The Smiley Smile Message Board

This is a question for the truly fans and old guys. Was there a point in the career of the beach boys in which it was considered better than the Beatles?
 
I dont know what happends in usa, bu i think they do not have the recognition they deserve around the world

the Beatles were very powerful commercial apparatus, which despite their music, the perpetual top of the world. the beach boys in my opinion were more a crazy band.

equally to every place I go I try to meet the beach boys

on my list, they are the first and best

Yup - 1966 NME readers poll: they edged The Beatles as the Top World group, 5,373 votes to 5,272.

an in your personal opinion?

No contest.  ;D

The Beatles are recognized for their better material. The Beach Boys are not, sadly.

Dennis put it best:

"Because of the attitude of a few mental dinosaurs intent on exploiting our initial success, Brian's huge talent has never been fully appreciated in America and the potential of the group has been stifled.... If the Beatles had suffered this kind of misrepresentation, they would have never got past singing 'Please Please Me' and 'I Wanna Hold Your Hand' and leaping around in Beatle suits."

That was in 1970, too - things have gotten much, much worse since then.

I really do think the Beach Boys are criminally underrated and yes, better than the Beatles (whom I also like).

Ooh, way to open up a can of worms for the weekend. This is just one man's opinion....

Brian Wilson WAS as talented as any of The Beatles.

Between 1964-1966, The Beach Boys were pretty close to, or as good as, The Beatles. After 1966, I don't think it was even close.

That 1966 NME poll was just one poll. A good one, but just one.

Fans point to the Beach Boys' vocals as their strength, the one thing that might be better than the Beatles. However, the Beatles were great, great singers in their own right, and, if the Beach Boys were "better", it was only slightly.

The Beatles were consistently more excellent. From beginning to end, their albums were great; IMHO they never had a less than great album. They didn't have the "lows" that some of the Beach Boys albums had.

I guess just because I like the Beach Boys more, I'll say that they were better then the Beatles. But I really don't know nearly as much about the Beatles as I do the Beach Boys, so just judging from the music I hear, I prefer the Beach Boys and think a lot of their music is superior to what the Beatles did. I do really like the Beatles, though.

How many times did I just say "Beach Boys" and "Beatles?" Gosh.

If I were to ask this question to any of my friends and then respond with how I like the BBs more, I don't think I'd ever hear the end of it...it seems like for my age group, liking the Beatles is just the cool thing to do. I appreciate the music and that's what I like them for, not the legendary status they've achieved.

The Beatles had 3 good songwriters.    Two of them worked together as a team for close to 10 years honing their craft and growing as writers...together and apart.  Brian worked with different lyrical specialists over the years...Mike, Roger, Gary, Tony,Van Dyke, and others to flesh out his musical vision/s.

Different paths leading to different ends.

And the Beatles started the whole hair thing so they were ready to move into the hippie genre when that hit...after all, they had INVENTED hair! 

All I can say is that while I recognize the Beatles greatness fully, the reason I will always consider the Beach Boys  superior, is because The Beatles have simply never touched me as deeply as The Beach Boys have. Simple as that. Even at their "worst" The Beach Boys still touch me in a way that no other band has.

 I can articulate how The Beatles might be the greatest band of all-time, buit its mostly and intellectual deal rather than an emotional one. I simply KNOW the Beach Boys are better. No explanation is necessary or will do.

I usually get around this maddening argument by saying "Sure, the Beatles are the best band, therefore, The Beach Boys are the best vocal group"

This is exactly how I think of it - the Beatles are more intellectual, more knowing, and the Beach Boys are a more emotional experience. There is deepness and an emotional honesty on PS that seems very American. It has an expansiveness to it that also feels uniquely American. Like you get a sense of the scale of the country in Brian's sweeping orchestration. I think us Brits are scared of being too sincere and so with The Beatles, a lot of it is tongue in cheek, and also seems to be on a more modest, local scale e.g. Penny Lane.

