The Smiley Smile Message Board

i know of at least two instances where the Beach Boys beat the Beatles in music polls. Dec 10, 1966 the Beach Boys beat the Beatles to the number one spot for best vocal group in NME.

i am also pretty sure that the danish tabloid paper Ekstra Bladet had the Beach Boys as best group in their 1966 pop poll, but i haven't been able to google that. in 1966 the Beach Boys gave their first concert in Denmark, at Copenhagen's Falconer hall.

if you know of any other examples where our boys beat the fabs in popularity, feel free to post here.

Someone should tell Mike Love

If you took a poll of this board, The BB's would probably win a popularity contest.

Europe doesn't count when you're America's Band.

According to one Kie Miskelly on the Bloo many years ago, they won the NME poll because he stuffed the ballot by sending in multiple entries. Mind, this is also the man who claimed to have been gassed in his car and robbed by Russian muggers while on a family holiday in France... and carried on with the vacation ! BS FC 1, Credibility Utd 0.

  Didn't "Help Me Rhonda" knock "Ticket to Ride" out of the Number One spot on Billboard? 8)

How about Mojo's 'Greatest Singles of all Time' poll: Beach Boys at 1 (Good Vibes), the Beatles at 2 (Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane)?

Likewise, Mojo's 'Greatest Albums of all Time' poll: Beach Boys at 1 (Pet Sounds), the Beatles at 3 (Revolver)?

And these were both polls which canvassed the opinions of musicians, rock/pop stars and fans, rather than just being decided by a bunch of critics in a room... :)

My recollection is that the NME 'polls' in the 1960s were NOT derived from votes cast.  They were calculated rather more objectively on the basis of chart positions during the period in question. 

For example, having the number one record in the weekly chart would earn you 20 points.  Having the number two record earned 19 points. Etc. etc.  All the way down to 1 point for number 20 in the weekly chart.  The scores were accrued week by week (no points scored if you weren't in the top 20) then totted up in early December and presented accordingly.

Our boys did particularly well in the UK during 1966 with Barbara Ann, Sloop John B, God Only Knows and Good Vibrations and amassed a huge number of points on the NME's week-by-week scoring system.  The Fabs were no slouches during the same period but were just pipped at the post.

Nothing to do with subjective popularity or votes cast - just the simple expedient of NME chart success.

If it's true, then that explains the result of this poll. 1966 was the year when the Beatles took half the year off, with no new releases for Christmas except for the compilation 'A Collection of Beatles oldies'.

Regardless, the game was over in 1967.

Just to clarify, the NME's point-scoring system was based on singles only.

I like Eleanor Rigby more than Good Vibrations

Isn't there a Beatles board somewhere that you can post on?

sort of; i was able to google Ekstra Bladet's 1967 pop poll, and there the Beatles were voted no 1, but the Beach Boys were no.2, still a decent result, considering it was smiley smile up against sgt pepper that year.

1967 was the end of rockNroll as a commercially viable media as far as quality goes. In otherwords look at every billboard chart from '56 to '66, ALL great music, in 67 it started to wane,,,but in the UK music consumers still kept it goin, the beach boys were still a smash in the late 60s/early 70s over there,,,,look at how much better pet sounds did in the UK, same with smiley, wild honey and 20/20- all phenomenal albums but didnt get the proper marketing here in america.. no wonder the BBs took capitol to court twice by the end of the decade...and then in 77 when they were simotaneousley signed to warner/reprise and cbs // columbia took years to market them correctly, not til endless summer took off did wb wake up and push 15 big ones... 1976 was a monumental yr in rock like 66 was a decade earlier ,it  was the new reniassance ,thank god the ramones came along with a fresh sound that paid alotta homage to the BBs, esp with their leave home and rocket to russia albums in 77... just think if love you had been released under brian's name as intended, would the BBs ever have bounced back? Who knows, but theres a reason a lot of us concur that love you was their last great album; the same reasons pet sounds was such a thriller ,cuz it was brian wilson- all heart&soul...the miu album was a mishmash of older sessions and reconstructed songs from the nixed 2nd xmas album and their cbs albums from 79-85 were very hit&miss compared to their phenomenal output of 63-73, right?

