The Smiley Smile Message Board

1.  The Beach Boys are my all time favourite vocal group from either the Rock 'n' Roll or the resulting Rock eras.
2.  No other group or band has ever come near matching the plenitude of outstanding vocal arrangements recorded and performed by the Beach Boys.
3.  Pet Sounds.  As close to perfection as an album can come.  From the first listening in Mid May 1966 'til today it hasn't lost a step.  They should use it in school music classes.
4.  Prior to October 10, 1966 NO single in the history of recorded music came anywhere near being as ground breaking as the Quantum Aural Leap known as Good Vibrations.
5.  Brian Wilson is unique...almost beyond comparison...as a creative musical soul.  His inspiration is long lasting and worldwide...and will be for centuries to come.
6.  If there has ever been a better singer than Carl Wilson...I have yet to feel it.  He was also an outstanding human being...not flawless...but REAL...and kind...and talented.
7.  Sunflower.  Just to prove that Pet Sounds wasn't a fluke.  Friends and 20/20 are no slouches either.  Nor is Surf's Up.  And The Good Vibrations box set rules.
8.  After over 54 years of listening, purchasing, attending and thoroughly enjoying the huge majority of their body of work...they can still bring a happy tear to the eye LIVE.
9.  These guys, collectively, sound even better without any backing instrumentation as is evidenced by oh-so-many of their A cappella recordings.  [like the Pet Sounds box]
10.  No other singing group in the history of popular music has ever sounded anywhere near as ethereal as The Beach Boys.  There's no one else who collectively compares.
-------------------------------------------

11...BONUS...SMiLE.  Finally realized.  First by Brian and his outstanding crew and then...ultimately...the original recordings were fashioned into a version of pure MAGIC.

Add Some, what a great post. And it’s great to be reminded about why we’re all here. I agree with your whole list but number 4 and number 9 are especially true from my perspective. Also fully agree with 11.

We love you Lee! 8)

Atta boy, Lee! Quote worthy.  :happydance

Great post.  Thats the Lee I know and love. 

I want to speak about No.4 on your list.

I was in a car recently listening to one of those radio shows where  they play the entire top 40 hit parade of a chosen month/year. I was only half listening, but some good stuff was playing, bit of Manfed Mann, Hollies etc.  All of a typical mid 60s sound and vibe.

Then Good Vibrations came on.

And it was out of nowhere.

It sounded like it belonged to a different UNIVERSE than anything that had just been played

Seriously, the aural shock of hearing this familiar song, in context but completely out of place was a surreal and wonderful experience.

I know it's a groundbreaking record, but to hear it alongside it's contemporaries really brought it home. I can only imagine what it was like hearing it for the first time in 1966.

Game changer doesn't even come close to describing it.

Agree with all 11 points... no-one came close to such outstanding musical beauty, no-one in any other era or style, ever. No-one ever will. Brian Wilson has as direct a link to God as anyone who ever walked the planet.

Hear Hear!

Pretty astonishing, I can tell you. The first radio airing in the UK was one Friday evening presumably in October (I still have to pinpoint the exact date). There's an outside chance it was a Saturday----I used to work Saturdays at the time. End of the week, anyway.

I was expecting something unusual----it was the BB after all----but I (like everyone else listening) got a lot more than I'd bargained for. It was like climbing a hill and when you think you've reached the top there's another peak ahead of you. Those peaks just kept on coming. Some memories never fade.

Thanks, OP, for a great heartwarming topic. :=)

I couldn't agree with you more.  Everything is spot on.  This is what it is all bout.  The first time I heard "God Only Knows", I was very young, but it changed everything.  That was the first time I ever felt a song.  In my opinion, "God Only Knows" is still the most beautiful thing ever recorded.

Wonderful post! Agree with everything. Also, I think their music is inexhaustible. I always find something new and beautiful that I hadn't noticed before.  And it is definitely angelic and out of this world - it's Johann Sebastian Beach!

Agreed. I am currently obsessed with the Live albums and as if I wasn't already aware of how ethereal this music is, the BB world just keeps opening up. I feel so thankful to have had the 'a-ha' moment that led to this.

My current girlfriend is not convinced of the greatness of the Beatles, and part of the problem is the lyrics of the early songs. She finds them to simple, not thought provoking. "I Wanna Hold Your Hand? That didn't take much thought". I think the Beach Boys are going to be  a harder sell, though - all those songs about trivial things like surfing and cars. I told her "back in 1964, if people wanted serious, socially conscious lyrics, they listened to folk music. And who was the biggest folk artist in 64? Bob Dylan." She hates Dylan because of his singing.
Oh well. In the past I always dated girls that liked the same music as me - and it didn't work out. But I haven't given up trying to 'convert' her.
 :lol

Just curious as to what kind of music she's into. 