For my money Brian Wilson has more mystique, and The Beach Boys music is generally more emtionally satisfying i.e. it hits me on a deeper level. But the story of the Beatles is far more satisfying, and ultimately The beatles were the perfect band, so I find the albums more satisfying in that they feel complete and almost flawless, whereas a lot of The Beach Boys has a kind of bittersweet thing going on for me as there are so many what ifs.

when i started to listen to the beach boys my friends became to call me gay.

this is a demostration of mental disorder and how jerks and closed minded people can be

be beatles fan is like to be  Real madrid, Barcelona, Manchester United in soccer: ferrari and Mc Claren in races, LA Lakers in basketball

be beach boys fan is like to be Charlotte in basket, Minardi in F1 or a egyptian soccer team

i try to say its easy to be beatles fan cause they are well-know

at live performances, the beatles shouted the songs, just see japan 66

the beatles are great cause they separate in 1970
what happened if beach boys separate after a false smile relesead or in 1970?
nobody can say whats up with the fab four in 1985

as one individual pointed out to me once, cant remember who it was...they said: "Brian was one person and did the same amount of work, if not more than Lennon/McCartney."

Also, I loved that speech George Martin gave at the BW Tribute, talking about how Brian was one individual who had a hand in every aspect of the band as each beatle has in their band, in terms of production, writing, performing, etc.

I can't understand the need to determine who was better? I love both bands.

One poll in 1966 (which they won by around 100 votes or whatever) doesn't really mean much now and probably didn't make front page news then. I'm sure by general consensus that Joe Public would've disagreed with that in that year's poll.

Sheriff John Stone pretty much hit the nail on the head in his post.
 

I think of the Beatles as a religion. Or something of huge cultural impact and importance. The four Beatles are like four saints. In the same way people of the past kept the memory of their saints alive, so we keep the memory of the Beatles alive. John Lennon's memorial thing in New York is like a place of religious pilgrimage. They exist on a sort of mythic level. We listen to them speaking and nod our heads with dreamy eyes. Yoko is the new Judas to the modern mind. The Beach Boys have and never had anything close to this impact and significance. There's no one person in the Beach Boys as interesting and media friendly as any of the Beatles. Despite being the creative heart of the group, Brian is generally regarded as an acid case or just plain nuts, and the only media attention he ever seemed to gain in the first place was the mystique around him staying home while the band toured and the new sounds he was expected to release. He didn't and doesn't have the personality to be a worldwide religious icon of a figure like any of the Beatles. And the rest of the Beach Boys never had anything interesting to say, or were dry personalities. They didn't have what was needed to become individually recognized public figures. Everyone knows that Beatles = John, Paul, George, Ringo. Everyone knows that Beach Boys = Umm, the Wilson brothers ... Mike, what was his last name? Loaf? Load?

We might personally think that the Beach Boys made better music but that doesn't mean it was of more significance to the culture. What were the Beach Boys doing when the Beatles did that rooftop concert thing? Probably sitting around recording "Take Good Care Of Your Feet" or something. The Beach Boys will be remembered always and forever until our collective history is wiped or lost as a great pop group from the 1960s - an important time in America - but one of many great pop and rock groups. The Beatles will forever take the title as the main players, even if people prefer other groups over them on the whole. Many of the Beach Boys' songs will live on for a very long time and will continue to inspire and move people, but the amount of people who will be inspired and moved by the Beatles is far greater. Consider John Lennon's first few solo albums. He was such a huge figure that he COULD write personal songs and still sell it to millions because his life was followed with great interest. If Brian had released a solo album of personal songs, who would have cared at large? Brian Wilson, the guy from the Beach Boys, new solo album. C'mon, it means nothing compared to a Lennon solo album. McCartney can release some fairly shitty albums and they still get more public recognition than any non-Brian Beach Boy would ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever get had they released a solo album. How many people know of Pacific Ocean Blue? How many people know of McCartney's RAM or self-titled? Hmm...

In the end I think it's all down to the immediate image. Most kids under 10 would recognize the individual faces of the Beatles and be able to name them and perhaps even sing some of their songs. Show the same kids a picture of Al Jardine. Hell, show they a picture of Brian. You'll get nothing. A blank stare and perhaps some mindless drooling. Maybe, maybe if you show a group photo of the guys in their striped shirts the kids might recognize who they are, but it's a big maybe. The Beach Boys are a thing of the past to most people now, and the fact that they have various touring groups playing their oldies only adds to this public opinion of them. The Beatles image is arguably as fresh as it was when they stormed the world, especially with that video game being released now. That's set them up for decades of constant public interest.