As l recall the difference in points announced was ten or less - would that square with what you're saying ?

Just had a look at the  categories - looks like a public vote, not a points table. Will investigate further.

I had to stop reading there. You're saying that rock music was ALL great from '56 to '66 but then it jumped the shark in 1967? I know an old woman from Utah who feels the same way. She's not a bad lady by any means but she has no understanding of Led Zeppelin or why Jimi Hendrix made noise with his guitar.

I'd say music just started getting good in 1964 and exploded in 1967 but the Beach Boys were unable (or unwilling - take your choice) to deliver the goods and stay in the game. The End.

Epilogue: 1974 - they had a chance to get back in there but decided to take a sh*t on everybody with 15 Big Ones and it's all been a big "f*** you" to us fans ever since.

Of course, it is impossible to say with any degree of seriousness that rock and roll music stopped being good starting in 1967. There was a lot of great music to follow. However, I could never say that rock and roll "started getting good in 1964." There was so much great music before then - deliciously drenched in reverb classics and exciting R&B sounds. I will agree with the above person that you are quoting that somewhere around 1967, rock and roll did start to get a bit bloated, a bit too full of itself, and a bit more respectable.  The era in which mainstream rock and roll was rebellious and simultaneously bringing a kind of happy joy to people was over. Again, there was still great stuff after 1967, but I would say that no year after 1967 has anything on the years that came before it.

There were a small handful of decent bands/artists post-67 but NOWHERE near as great as 56-66.... the beach boys never quit making great albums til after love you...dont get me wrong I enjoy ALL their output but the mid 70s definitly marked the end of an era for them progressivly speaking .

But then 1968 has some of my most beloved albums: The White Album, Odessey and Oracle, Village Green, Bookends, Astral Weeks, Aerial Ballet.

Yeah, those plus Music from the Big Pink, Friends, Sweetheart of the Rodeo, Gris-Gris, Electric Ladyland, White Light/White Heat, We're Only in It for the Money, Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake, Beggars Banquet, and Dock of the Bay. If 1968 isn't my favorite year for music, it's definitely up there near the top of the list.

 I like The Beach Boys more than The Beatles.

damn strait/ if music were food the BBs would be filet mignon, and the beatles microwaved hamburger.... I like the beatles and I have meet, rubber soul and revolver (their most important albums), but the BBs had so much more substance .

 You are a wise man. I still "like" The Beatles but over the years my overall opinion of them has become...ambivalent. The worship they inspire can be sickening at times.

I like both.

There seems to be some weird mindset that people have to somehow defend the Beach Boys by dismissing the Beatles, which I think is flat out wrong. Both bands are superb and owe a great deal to each other. Without one, we may never have gotten the best the other had to offer. I don't want to let this turn into some hating-on-the-Beatles thread.

Also, to say that Beach Boys made more substance than the Beatles is really just flat-out wrong. Up to 1965, the Beatles had practically made filler-less albums, while there were a great deal of duff tracks on each Beach Boy album up that point. Then, 1966 and Pet Sounds rolled around, both made perhaps their best albums, and then the Beach Boys went off and started making albums with throwaway tracks once again. The Beatles stayed consistently strong (though, I'll admit, they had some weak songs scattered throughout their next albums), both musically and lyrically. The Beach Boys, not so much.

Like I said, though, I love both bands. Both are giants of the 60's and music wouldn't be the same without them.

  I like The Beach Boys better than The Beatles.
  I like The Rolling Stones better than The Beatles.
  I like Elvis more than The Beatles.

So?

(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/who_gives_a_shit.gif)

  Who gives a sh*t? You I guess, since you were compelled to respond. Thanks Pixietwin.

I like The Archies more than The Beatles.

"The Cowsills Plus The Lincoln Park Zoo" totally slams Sgt Pepper.

You're welcome?  ???

so.... because the BBs had one or two filler joke tracks on a album here or there it meams the beatles made nothin but solid albums? Thats new to me, the beatles shoulda quit making albums after revolver like the BBs shoulda after holland or love you... I dont undermine the beatles, they had some catchy tunes but the hype was/is pretty ridiculous and overdone. Paul was a great composer almost as good as brian but not exactly, lennon on the otherhand was the equalivent to mike love, so much ego....