I feel ya Mr. Lonely.  When I began my sojourn of love with the current Mrs. M. she liked a few Beach Boys/Brian songs a little...but not many and not a lot.  When I took her to see the initial N. American tour of SMiLE she enjoyed it but didn't really  know enough of the story to truly appreciate it.  But she's been to a number of shows now and Only With You and God Only Knows were 2 of our 4 wedding songs when we finally officially tied the knot almost 6 years ago.  [Paul Stookey-The Wedding Song and Bob Marley-Turn Your Lights Down Low were the other 2.  She loved the Pet Sounds concert last month in Kitchener.

It takes time but you've got a ton of excellent ammunition to help win the day...and win HER over.  Just let Brian and the Boys dole out the magic... ... ...and PRESTO!!!

 When I met my future wife, she only knew a handful of the "greatest hits" Beach Boys songs.  I played her "Cuddle Up" and she wanted to hear more.  Now she's as much of a fan as I am.  The music has a power of it's own.

I was able to convert my wife to much of the music I like, The Beach Boys included.  Granted, she doesn't delve as deep into the catalog as I have, but we danced to GOK at our wedding, and have attended four BW and two M&B (one w/ David Marks) from 2015-6.

My wife didn't need converting. We went to Brian's Kenwood House (London) concert in 2008 and this year to M&B and (like me) she enjoyed them thoroughly, up to and including (at the last one) filming "THWFOS"----the most played song in our house, thanks to our two-year-old smartphone-savvy granddaughter.  ;D   

Silverchair, Alice in Chains, Stevie Ray Vaughan (he seems to be the only blues artist she's heard that she likes...I gotta play her some B.B. King one of these days), Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys - the only 60's artist she likes is Jimi Hendrix. On the plus side, she hasn't said anything bad yet about my own music. She's been to a couple of my shows and had a good time. Maybe that's how i'll trick her into liking the Beatles or Beach Boys - just mix a couple of their songs into the show, and wait until later to tell her whose song it was.  :lol

Sounds like a child of the 1990s (what a dismal decade for music).  Well, you've got Alice in Chains, Stevie Ray, and Hendrix, it could always be worse. 

If she's into more guitar orientated rock, maybe try something like Steamboat, Bluesbirds, It's About Time, or Feel Flows. 

When someone criticizes a given piece of music (or an artist, etc.), the first thing I'm inclined to ask is what *they* like. Almost uniformly, whatever they don't like about the given piece or artist is *also* true of the stuff they like. I always reference in these cases the person who says "McDonald's? Ewwww! I eat at Burger King!"

So yeah, it's pretty funny to criticize Beatles lyrics but also be into Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys. Last I checked, Elvis Costello wasn't writing their lyrics, either.

Don't get me wrong; I can actually believe it or not make a pro-Britney Spears case. If you listen to her famous stuff, it's still far better than the *current* iteration of pop music, which has grown even more artificial and electronic and repetitive. Those famous 90s Britney Spears singles actually have melodic hooks usually; they're (sadly) better *songs* than the pop stuff of today, and (even more sadly) are far more judicious in the use of autotune, etc.

I personally have never found a need or desire to "sell" anyone else on the music I like. I like sharing it, and if someone digs it, that's awesome. I might even try to occasionally pick some stuff that might "ease" someone into an artist.

But I'm not a big fan of trying to convince someone that, say, likes emo pop music that the Beach Boys are awesome by trying to pick some track that I can tangentially relate back to what *they* like. It's like, jeez, why does everything have to be put in a context of something *you* like, or something that's about *you." How about just listening to something else that's different?

I also think it would be boring to be with someone who has the exact same taste in music. Ideally, there's not an insurmountable level of disparity between what two people like. Then, you can teach and introduce each other to other artists, maybe occasionally winning someone over with a song or artist here or there.

I'd say, even relative to other vaguely similar artists, it's hard to win someone over with the BBs unless they're already steeped in that sort of stuff. The early stuff sounds too trite to uneducated ears, and you usually have to find someone who likes (obviously) heavy harmony. I've had far more luck winning people over with Orbison, or Lennon, or even Billy Joel, or McCartney, etc., than the BBs.

The one I don't get AT ALL is people who love the Beach Boys but hate the Beatles, or vice versa. They're far from identical, but there's so much overlap there. I figure this hangup often has to do with Beatles fans being too tunnel-visioned in only liking the Beatles and *nothing else*, while BB fans get hung up on not wanting to acknowledge the Beatles were better (by a variety of individual measures of course).

