't think there's much of any valid argument that could convince me that the Beach Boys are as important culturally as the Beatles.

That said, I also don't think anyone that says Brian Wilson and the Boys are overrated has a brain either. Their contribution to popular music and culture is up there with just about any pop/rock musicians, sans the fab-four.

I guess my main point is that I would actually say that both bands are underrated because I don't think you can overstate the significance of either.

I love the Beatles. They are truly perceived as the greatest band of all-time. I think McCartney's one of the two or three greatest talents in pop history.

I love the Beach Boys because I think they have something in their music that the Beatles don't have in theirs. Don't ask me what it is because I'm not exactly sure. It could be a certain essence or spirituality, but I'm not even sure those would be the right words. There's a certain quality to their music. It's not my opinion though.

I don't think they are overrated either for all the reasons the above posters stated.  That being said I think you can make a valid argument either way in terms of the overrated or not argument goes.  It all depends on which side of the fence you are on and how you view the situation.  For me I have no problem saying The Beatles are and will forever be the greatest band in the history of music and be done with it.  

However I can see how those who would have issues with that assumption if we are talking strictly about their musical prowess and talent alone aside from their cultural impact as a phenomenon of the sixties.  While some would argue you can't separate the two, I point no further than the leader of the group: John Lennon.  John was an exceptional singer/songwriter and a fine musician although in that regard not on the level of his mates McCartney and Harrison.  However as a cultural phenomenon, Lennon's legacy actually dwarfs his significant contributions to music.  There is this feeling among the baby boomer generation and even beyond that Lennon was the embodiment of his entire generation perhaps even more so than political and cultural leaders such as JFK and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  

To many Lennon signifies the proliferation of spiritual love, hope, peace, goodwill and passivity that many associate with the latter part of the decade of the sixties.  Now for those of us who have researched John Lennon's life know much of this is pure bollocks and has more to do with how Lennon's legacy has been marketed to the general public since his assassination more than anything else.

The point being that a very large part of what The Beatles are to society today has to do with their legacy as pop culture icons of the sixties ("Beatlemania" as it was/is called) rather than their status as extremely talented and prolific musicians during that same era.

I think there is, I agree with everything you said, thats why I yhink they were the best band ever, but allmusic.com thinks every single album by them cept yellow sub and let it be are perfecr 5/5 albums.  And I just dont think thats true, sometimes their average music (to me) is overrated because of who they are. Which is normal

I would add that even average music by The Beatles is better than the best music by a whole plethora of musicians.

I'm the real weirdo that thinks they are not the best band ever- great, but not THE best- and defintely overrated. :D

Again given what terms?  Now I have gone on record before as saying that I don't think there is truly a bad Beatles song in the catalog.  What I meant by that is every Beatles song has something to recommend it whether it be the songwriting or the execution.  When both were in synch with one another obviously few could match the result.

The issue I have is that some of the average entries in The Beatles catalog are not necessarily better than the strong entries in the catalogs of artists that have had careers that most music fans would term either successful or highly successful.  For instance in my opinion there are songs in the catalogs of many of the other artists I listen to all of which have had found comparative success in their careers that are better songs than say quite a number of tunes on "Beatles For Sale".

The Beatles were my first love, so I have a slight bias to this. However, good for the Beach Boys! I'm sure this won't keep Macca up at night  :)

The constant Beach Boys-vs-Beatles thing is an odd bird indeed.

I suppose when that McCartney quote about "God Only Knows" was widely distributed in the late 80's, it must've com as something of a shock to baby boomers who worshipped the Beatles but dismissed the Beach Boys as a pack of morons who sang about surfing (the friends I have who are in their 60's still have never heard of Pet Sounds or SMiLE and don't even want to know about them). The generations that have come up since the reappraisal of Pet Sounds know the value of Brian Wilson's music. They really don't need the constant comparisons. They get it.

I always get the feeling that Brian and Mike constantly bring up the fact that the Beatles "approved" of their music because they're thinking in the mindset of their own generation....the one spoon-fed a steady diet of "credibility" nonsense from Rolling Stone magazine since 1967.

In any case, congrats to the Beach Boys. They're my #1 band, the Beatles are at #2 and at #3....The Monkees....and I'll fight to the death about the legitimacy of The Monkees's music!  :smokin   

^1 MILLION PERCENT AGREED. I mean, I can't see how anybody would prefer 'Ob la di ob la da', 'Mr Moonlight' (I hate that fucking song), or 'Savoy Truffle' to anything the Beach Boys put out. I know, personal taste and all, but I just don't get it.

I love Ob La Di....

That's pretty sad and dumb, man.

I'm with ya. Dissing Ob La Di is in the same vein as dissing She's Goin' Bald or something like that.