Did you even read what I said? Because I didn't say that. That doesn't even make sense.
It's like you misunderstand points in order to not have to answer to them.


I disagree on both counts.


Oh, the irony.

Do you feel the same can be said about Shakespeare and his plays?

no I know what ya mean, hard to type everything on this touch-screen tablet

I would pay good money to see an Archies reunion concert. If only they could find Jughead.....

Weird pairing. They sound nothing alike. GV is more complex, layers of harmonies & all. But I'd take both songs.

good vibrations is not ony THE greatest single ever made, but about as complex as it gets....the epitome of brilliance.

I think The Beach Boys were always a much more lightweight group than The Beatles. That's not a bad thing.

Hate to break the news to you...  http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/08/showbiz/archie-comics-death/

I agree about rock n' roll music up to 1966, without necessarily saying that music generally was better before that.  It changed.  After 1966, it was kinda pear-shaped for the earlier pop bands.  There's a washed out feel to stuff post-Revolver.  The original energy had gone.  Bands who were new produced stronger, more potent work at that point.  Doors, Velvet Underground etc.

The Beatles didn't have singing voices, but made it okay for that to be.  You still hear people who were around then say that they didn't get what the fuss was about - they didn't have voices.   It's true in that sense.  I listen to I Get Around/Don't Worry Baby, then listen to the competition (the Hard Day's Night album) and the latter sounds hopelessly colourless and amateur, like any bloke on the street was just having a go.  But the Beatles pushed through with 'personality' (you end up liking John singing because it's John singing) and songwriting.

And yet I'd rather listen to Day Tripper.

John Lennon and Paul McCartney are two of the greatest singers in rock history. I've never heard a Beach Boy sing as well as John in Sexy Sadie.

Besides Carl, the Boys had a tendency to just sing the composed notes. Lennon-McCartney were leagues above them in sheer expressiveness.

Sorry, we expect a much higher standard of trolling on this forum. 3/10, must try harder.  ;D

Im not a troll im an antihero

+1 and very happy to see some love for "Sexy Sadie".

Also want to add that "Surf's Up" was a single (UK?) and is better than "Good Vibrations" to me. Hell, "Strawberry Fields Forever" smokes "Good Vibrations" compositionally and production-wise. Didn't Brian even say something to that effect ("they beat me to it") when he first heard it on the radio?

And, so sorry to hear about Archie's death. I never got the chance to hang out with him and I would have gladly taken Betty off his hands.

To those Beach Boys fans who feel that they must hate the Beatles, try this at home: listen to Magical Mystery Tour and Wild Honey back to back and then we'll talk. It's like one of them is in full color and the other is black and white.

  "Good Vibrations" was out 3-4 months before "Strawberry Fields Forever"....your comment would make it seem otherwise to a reader unaware of the chronology. No one - not me at  least - is saying anything about hating The Beatles. It's the unquestioning worship of The Beatles that can become tiresome.

  For me Elvis Presley, The Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones, and The Who - at their best - all illuminate the human condition musically in a way The Beatles do not. It is just as true that The Beatles were far more consistent and had a better career than any of the aforementioned.

I asked this question to an above poster (and indeed have asked it of others on this forum before) but I'd like to ask it again: would you say the same thing about Shakespeare?

1 - "SFF" is a better production than "GV" ?  With the world's most obvious edit ? Seriously ?

2 - As "SFF" was released some four months after "GV", Brian's alleged comment is nonsensical (and he was referring to Smile anyway).

Question o' the day:

By the way, I'm suppose to be looking for parking places at Candlestick Park right now for Paul's concert (in memory of the last Beatlle concert ever played here).

OK, what guitars were used to play the riff on the recording of Day Tripper and who played them?

I know those who will answer will also know the correct opening chord played on Hard Day's Night.