O.K.  That'd be YOUR take on it all...and while I agree that you can't MAKE someone else dig 'the boys' osmosis works wonders on the intelligent ear.  It's a slow motion process though.  It can't 'happen' in one sitting.  As for the Beatles....they're GREAT.  Or at least they were.  Ringo's still turning out some interesting tuneage.  Paul needs John to balance his 'act'.  That said...if I HAD to choose [and I don't] to pick one library...Beatles/collectively and individually OR Beach Boys/collectively and individually...the pickin' would be easy.  I'd even pick the Boys/collectively and individually over Bob Marley.

I can't say I understand that either.   

I think some of those anti Beatles feelings among BB fans are due to the fact that The Beatles get more credit / respect than The Beach Boys among critics and music aficionados, many of whom think Pet Sounds and Smile are the only things of merit ever released by the Boys.   

Very true.  It took me many years to really appreciate the full catalog of The Beach Boys. 

I think the idea of attempting to "convert" someone to your musical tastes is goofy.  Let folks have their own likes and dislikes.  Unless you are getting paid to do it, it is a waste of time.  Probably a waste of time anyway...

As for appreciating the Boys' full catalog, well, you can appreciate some of it but if you are honest you have to depreciate a sizeable amount of it also....largely running on vapors after Holland....

I'll agree that, if one is trying to convert somebody to The Beach Boys, using anything after Holland would likely guarantee they'll never be a fan.  Granted, I think there's some good material post Holland, but nothing much that would convert a non believer to a life long BB fan. 

The problem with the "osmosis over time" thing is that you need to subject someone to HOURS of something they don't want to be doing. I don't want to be the guy who shows me the 27-hour cut of "Dune" and sits next to me the whole time waiting for my mind to be blown and my life changed. That isn't to say we can't or shouldn't try to turn people on to cool stuff. But there usually has to be some sort of germ of interest. Your friend likes Pepper and Smile? Then yeah, it's probably worth a little time to hip them to "Odessey and Oracle" or something like that.

It's probably just my own experience that colors this aspect. I've been on both sides of the awkward, hard sell on something that the other person has ZERO interest in. It doesn't do my heart or soul or faith in humanity any good to play someone "'Til I Die" and have them come away with a "meh, whatever" attitude.

I have turned people on to the BBs, but they've always had some vaguely related interest, in at least some sort of melodic music or something.

I would generally disagree that Ringo is still turning out interesting music. It's all competent and professional, but his last five or six albums have all sounded the same. Even when he changed producers it still sounded the same. The last killer track from Ringo was probably "What in the World" off "Vertical Man" in 1998. Some other good stuff, I dig "For Love" from "Liverpool 8." But in particular, this last three albums have been so indistinct and bland I've had trouble getting through them. I should certainly try them all again. It doesn't help that after nearly 30 years of touring he has barely changed the songs he performs and now in the last several years doesn't even bother to change the rotating group of "All Stars." Do we really need "Hold the Line" with Steve Lukather singing for like four tours in a row?

As for McCartney, he has turned out VOLUME, and that has meant some mediocre stuff but also some brilliant stuff. John was his perfect (and only true) muse, the only person Paul was ever truly trying to impress. But McCartney has also turned out a TON of amazing material on his own. Like Brian, McCartney's ability to write amazing music is *still* there even if it runs at a slow and sporadic pace these days.

Both objectively and subjectively, I'd take the Beatles catalog over the BBs. Easy call, whether we're talking only 1962-1970 or if we're throwing solo Beatles up against 1970-present Beach Boys. We obviously don't have to choose between the two.

I've definitely run into some BB fans who have a hang-up, a sort of "my team is better than yours" mentality when it comes to the Beatles.

Whereas, with some super-tunnel-visioned Beatles fanatics, it's just lack of attention paid to *anything else.* Fans who have every version of Paul McCartney's "Deliverance - Dub Mix" , but who've never heard "Surf's Up."

Some BB fans are like that too. I recall someone scoffing at the idea of liking Brian's recording of "Wanderlust" and therefore allowing it to turn them on to other McCartney material. If you love Brian's version of "Wanderlust" but have zero interest in McCartney's original recording, then I have the impulse to say you're not really actually listening to the *music* per se.

