The Smiley Smile Message Board

Only 2 albums went to number one. And not even studio albums.

Just curious bout your thoughts

Shaft? Look no further than Sunflower's 4-week stay peaking at 151. It's hard to wrap my mind around that. Even during that period, their other albums performed much better on the charts.

I dont put much stock in chart positions.   

And when it comes to LPs, outside of Pet Sounds, The Beach Boys are, in general, considered more of a singles band than an album band.

Maybe a little - I always felt like Surfin' USA and California Girls and Fun, Fun, Fun should have been #1 hits

I don't agree that they were a singles band more than an album band. The Beach Boys were selling a lot of albums in an era where rock bands not named the Beatles were not selling a lot of albums. Oh sure, a group like Dave Clark 5 or Herman's Hermits may have had a couple albums (aside from greatest hits/best of's) in the top 10, but they were not in the top ten, year after year, like the BB's were. I don't know that going to #1 is all that important; sure, it's nice, but only 4 of their singles hit the top spot. What is impressive is how they kept hitting the top 10 year after year with nearly every release until Smiley Smile. Pet Sounds was a failure that peaked at #10. I'd sure like to have a failure like that!

I agree.

It's certainly very odd. The only evidence of Sunflower in the UK was the 45 release of "Tears In The Morning". At least that got some radio play, although it failed to chart.

I can't recall hearing the name Sunflower mentioned once at the time, let alone hearing anything else from it.

Out of the English speaking world, the word was that the Beach Boys had disbanded soon after 1967. The reason usually given was either the usual drug abuse or, more creatively, that their leader, Brian Wilson, had become deaf due to excessive volume of music on stage*. "I Can Hear Music" was the last time we could hear their music. :(

* I even remember reading a related article on how bass players would be the most vulnerable to that fate.

I'm not so much talking about chart position as I am public perception. 

I'd like to jump in on this. My first exposure to The Beach Boys was via the single Surfin' Safari in a jukebox, 1962.  By 1963 their albums were huge ; and the transition from a singles culture to an LP culture solidified with the release of Meet the Beatles. We all started buying albums , as well as singles. The Billboard LP charts show the following: SurfinnUSA #2. Surfer Girl #7  Little Deuce Coupe # 4. Shut Down Vol 2#13. All Summer Long # 4  Beach Boys Concert #1. Beach Boys Christmas Album #6  Beach Boys Today #4. Summer Days and Summer Nights #2  Beach Boys Party #6  Pet Sounds #10.  Where I am from ( New York) , there were the big three: Beach Boys , Beatles , Rolling Stones.  The fans themselves were in our own competition to debate which album by which group was better. As they grew musically so did their audience. The singles were great and were the vehicle to hear your favorite stuff on your transistor radio's or your car.  But the culture itself was the album. Those chart numbers reflect huge album sales. My circle was seriously vested in the LO culture

Ha, yes. In the UK it could have been three in a row for "Barbara Ann" (#3), "Sloop John B" (#2) and "God Only Knows" (#2).   

Nicely put. In the recent Tower Records documentary, "All Things Must Pass", the Beach Boys are name checked for shifting the emphasis to albums.

I believe Fred Vail talked about selling Add Some Music to Your Day to a dj for air play. This dj who respected the Beach Boys said no because they weren't hip anymore. From what I gather, in the United States at least, they went through a period where the promotion sucked. I would imagine if a lot more people were aware of what the Beach Boys music was between 68-73, they might have given them more respect. I can understand Smiley Smile not being a hit, and possibly Friends. I love those 2 albums but they lack commercial appeal. Wild Honey and 20/20 at least had decent singles success, but it didn't translate to album sales.

I can't understand how, shy of fraud, it's possible to get the shaft when it comes to chart positions. As long as they are accurately calculated, such is life. You're basically asking "don't you think more people should have liked them enough to buy sufficient albums [or choose to play them on radio, and however else charts were calculated at the time] for them to have charted higher?" Which is fine, but kind of strange, especially since this isn't some underground band that people would have loved had they heard, but rather a very, very successful band that everyone knew. Their chart positions were very good.

If you don't like how chart positions are calculated, that's a whole different conversation. But to position based on some subjective musical quality category or something beyond crass commerce or democracy of listens, that strikes me as more challenging and controversial. (Don't you think Velvet Underground got the shaft when it came to chart position? Or the Magic Band? Or the bar band I played in 10 years ago? They and we totally deserved it!) You get my point.

"Due to John Peel's championing of the work on BBC radio, Lick My Decals Off, Baby spent eleven weeks on the UK Albums Chart, peaking at number twenty. This remains Beefheart's highest-charting album in the UK."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lick_My_Decals_Off,_Baby

Unless you mean The Magic Band without Beefheart... ;D