Anyone who thinks the beatles could sing better than the BBs is just stupid, I dont care how blatant that is, the beatles were to george martin as the muppets were to jim henson, you cant change history and anyone that doesnt like that I say ignorance is bliss . The beach boys were a real rock band who could produce and arrange their own music and had a natural ability for christ sake, it was rare then and rare now .

It's not blatant, it just demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how art functions.


That certainly explains the overwhelming success of Matt Monro...  ::)

Now here's me being blatant: While the statement that George Martin was responsible for The Beatles is an oft-heard claim, it is misguided and essentially serves to demonstrate that the person making the claims knows very little about The Beatles or, for that matter, George Martin.


And, yet, The Beatles were better.

This kind of sounds like Phil Spector's critique of GV. Personally, I don't think the edit in Fields is that obvious, let alone "the world's most obvious" - sure the tempo changes but that could have been done live, even though it wasn't. At any rate, while I prefer GV as a song and as a production over SFF, they are both remarkable productions and I don't find it at all strange that someone is making the case for Fields over Vibes.

I was wondering how long it would take before Joshua started to share is scholarly opinion on the origins of the Beatles successes.  :lol

I like the "obvious edit" in the same way I like the tape crinkle in GV; It's endearing.

Agreed!

Where do you hear the tape crinkle? I've listened to GV a thousand times, but the tape crinkle doesn't ring a bell.

Listen to the organ at about 0:05/0:06. I am pretty sure it is standard knowledge.
 
http://youtu.be/Eab_beh07HU

If I remember right, the tape reel had been dropped prior to mix down or some such.

Ah, I've noticed that before - thanks for clarifying what it was for me.

As for the Beatles vs Beach Boys...

I am of the opinion that The Beach Boys are the superior group if you're comparing the two band's bodies of work as 'art'. There's depth, variety, quantity and a very high standard of quality + all the odd sh*t like Love You. However, if someone were to say the same thing about The Beatles, I would never say they were wrong - both groups created stunning music that stands as the pinnacle of pop music. I usually just don't bother comparing them

I agree. Just playing through Beatles and Beach Boys songs on the piano it becomes very obvious very quickly that there is a complexity to the way Brian constructed a song of a kind one doesn't find in a Lennon/McCartney song.

That being said, I love the both. I burned out on the Beatles a while ago, but they hold an equal place in heart to the Beach Boys but each on it's own very different merits.

This thread is awfully kooky..... ;)

That's probably true. However (and this isn't directed toward you) if my central requirement was complexity, I probably wouldn't be listening to either the Beatles or the Beach Boys.

I totally agree. It's not the complexity which attracts people 30/50/100 years later. It's the heart of the artists and that is why we are still talking about the Beach Boys AND The Beatles all this time later and will still be talking about them 100 years from now.

  George Martin didn't "make" The Beatles. The content was always there but he did much to help the form. Their recorded work would have suffered without Martin's production to be sure.

  In terms of rock & roll power, philosophical content, and perhaps musical complexity, The Who (at their best) blow The Beatles away. Did The Who have a better or more consistent career than The Beatles? Nope.

 Compared to The Rolling Stones (or Elvis) The Beatles knew nothing of the blues. That sort of emotional depth was beyond them.

  Was there ever a greater narcissist in the history of rock & roll than Lennon? I doubt it. At least Brian Wilson had the humility not to proclaim his own genius.

  In his way George was the coolest of The Beatles. He didn't crave attention the way John and Paul did.

 

As a musician though, it is fun to break apart Brian's compositions. It adds an extra layer of fun and interest for me - the techniques involved in crafting the layers of sound, the way the notes stack and the complex chord structures. All of it supporting what is, at face-value, accessible pop songs.

The Beatles were very clever in the way they made their songs, but I wouldn't call any of it complex. The Abbey Road medley is full of clever musical ideas that I'm jealous I didn't come up with myself...Pet Sounds and Smile are full of complex musical ideas that make me envious of the musical portion of Brian's brain  ;D

The Beatles' genius was how consistently great their music was. Everybody knows their songs to some degree since it was so well made and catchy to boot.

Not sure what that has to do with their musicality. That is a very immature way of weighing an artists work against another.

Rubber Soul to Abbey Road is just album after album of genius.