The BBs are a tough nut to crack to get other people into them. Sometimes. They really don't have the front-to-back solid albums the way the Beatles did. There was simply more filler on a lot of those BB albums. "Pet Sounds" *is* one of the few solid, not-a-single-slightly-wonky-song albums the BBs did. That's not to say I don't find something to love about almost everything the BBs have done (I've championed songs as obscure and maligned as "Oh, Darlin'"), but putting a bit of an objective critics hat on, the BBs just didn't uniformly do what the Beatles did, because nobody else did. I'll put the BBs and Brian's best up against anything the Beatles ever did. The Beatles (and to varying degrees the solo Beatles) just did *more* of that level of stuff.

I once had a friend who was a big time Beatles - Paul especially - fanatic.  To the point where he knew all the words to "Big Boys Bickering" and knew the Fireman albums from to back.  I remember around 2008 or 2009, he scoffed when I told him I'd been getting into The Beach Boys. 

I've never really tried to "convert" somebody.  The only person I guess I tried to a little is my wife with the hope that we'll have a band to share.  You're spot on about the non PS albums.  Even most of the ones I deem the best have a track or two that are head scratchers.  So, I started with Sounds of Summer and Warmth of the Sun (the same compilations that won me over).  She loves Pet Sounds, but she doesn't exactly share my love of Friends, 20/20, Surf's Up, or Holland. 

I think your list is great. May I add one. They have probably hit on more musical styles than just about any other pop group I can think of! Even some bad (disco and rap). So perhaps the most diverse band of all time. Let’s just start with Lonely Sea vs All I Want to Do (the heavy Dennis song not All I Wanna Do).

When you *do* try to introduce someone to some stuff from a band you like, you sometimes never know what will resonate more with them.

I know one person who is into generally more recent bands, starting mostly with the 80s and then newer. Not pop stuff. The Cure, Nick Cave, some stuff of that ilk (and more modern relatively indie bands). When I introduced them to more Beatles, I started with later-era stuff figuring they'd be more into that, as it's relatively more "modern" sounding to non-fan ears. But we eventually touched on the whole catalog, and they much preferred (and genuinely enjoyed to the point of ripping some stuff to their iPod) the early-era Beatles stuff. Like first four albums type stuff. "Baby It's You"; stuff like that. They really dig Lennon's early era voice compared to his later era voice where he futzed with it more. Go figure.

When introducing people to the BBs, you also have to factor in how much someone weighs lyrics and politics and stereotypes and all of that. I don't want to turn this into a discussion of politics as it relates to BB lyrics, but the *arguably* chauvinistic slant on some BB lyrics can turn some people off, as do some of the other lyrics that delve into expected vs. unexpected gender roles, all of that. Also, some people don't relate to "fun in the sun", etc. Can "'Til I Die" somehow be more life-affirming to some than "Fun Fun Fun?" Maybe.

I used to think the Beatles were the be all and end all of bands – nothing could ever top them. That’s a very narrow minded view, I admit, but I’ve obviously changed my opinion since becoming a BB fan. It doesn’t mean I don’t still hold the Beatles in very high regard; I think its more that I can see them a bit more in the context of their time and balance them against what else was going on. And by what else was going on I mean the BB's.

They do deserve to be seen as being in the same neighbourhood of invention and ground breakage as the Beatles, and that’s a perspective I want to share with others who may have had similar ideas as I had. I remember one time several years ago a friend of mine whose knowledge of and taste in music I trust without question told me that the Beatles and the Beach Boys had a friendly rivalry, and for a short time were basically equals on the global music stage, and I was shocked.

I didn’t start listening to the Beach Boys that day ( or that year, even) but it planted a seed in me. I remembered him telling me that often enough that when the time was right, I did start listening. It’s a seed I very much appreciate and I want to plant more of them, wherever I can.  

I wouldn’t say I’m on a crusade to convert people into BB fans, I just want to be someone who plants those seeds. It’s not up to me where they sprout or take root.

Why do I care what other people think of the Beach Boys? On a personal level, of course it would be awesome if everyone I know were to become hardcore Beach Boys fans so I could gush about the music with them. But it's also maybe about giving back to the Beach Boys for all they have given us.

Well yeah, I'd say someone just being in the room and overhearing music *you're* playing and listening to is different from a "sitting someone down and introducing them to something" scenario.

Regarding "how it's done", there is no rule, and I'm sure we've all been introduced to music in different ways. Spinning the dial (in the old days), a friend's recommendation, YouTube recommendations, and yes, sometimes someone handing you a CD (or tape, or whatever) and *instructing* you to listen to it.

Simply playing someone "'Til I Die", not doing a hard sell or a sell at all, but simply playing it, is "how it's done" as much as anything else when it comes to sharing music.