In short, the only people who will ever consider the Beach Boys as "better" than the Beatles are us fans who are blinded by our emotional attachment to the music and story of the Beach Boys, who fail to see the reality of the situation. Personally I think Pet Sounds is better than anything the Beatles ever did and better than their solo albums combined. Personally I think that not only did Pet Sounds make Rubber Soul seem like kids stuff, but it is also a much greater album than Revolver and Sgt. Pepper. Personally I think that Surf's Up the song is so far beyond what any Beatle could ever conceive in their wildest dreams. And so on. I think those things but it doesn't make the Beach Boys a better band than the Beatles, especially not as far as popular opinion is concerned. Play "Good Vibrations" for a random person and then "Strawberry Fields Forever". They'll hear GV as goofy fun in the sun type stuff and SFF as heady and psychedelic. It doesn't have the same impact except on musicians. Even then, only some.

I couldn't have said it better. I kind of disagree that after 1966 there was no competition from a musical standpoint. I just don't like the later Beatles as much as the post Smile pre Surf's Up Beach Boys. I totally separate their place in the public consciousness at the time and just listen to the music. I can readily say that I like Wild Honey, and Sunflower better then any Beatles album, and I would play 20/20 or Friends over Pepper anyday.  I think the Beatles early stuff was unselfconsciously good and later on they thought about things a little too much. Not that I don't like nearly their later stuff, but I feel they had better quality control early on. True  here was more filler on Beach Boys albums on the whole, but I think their are higher highs for me with the Beach Boys.  

The Beatles were more marketable, they had more personal charisma, but I can relate to the Beach Boys more as a middle class white guy who grew up in the suburbs. The Beach Boys story is convoluted, the Beatles one is neat and tidy, still song by song I like the Beach Boys more.

I actually see it the opposite.  I don't care for early Beatles. The first album I like is Rubber Soul. I thought they started to lose their magic in the white album. But revived themselves with Abby Road. I really enjoy the early BBs and 66-73 even more. Although 20/20 was sort of their white album. Lots of good songs but no unity.

It is also frustrating as a BB fan to find so many gems that were never put on an album. They could have easily taken the place of all the covers they did. Not to mention Dennis pulling his songs from Surfs Up. However, I don't judge BB history on the released albums alone. All the lost songs (Smile, etc) is what adds so much more for me.

agreed. all part of the fun.

I consider The Beatles the greatest rock band of all time + live before the screaming way better live..Than the BB..That said..BW BB music touched me on a personal level + to quote BW..The music seems to fit the way i live better..{BW on Friends }..To Quote VD Parks: The Beatles were to trans continental for me..!..Enough said.

Good points everyone!!!!

I do disagree however, that the Beatles were four deeply shaded fascinating people whereas the individual Beach Boys weren't. I mean, I understand this is how they were publicly perceived. But the Beach Boys were deeply complex and merda'd up people, as we now know, therefore very very fascinating.

Dennis was absolutely right about misrepresentation wrecking havoc on the Beach Boys image. And it still persists to this day.

Their complexities and f***ed up-ness was behind the scenes though. That was my point. To the public their image was squeaky clean and pretty boring. Also agree re what Dennis said. Also, the name The Beach Boys, although I love it, doesn't help.

The Beach Boys had a lot working against them - not at THAT time - but in the ultimate comparison with other "serious" groups of the 60's. Yeah, the name definately didn't/doesn't help, as well as the striped shirts, the lyrics, the album covers, the promotion, and, to a small extent, their interviews around that time. Compare the Beatles interviews, which were so clever and downright funny, to the Beach Boys' which were, "Gee, thanks a lot...." Not knocking them, just trying to note differences.

Let's not forget sex appeal. By many people's standards, the Beatles were at least 3/4 very attractive. The Beach Boys weren't in that league.

How do you feel about Pet Sounds' cover? I've never felt that it clashed with the music for some reason. Mainly, I like the colors. When I think of Pet Sounds or any of the songs from it that image inevitably comes to mind in a positive way for me. Has anyone ever played around with making an alternate cover for it? I'd be interested in seeing that.

Just to tie into another thread that's goin' on right now....If I'd have been around when Pet Sounds was released in 1966, I probably would NOT have liked it. I would've been confused, not been comfortable with the Beach Boys wearing coats(!), dismissed the Japanese stuff on the back, and asked myself, "Are the goats supposed to be pets? Goats?"

Now, of course, after 45 years, it's a classic. Well, at least it's accepted. I might be in the minority, not exactly understanding the real relationship of Bruce (within the band), but I'm a little surprised, just a little, that Bruce was left off some of those mid-60's album covers.