Within the Beatles catalog, for me, it comes down to Abbey Road or The White Album. Two very different but equally brilliant albums. White Album is almost performance art in its presentation and structure, while Abbey Road is a polished to perfection album of great songs. I'd probably pick The White Album as the superior one though....

Why is Sgt. Pepper so highly rated? It's a great piece of work, but the best album ever made? I can't agree with that - its not even the best Beatles album! My opinions aside, I can't view it objectively as superior than the two albums that followed.

  Mr Kite, Fixing a Hole, Within You Without You, Good Morning Good Morning. Those are all average tunes by Beatles' standards. The concept "let's put on a show"...didn't Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland do that at MGM back in 1939?

rubber soul thru abbey rd??? No way! Meet the beatles thru rubber soul is more accurate.

I've never really liked early Beatles songs too much - atleast not in the way I like the early Beach Boys songs. Both had that rudimentary fun and catchy sound, but both grew 'through' it at about the same pace.


I've always ignored the concept...and Day in the Life never impressed me. So many music fans hold in such high esteem, but when I listened through the Beatles catalog with no one's opinions but mine shaping the songs I liked the most, Day in the Life was just another song on Sgt. Pepper...not the towering pillar above the rest of the album that it is so often described as.

Or visualized, like in this photo.
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/1/8/2/192182.jpg?v=1)

Dude, Aby Rd is awesome.

The beatles NEVER had the kinda consistency album-wise that the beach boys had. The beatles had meet hard days night, help and rubber soul before the hippie era sucked the life outta rockNroll while the beach boys had bitchin albums from 63 to 73, and a joke 'filler' track here and there doesnt weaken the album, it adds character...the beatles after revolver werent even a 'band' anymore, they were a acid-fueled studio group and the quality of those last three albums (sgt pep, white and abbey) altho highly regarded doesnt even touch their output of 64-66, I dont care what some think about that cuz rockNroll was a thriving force the first half of the 60s and as vietnam got more intense it took a pretty big toll on the consumption of quality music in america; look at how well the beach boys did in europe and outside the US, americans just didnt care about rock anymore til the mid 70s when endless summer and the ramones got it back on track/ yeah Ive gotten flack for making these kinda responses but ya cant dictate the past you can only reflect on what happened and revert to it in any instance.

  Always thought "A Day in the Life" was SGT PEPPER's moment of true brilliance. "I Am the Walrus" was their greatest 1967 track in my view.

  Come to think of it, The Beatles do seem to have hundreds of great songs... ;)

  Some of side 1 is just OK. The same might be said of LET IT BLEED.

I get what you're saying and you get it mostly right, but the conclusions you jump to are right off the cliff. That is why I find your posts so frustrating.  :lol

I hear ya, its hard to sugarcoat tho yknow.... I dont 'troll', I just come out with it and sometimes it gets skewed by those who take it the wrong way. I may not be an old dude but I been sponging up this music since I could talk and its important for me to break thru the horseshit yknow .

The fact that you say that the Beach Boys had consistency, and then tell us that they had joke tracks doesn't make sense to me. The Beatles never had joke tracks, how could the Beach Boys be more consistent? Saying it adds character is such a cop-out. Secondly, one of the reasons your posts are frustrating is because you constantly slam down your opinion that the Beatles' musical peak is 64-66 and then you go off on some weird thing about rock and roll... it's just, like, your opinion man. Stop acting like you're some great prophet spreading the truth to all the people who can't see it. Clearly, you like energy in your music, and that's fine, but you're probably not going to get that from later Beatles. It doesn't make them bad, it just makes the different than what you're looking for.

I couldn't disagree more. In fact, I get resistance from people not persuaded by The Beach Boys precisely because of the inconsistency of the albums. While I do love most of the songs, especially during the peak years, I can recognize that the boys couldn't have had hit singles with a great deal of the album tracks on many of the LPs. The Beatles, on the other hand...


There were two albums made under the influence of acid - Pepper and MMT, the latter not even an official LP in England. And even then, they only took acid by accident in the studio. White Album, Let it Be, and Abbey Road cannot be called "acid-fueled." Furthermore, I am unsure how they cease to become a band because they work exclusively in the studio.