Regarding Ringo, I bow to few when it comes to being a huge Ringo fan. I've seen him in concert over a dozen times, I've listened to everything he's done, including "Ringo the 4th" and that '95 live CD that you had to hunt for at Blockbuster Video. Scouse the Mouse. I know it all, good, bad, and ugly. I've just found his last several albums boring. Nothing much on the last few has stood out at all.

Conversely, EVERY McCartney album has something of important merit (no, I'm not really including "Liverpool Sound Collage" or the Fireman stuff, although even some of the Fireman stuff has some intriguing bits). Even "New" had some excellent tracks.

Citing McCartney needing Lennon for balance is odd in my view, as Lennon has been dead for 37 years. What should McCartney have done? Stop making albums? He obviously has a clear problem truly collaborating or deferring to collaborators post-Lennon, no question (listen to Howie Edelson's Fabcast episode with Mark Lewisohn focusing in on the Elvis Costello/Flowers in the Dirt period for some great discussions on that).

Lennon needed McCartney as much if not more than vice versa. To crib from one of Howie's comments, "Plastic Ono Band" isn't sparse and bare simply because John's mom died and he was doing primal scream therapy. It was bare because McCartney wasn't there to fill it out. McCartney was essentially the band's producer in the later era. McCartney contributed massively to even very late era Harrison and Lennon tunes. "Something" and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Ballad of John and Yoko", all tracks that were made immensely better by McCartney.

McCartney didn't so much need a Lennon type to "balance" his material. He needed to have Lennon there to impress Lennon, because it was the only person McCartney ever strove to impress. And the same goes for Lennon. They missed each other's talents, but McCartney had enough raw stuff in him to continue to churn out amazing music. Lennon did up to a point, but then we started getting "Sometime in NYC" and stuff like that.

Make no mistake, just as I celebrate even the weirdest and deepest (and sometimes objectively not so great) of the Beach Boys output, so the same goes for all the solo Beatles. Ringo's "Heart on My Sleeve" from his "Bad Boy" album is a big favorite. I dig "Luck of the Irish", even with Yoko singing. "Out The Blue" from "Mind Games" is a hidden masterpiece.

But I think the time has long since passed to simplify McCartney's post-Beatles output to something as basic as "he needed Lennon to balance it out." McCartney recorded DOZENS of masterpieces without Lennon.

I love me some "So Tough" and "Holland", but front-to-back I'll still go for "Ram" or "Band on the Run" (and probably even "Wild Life", and "Imagine" as well).

Yeah, I don't find the lyrics of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" or "She Loves You" any more juvenile that "Baby One More Time" or "Oops I Did it Again".  Her resistance to the Beatles seems to be largely based on "they're so overrated". Although I disagree, I can understand why she feels that way. The Beatles are the one band of the early or mid-60's most younger people know about. Sure, a few more clued in young people know about the genius of Brian Wilson, but the Beach Boys are far less omnipresent in today's pop culture. I guess I will have to wait for the right time to spring "Our Prayer" or "Surf's Up" on her.

Simple, often juvenile lyrics have been a rock and rock staple since Bill Haley.  I think it's more about the music and the melodies that make songs like She Loves You special, and why people are still dissecting Beatles songs over 50 years later.

2Add Some: good post! Agree with 1, 2, 5, 10. Listening to various vocal bands, the 1st observation is 100% right. BBs beat every vocal band.

Regarding GV (#4), I'll share this dialog I read in Russian Beatles forum where many dismiss BBs as lightweight muzak even after listening to late 60s-70s albums, for example didn't "get" PS' coolness. But some do recognize BBs place & influence. Among which the poster who lived thru the 60s, old timer who got to experience things as they're going back then. Listened to lots of music in his lifetime, can be objective & fair, knows music history etc. So, despite being mainly into blues, guitar-heavy things, he said that in 1966, nothing was as mind-blowing as GV when it 1st aired in the radio, that whole year was year of GV, lots of local bands started covering it (he lives in Estonia). The other guy, his friend 10 yrs younger, guitarist, respected poster as well who too knows his stuff about music couldn't get it, said he still doesn't understand the groundbreaking-ness of it. But when the old-timer cited names of musicians who dug GV, put some perspective, that guy said sth. to the effect, "OK, gotcha. Well, then I guess I just don't like BBs".

I tried to explain that, but she didn't get it. I will keep trying.

Maybe she just doesn't like the Beatles.

Well, she does dislike the Beatles in particular, and not a fan of 60's pop rock in general. But she doesn't mind Daydream Believer or I Get Around when they are on the radio.
I am wearing her resistance down.
Slowly.