The Beatles played on their records. The Beach Bosy didn't. So, the Beatles are better.

Just kidding to show how a certain line of arguments is ridiculous.

As for me, I think the Beatles have the better output.

This is just my own opinion, but... complete nonsense. The Beatles as singers were never in the same universe as The BB. Listen carefully to "Here, There & Everywhere", always cited as their successful attempt at doing BB style harmonies. The pitch wanders, the notes flutter - it's not very impressive. I'd hate to hear those vocals in isolation. "Because" is pretty good... but that was, like five six years later.

The Beatles' vocals were generally pleasant. The Beach Boys' vocals were usually stellar. Two words:

Good. Vibrations.

the guy who wrote the 33 1/3 book on Pet Sounds made a pretty good point about this: the beach boys continued on far past their expiration date and were defecating on their legacy as late as the late '80s ("kokomo"), even the early '90s (stamos "forever"). hell, mike is STILL touring around with "the beach boys" doing the oldies act.

and yet, the beatles quit touring long before their end as a band, and knew to quit playing together when it started going to sh*t. hence, the only place anyone's been able to see the beatles play for the past 40+ years is in their minds — where they are, of course, excellent. if the beach boys had completed Smile and broke up right after that, maybe the world wouldn't be so monotheistic in their '60s band worship...

Ah, this is one of those discussions that prove that the statement "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" is probably true.

You can talk for days about why a certain song is brilliant, why a certain album is the best ever or why one band is better than the other, but in the end it all comes down to someone's personal taste and taste can't be explained. You could write a 200 page essay about why song A is better than song B and someone else could say that song B is better because it simply sounds better to his ears, and he's just as "right" as you are. Ever tried to explain to someone why you like orange juice better than apple juice? You just do (or don't) and it's kind of pointless to explain why.

To me, The Beach Boys are simply better than The Beatles because when I go through my cd collection to pick out a cd to put on, it ends up being a BB cd way more often than a Beatles cd.

The Beatles quit touring for two reasons: one, they were bored... and two, they could no longer perform live what they were recording in the studio.  I'm guessing the drugs didn't help, either.  :smokin

I hardly ever listen to any Beatles music at all. Sgt. Pepper is the only record of theirs I have, though I have heard most of their original albums.
I'd take the M.I.U. Album over Abbey Road any day, can't help it. (For whatever reason, though, I have kind of a soft spot for "McCartney II", which I consider one of my very favourite eighties pop records. Maybe it reminds me of The Beach Boys Love You.)

Besides, I don't think the BB "were defecating on their legacy" by recording a song as pleasant as "Kokomo". Throughout their career they made an awful lot of dreadful mistakes, but that song sure wasn't one of them.

Kokomo? Is it really considered to be that much worse than Real Love?

The truth is that The BBs may have come ahead of The Beatles in one poll in 1966 but in almost every other poll they probably came a long way second (or lower). The Beatles have always been more successful and popular and always will be. Their experimental stuff was pretty much immediately embraced whereas Pet Sounds wasn`t a big success. Plus The Beatles continued to release successful albums for a lot longer whereas Brian `s mental problems and drug use effectively forced him to give up...

The Beatles were saints?! You've got to be joking  :lol
Is anybody a saint in that business?

Complete nonsense? Never in the same universe? Aren't those words a little strong? This is one I'd like to see taken to a poll. John Lennon and especially Paul McCartney, and to a lesser extent George Harrison in the later years, were every bit as good, if not better vocalists than any combination of Beach Boys you put together. But that's just my own opinion.....

I have to respectfully disagree, but you are definitely onto something. Yes, on the surface the Beatles harmonies weren't as impressive as the Beatles, but that has as much to do with the way the harmonies were recorded as it does their voices. I think Paul was as good a singer as any BB in his prime. But getting back to the way they were recorded, John was terribly insecure about his own singing voice (which was terrific, but perhaps a 'trained' voice), and so his voice was always messed about in some way--double tracked, EQ, tons of echo, flanging etc. Also with simple harmonies John (usually a lower part than Paul) always double tracked and Paul usually stuck with one track. This leads to a cool yet different sound.

But as Black Francis said so well "nobody owns to pleasure of tones."

And just one more addendum, there's a difference between great TECHNICAL singing and emotional singing...the middle eight to "This Boy," John's is simply superb. Yes the harmonies may be a bit sketchy (but bear in mind Brian Carl Dennis and Mike had the advantage of being closely related thus similar voices), but I think a ton of people have been moved by the middle eight of "This Boy."