I'm not understanding your point here. I don't know what the Beatles latter-quality has to do with the American consumption of rock and roll. Also, there were plenty of bands doing old school rock and roll in the States in the late 60s who were popular. Think of the great Motown hits during that time, or even CCR.

I totally know what you guys are sayin, Im jus pickin it apart on a deeper level, doesnt mean thats how it has to be, its just a reflection of the past, retrospective more or less .

I give up.

Kookadams       1
Bubbly Waves   0

I don't understand.

It's OK  :-X

lol If you say so.

BTW, I don't "hate" The Beatles expressly because I'm a BB fan. Don't hate them at all, some fine, fine - occasionally outstanding - music. I just don't kneel down and worship at the shrine of Ss. Johnny & Paulie. It's a band. They're musicians. Is all. Just like The Beach Boys.

What about "Wild Honey Pie" and "Why Don't We Do It In The Road"?

I don't think any of us are saying otherwise.

Welll, my comparison of I Get Around/Don't Worry Baby to the Hard Day's Night album was because they were both early, pre-psychedelic rock, so kinda on the same page.  MMT and Wild Honey were released near the same time, but each going for a totally different aesthetic.  With Smiley and the next couple of albums, The Beach Boys went with a stripped-back approach.  They had moved on, following the Smile fiasco.  The Beatles at that point were still busy peddling psychedelia to 12-year-olds with MMT, only catching up with the new, back-to-basics approach on the White Album, by which point TBB had released Smiley, Wild Honey and Friends.

Anyway, I semi-agree with Gabo's comment about vocals.  Vocally, the Beach Boys were a much greater whole than the sum of their parts.   Others, Beatles included, did individual vocal expressiveness to a higher level.  Bob Dylan's another one - he'd be awful in a vocal harmony mix, but as an individual putting across a song on his own, he's far more nuanced, varied and expressive than any individual Beach Boy.  A whole other level.

The idea that The White Album was a "back-to-basics" approach is, to me, another oft-made remark that is completely unfounded. Production-wise, the album has as much production as the MMT songs. At least, from memory, Glass Onion, Ob-la-di Ob-la-da, Martha My Dear, Piggies, Don't Pass Me By, Mother Nature's Son, Revolution 1, Honey Pie, Savoy Truffle, and Good Night all have some form of orchestration on them or horn/string overdub. Is Revolution 9 back-to-basics? Hey Jude, the single from these sessions, is one of the "biggest" sounding records the band ever made. The Beatles didn't try a back-to-basics approach until the Get Back sessions in 1969 and even then it was far different conceptually from what The Beach Boys were doing - aiming to record everything live.

The idea that they were "peddling psychedelia to 12-year-olds" is just a shot and it is untrue. Once Sgt. Pepper came out, The Beatles had an enormous following that spanned age groups. The Beach Boys by 1968 had not only alienated their teenybopper fan base, but hadn't found another, something The Beatles had indeed achieved.

Meanwhile, it should be noted that the "back-to-basics" approach that the Beach Boys "pioneered" (though, let's face it, it wasn't as if there weren't many, many bands who were just recording in a plain-style in the months leading up to Smiley Smile - look, for example, at The Doors) only occurred because they were unable or unwilling to compete production-wise anymore. The Beach Boys went back to basics, as you noted, when Smile collapsed. The Beatles, meanwhile, had just released Pepper, had no problems doing so, and thus had no reason to stop continuing in that direction.

Beg to differ: in some quarters of the States, The Beatles are gods. Beyond mere human criticism. Complete bollocks, of course, but there it is.

Dylan's what you'd term a vocal stylist: can't sing to save his life, but has a distinctive way of phrasing a vocal.

Plenty of people do the same with Pink Floyd, Led Zepplin, or yes even The Beach Boys. People tend to do that once they become fanatics for something. Sure, the noise is louder coming from the Beatles camp than any other, but that is only because they have more fans.  ;D

When Bubbly was referring to people in this thread. No one here was lording them up as if they were gods.