The Beatles were amazing songwriters, but their arranging skills and instrumental skills can't compare to what Brian could accomplish with the Wrecking Crew. Without George Martin... well, have you heard Let It Be... Naked? It's fun, catchy, amazingly well-written rock - but it's not art.  IMO. George Martin was huge for the Beatles. "She Said She Said" shows the best the Beatles could've sounded without a producer and arranger of George Martin's caliber helping them out (although Martin was the producer on the song, he seemed more hands off there). It's great, but it can't compare to even "California Girls" when it comes to delivering a complete package.

Why do we have to compare? Also it's pretty redundant to say you prefer the BB's on a forum dedicated to them. All I know is I love both groups, it's often the case where I prefer one group over the other but I always come back them both.

I thought let it be naked was sans spector production

That was my whole point. That's the Beatles, without adornment from a top producer.

The songs are more important than the production. Yeah, I said it. The Beatles didn't need any session guys, just like the Beach Boys really didn't either. Brian chose to use the Wrecking Crew for a variety of reasons. The Beach Boys could have knocked out any of their albums without session guys. I'm sure some of the songs wouldn't have sounded quite as polished, but the material was ace and they were proficient enough.

If you think the Beatles would have been bad without Martin, what do you think about the Beach Boys without Brian producing?

Meh. George Martin was not The Beatles secret ingredient. He was a valuable member of the team but if you listen to the solo records (some of which are very good, some of which include George Martin as a producer), it should be made clear that what was missing was the full package. The secret ingredient was that all of them were a crucial part to the sound that had such an enormous historical impact.

And while I take Dada's point that Brian had superior arranging and instrumental skills, it is ultimately unfortunate then (from my perspective at least) that those superior skills ultimately mean bupkis when it comes to actually evaulating how good the music sounds.

Well, Holland was a damn fine album.

The Beatles were great, even without Martin. I just think Martin was the one that made the Beatles sound artsy - without him, we don't have "Strawberry Fields Forever" as we know it or even the entire Sgt. Pepper's album. I consider, say, Friends to be considerably more artistic than Let It Be... Naked, although the songwriting on the latter is stronger overall.

I agree completely.  A lot of the time I think Beach Boys' fans overrate George Martin's contributions to The Beatles' catalog of work.  Now granted the marriage between The Beatles and George Martin was one of those hand & glove type scenarios but Martin's contributions to The Beatles overall sound was almost nil when compared to what Lennon, McCartney and Harrison contributed from a compositional standpoint.  By the end of the decade you had three of the best songwriters in the world in the same band with two of them being fine musicians as well. (John Lennon was no slouch either just not on par with McCartney and Harrison).

George Martin was a superb musical arranger but he didn't "wind up The Beatles and make them go".  In fact by his own admission during the later years of the group, the band was coming to him with suggestions and questions and he was more or less trying to come up with new ways to fill their increasingly sophisticated orders as to how to make their songs sound different.  Now granted just given the fact that he was able to consistently fill their requests would certainly justify Martin's status as a great arranger but he was never necessarily driving the car so to speak when it came to developing the sound of the group.  

To draw an analogy: Just like it was never Brian and five dummies, it was never George Martin and four dummies either.

And yes, I don't think they're the best band ever, but don't mess with my Savoy Truffle, hear? ;)

Yep, who can forget when John Lennon asked Martin to make "I Am the Walrus" sound like an orange? Just brilliant, eh? This is what "I Am the Walrus" sounds like without Martin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS12FUAJPXs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS12FUAJPXs)

Not bad, but I'll take the Beach Boys over this. I stand by my comment: "She Said She Said" is the best the Beatles could've sounded like without Martin. They'd still be a great band, but Martin brought a degree of sophisticated artistry to the Beatles material from about '65 onward that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Seriously, how does the finished arrangement on "I Am the Walrus" not essentially make Martin the 5th Beatle?

Always preferred the outtake to the finished version on this one personally.  The outtake has a extremely grungy feel to it which I love. 

Also George Martin is the 5th Beatle no doubt about it.  I don't think there is even much of a debate although as an aside I also have a great deal of respect for Derek Taylor as well.  Derek was a genius in his own right too.

It's also the Beatles without their *own* adornments, of course, deliberately going for "warts and all".  (Even on their own they decided to overdub the solo on "Let It Be" back in '69, which "Naked" doesn't reflect.)  They were effectively producing themselves for much of the White Album as well, so that might be a better comparison.

And yeah, I'd argue that the title track is just as much art in its "Naked" version as otherwise...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

That's not The Beatles without George Martin. It's just the song without overdubs.

Also since when are we comparing a whole band to one song? If that's the case, let's compare The Beatles to I'm Bugged At My Old Man.

Well I am the walrus and I'm bugged at my old man are definitely thought of equally. 

What difference does it make?

I thought Zeppo was the 5th Rutle.