Yea..When John Lennon sings/screams..CRY..!      OOPS..Goosebumps.!

My personal opinion, but the Beach Boys were better than the Beatles the moment they dared to perform Good Vibrations on stage.

The Beatles also had records with arrangements that elaborate, but they never tried them on stage.

As a musician and music fan, I admire the Beach Boys for that.

Dared? Did the Beach Boys have a choice NOT to perform their biggest hit? I'm not a musician, but is "Good Vibrations" difficult to perform live?

Did you ever hear the Beatles perform "Paperback Writer"?

I think AGD meant 'group singing', not lead singing. As lead vocals go, The Beatles were as good or better than the Beach Boys, though I'd vote for a tie.

Not even close as far as difficulty goes. GV is a complex, subtle and dynamic song with lots of things appearing and disappearing instrumentally, PW is just a four or five piece combo and way easier to play live.

Part of the difference in group singing could also be attributed to the parts they were singing. The Beach Boys and Beatles came from different traditions to a certain extent. Obviously there was plenty of overlap, but the bigger harmonies the Beach Boys brought just weren't something the Beatles grew out of. Their harmonies, especially early on, tended to be either simple counterpoints or lead + backgrounds, like a blues or doo-wop basis. The Beach Boys, as you may have heard, were bringing in something that hadn't been a part of pop/rock much in the past, which was the jazz-influenced harmonies. They also had more singers to accomplish that goal, often five or six as opposed to three.

What did Hendrix say.."The Beach Boys are like a barbershop quartet on acid." I grew up in a barbershop singing family with my Dad singing lead and his quartet practicing in our basement for years. So you take somebody like me who was listening to that, and of course barbershop records and shows, starting at age 6 and by the time I was 14 The Beach Boys made the scene. Well it seemed a natural for me. This was going to be my group. The Beatles a far second, at that time. Over the years, I have realized The Beatles harmonies, although basic, were also present. But only after they copied The Beach Boys. By the time 20/20 came out, my Dad finally started to pay attention to this rock and roll barbershop sound I was forcing on him. Want a pure example of true barbershop quartet singing by The Beach Boys? Play the opening to School Days. God bless the Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barber Shop Quartet Singing in America. SPEBSQSA. You trained me to appreciate a facet of my favorite group's work much more than regular fans.

An opinion I feel very few unbiased observers will share.  :)

I think this is a personal taste thing. The Beatles voices are more distinguishable from one another and I would argue, individually they have more personality than the BB voices. The BB voices are more about the blend - more like one voice really. If we're talking about solo vocals I'd take The Beatles any day, but if we're talking blend, then definitely Beach Boys.

I dunno. I think Brian at his peak could sing as well as either John or Paul.

Carl wasn't too shabby either.

Well Paul could scream-sing better than any of them, that's for sure.
ML has the best hum though.

The only Beach Boy whose voice came closest to the biting tone that John had was, surprisingly, Al. That voice John had was very important for the overall sound, IMO. Well, the interplay between John's snarling tone and Paul's smoother, friendlier style. Al should've got more leads, I always feel like he feels that he's just a background member of the band.

I hear Paul trying to capture a Brian sound a lot, during the years he was most influenced by him. You can tell that Paul went through a big Brian phase. But it goes both ways really. Brian could do what Paul couldn't do. Paul could do what Brian couldn't do. One thing is for sure, Paul's voice has never been as badly awesome as Brian's gruff voice from the 70s onwards. These days Paul's voice is much, much stronger than Brian's but he also looks a lot more active and energetic than Brian, who seems more like a 'nod off in reclining chair' type of guy to me, lol.

One thing both groups had in common was: When they covered a song they both made it their own..Until 1976 i dont think BB ever madfe a bad cover. in most cases they do it better than original version..Do You wanna Dance..Hushabye.. Hearts full of spring..Cotton  Fields.......Twist + Shout ..Mr Postman..Till there was you....See what i mean.?..The snarl in John"s voice on Twist + Shout is one of the greatest moments in rock history...

That'd be because The Beatles broke up after ten years. If their solo outputs are anything to gauge what they'd be like had they continued, then things would have been about the same.

I don't agree with any of this, really.

Being more popular or well known doesn't make one better over another. That's pretty much my response to everything you said - you're trying to use the argument of The Beatles being more well known as to why they're better, can't say I agree.