I've seen people say that a lot, but I think they're wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6ODMKSWzT4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6ODMKSWzT4)

No kidding. There are people on this board who defend Summer in Paradise. And then one acts incredulous because they can't believe that people can't admit that, say, I Will is not as good as Day in the Life.

You're acting like they're bigger than Jesus!

To those Beach Boys fans who feel that they must hate the Beatles, try this at home: listen to Magical Mystery Tour and Wild Honey back to back and then we'll talk. It's like one of them is in full color and the other is black and white.
[/quote]

An obviously unfair comparison. MMT was comprised of material taken from over a year+ long period. Wild Honey was written, recorded and released within the space of a couple of months.

I adore both albums, however I will say this: MMT - like Sgt Pepper - sounds of its time, whereas Wild Honey - almost in spite of the low-fi production - still sounds fresh and crisp.

The difference for me between the Beatles and the Beach Boys: I love the Beatles, but I'm obsessed with the Beach Boys.

Abbey Road is an exceptional album btw. To my ears, their finest.

I think Sgt Pepper still sounds fresh. MMT is a little overproduced.

I love Wild Honey's lo-fi sound, but it was hard to take at first. When I first bought the Smiley Smile/Wild Honey twofer I was never so disappointed with a CD purchase in my life.

Really? I sure don't share your taste in music. It was the Smiley Smile/Wild Honey two-fer which turned me from someone who'd enjoyed the occasional Best-of into someone who was a super-duper full-blown BB fanatic! I loved everything about it from the very first listen: the sound, the vibe, the songs, the artwork: everything!

Really because it was like the antithesis of what I loved about Pet Sounds. I love it now of course. At the time I just wanted something lush and beautiful.

It [Wild Honey's production] is yet another of those things that'd never even occurred to me was, or could be, in any way an issue until I joined this board and heard people complaining about it.

The beach boys were so much more commercially successful in the late 60s in the UK because americans had pretty much given up on rockNroll.... hippie protest music and psychadelia were what was being pushed and marketed in america at that time and even if its debatable the beatles werent really a rock group anymore, it was hippie schtick, good for what it was but nowhere near the quality of their output of meet the beatles thru rubber soul, those were by far their peak yrs.

Are you fer reals

The Beatles peak years were 1964 - 1969. The quality never diminished.

A quick look at, say, the Billboard charts from 1968 tells a different story: Dock of the Bay, This Guy's in Love with You, Mrs. Robinson, Tighten Up, Mony Mony, Cry Like a Baby, Midnight Confessions, Dance to the Music, I Wish It Would Rain, Judy in Disguise, Spooky, Simon Says, A Beautiful Morning, The Look of Love, Yummy Yummy Yummy, 123 Red Light, Jumpin' Jack Flash, Nobody But Me, I Wonder What She's Doing Tonight, Shoo-Be-Doo-Be-Doo-Da-Day, Elenore, Baby Now That I Found You, Do You Know the Way to San Jose, Mighty Quinn, I Say a Little Prayer, Suzie Q. These were all big hits in 1968 and had very little to do with either protest music or psychedelia.

Yeah there were a handful of great singles but look at the charts in the first half of the 60s, cant beat that those years .

A couple things:

1. I'm not sure if 26 songs constitutes "a handful."
2. We weren't comparing the first half of the 60s with the second half of the 60s. I already said in this thread that I agreed that popular rock and roll music was at its height pre-1967. I was responding to your comment that "americans had pretty much given up on rockNroll.... hippie protest music and psychadelia were what was being pushed and marketed in america at that time." If that were true then you would have nowhere near that amount of songs hitting the chart so high. The fact is that there was a good amount of music that was not too far outside the Beach Boys post-67 aesthetic that was successful chart-wise in the United States.

I used Magical Mystery Tour and Wild Honey as examples because I actually had played them back to back about a week ago, not to compare but just because I happen to like both albums. To these ears, Magical Mystery Tour (the US album) still sounds amazingly fresh whereas Wild Honey sounds dated with the mono mix (I have the 1991 2-fer).

The top selling album of 1967 in the US: More Of The Monkees which is nowhere near as good as the next few Monkees albums (my opinion) and hardly psychedelic.