And...

"the only people who will ever consider the Beach Boys as "better" than the Beatles are us fans who are blinded by our emotional attachment to the music and story of the Beach Boys"

How is that? Can't we just think their music is genuinely better? I know I certainly do - that's why I got much more into one band than the other

Very good point.  Had the Beach Boys broken up around the same time (say, after the Surf's Up album), I think their legacy would be a lot stronger, and much more on par with that of the Beatles.  As I'm not a big fan of their output after that point, I don't think that would have been an entirely bad thing, but I digress.  

Any band who sticks around too long makes some crappy records, and the Beatles would have been no exception.  The "lows" would have come sooner or later.  They lucked out in that respect.

Maybe. I don't think you can look at the Beatles' solo albums and make the connection that future Beatles' would've "dipped". Comparing SOLO albums to GROUP albums is like apples and oranges. As Beach Boys' fans, we know that better than anyone.

And, maybe the Beatles' "lows" would've come sooner or later had they stuck around, but I'm not so sure, at least not for another 5 years and a couple of more albums. Their last album, Abbey Road, is arguably among their best. And, remember, the Beatles had three, maybe four members contributing quality songs, and I mean real quality, not just OK album cuts.

Yes, while the Beach Boys' legacy would've been stronger if they'd have broken up in 1970, it still would not be on a par with the Beatles, again due the inconsistency of their albums. There were always low points on (pre-1970) Beach Boys albums and NOT VERY MANY on any Beatles albums.

Okay so I defintley had to voice my opinion, I had just posted a thread about this awhile back.

So personally I think that The Beach Boys are 10x better and always were & will be.  People were just so fascinated by "Ohh look...a band with odd hairstyles from another country!" Thats my personal opinion...I get alot of flack for that but oh well. It doesnt mean I'm going to keep my mouth shut. And also like someone mentioned Dennis' qoute...thats SOOOOO TRUE!!! And these Beatles fanboy/girls need to know & understand that. The Beach Boys' growth was stunted by the record industry. No one wanted to see them develop & grow. They wanted to see them with their striped shirts & surfboards [not that I have a problem with that!]

Dont get me wrong, please...I do like The Beatles, and quite a bit. But they can never compare with The Beach Boys..and I know many of you may disagree. The only reason why half the younger generation even likes The Beatles is because you can find a 8 dollar Beatles shirt at Wal-Mart or JC Penny & because you see many celebrities touting The Beatles name. Therefore it has become super cool to like The Beatles. Its become  commericialized & ridiculous.

I'll take The Beach Boys ANY day over The Beatles ;D

I agree Sheriff that you can't really judge by the solo albums done by Beatles members.  I just think it was inevidable that the Beatles would have put out some clunkers, just like the Beach Boys.  You make a good point though about the Beatles songwriters...having three great songwriters would have kept the quality of their albums up over the years.  The Beach Boys' albums really suffered as Brian's contributions decreased, and that wouldn't have been an issue with the Beatles.

Maybe "on-par" was the wrong choice of words...what I was really getting at is that I think the Beach Boys would be taken more seriously in the history books as the American counterpart to the Beatles.  They had a few lows during the 60's, but not nearly as bad as they had during the 70's.  Unfortunately, the group has done a lot of damage to its legacy over the last 35 years, which would have been avoided had the group broken up around the same time as the Beatles.

I love The Beatles really do. But they just are not as good as the Beach Boys for me.

The Beach Boys are just something special, they make me happy, sad, crazy everything, I can listen to them in any mood. Also it's a personal attachment, I relate to all the members in a different way.

Also there's just something special about the late 60's, early 70s material that made me love The Beach Boys so much, very special music. No wonder every indie band these days references The Beach Boys.

Also about this 'beatles never having a low period thing', they were together for 10 years. You want low points, listen to the solo material. You'll find more than enough.

One thing I always find amusing about these BB v. Beatles threads is that the question is being asked on a BB message board. I like almost everyone here, but there's a certain amount of bias inherent...remember that I'm not adding a negative connotation to bias. Many people here grew (including me) up with the Beach Boys and have shed a tear while listening to one of the better songs. I mean, imagine saying on a Beatles message board "Boy those Beach Boys were fantastic, better than the Beatles," I can't imagine many people would be rooting for Brian, Carl, Dennis and Al.

It's a bit like asking a Catholic priest whether he likes Jesus or Buddha better.

I completely agree; the Beach Boys' legacy was drastically hurt after 1973. Just think if they could've ended with Sunflower and Surf's Up. And the last three songs would've been "A Day In The Life Of A Tree", "Til I Die" and "Surf's Up".

When you think about it, there was only one post-1973 album (Love You) which was critically acclaimed, and that album still remains a cult favorite.

I really like your avatar

Actually I think tdhabib nails it here - and, I must say, I don't think Msgr. nobody* is too far off the mark either.  Of course this is a BB fan board, so that's where the emotional "oomph" would be for those who dig BB music.

Personally while such threads as this are great for starting flame wars I find the idea tedious.  It's not just comparing apples and oranges,  more like apples and Mazaratis.  Totally different sides of the street, lots of room for everyone's taste.  Wynton Marsalis doesn't care for the Beatles that much.  You know what?  He doesn't have to.

As others have said and Paul himself admits, BB fans should take solace from the fact that, in their heyday, there were only two American artists the Beatles made a point of paying attention to...and one of them was not Elvis.  Besides Dylan, who John followed, it was Brian who Paul kept an eye on, trying to write like him, play bass like him, make records like him, and do harmonies like him.  And Paul was there for the opening run of BWPS, giving it a standing O.  That's respect.

*dude - next time you really need to bring more of your stash to share with the rest of the class

They are great in their own merits. I don't see the need to compare.  ;D

I probably would like the Beatles a lot more if they released a lot of terrible 70s/80s albums. Gives a band character.

Yes - that's more or less what I was getting at with the solo records comparison, and people seemed to miss it.

If you compare the Beach Boys' output the same years that The Beatles were around, then it's a more even playing field and I still think the Beach Boys win. Endless Summer is what really made things take a turn for the worst.

Paul's live set is usually mainly Beatles songs with some Wings stuff and then whatever his most recent album is.

I must be crazy, but I don't think there were ANY low periods for The Beach Boys! At least not musically. I LOVE LOVE LOVE it all!!!!

Ok, SIP's cheeseness I chalk up to 1992 and leave it at that.

 :lol

As a vocal group, the Beach Boys reign supreme.  As a group, I'd definitely give it to the Beatles.  Three talented songwriters lead the group into many different directions but remain cohesive.  Looking at the best 20 singles from either band, it's a close call but looking album to album, the Beatles easily surpass the Boys.  It certainly helps that the Beatles called it quits while at the top of their game.  

The Beatles recorded very little filler and what they did record was at least very interesting filler.  The White Album is the ultimate composite of individual talent and Abbey Road is that of group talent.  There's filler on both but it enhances the albums rather than detract from them.

The voices in the Beatles are distinct.  Much of the Boys output leaves one guessing who is singing, which is an advantage in harmonizing.  That isn't a weakness but the Beatles have much stronger leads and headier lyrics, on the whole.  The emotional element, however does tend to favor the Boys.  It certainly does come down to a matter of taste.  The consistency and the album strength of the Beatles put them ahead in my book.

And, that's kind of the way I view it, in addition to the consistency (or inconsistency) of the albums. If you do a one CD comp, about 25 songs, you have a very good case for The Beach Boys, and not a lot of casual music fans realize that. If you do a 2CD comp, things tighten up considerably, with The Beatles starting to make some serious ground, maybe taking the lead. And, again, this is just one man's opinion.

That's very true Sheriff, the casual music-listening public does sell the Beach Boys short against the Beatles, most associating them with songs like "Kokomo" and "Barbara Ann," not realizing that songs like "Surf's Up" and "Til I Die" (just to give a few examples) exist.  As you look into overall catalogues though, you're right to say that the Beatles gain a lot of ground the deeper you go.  As we were talking about before, cutting out all of the Beach Boys' output after the Surf's Up album would help their case a lot, but it seems to me that even then, the Beatles would still edge them out slightly.

I've done this a few times. I have assembled a one CD comp of what I consider the best of the Beach Boys' MUSIC. My working title is always "Brian's Genius Music". I start with the cream of the crop of the early year's - "Surfer Girl", "I Get Around", "Don't Worry Baby", "The Warmth Of The Sun", fill up a lot of space with 1965-66 material, a couple of SMiLE things, and then hand pick some classics like "This Whole World", "Til I Die", "Marcella", and "Sail On Sailor". Sequence it logically, burn into onto a single CD, and blow some minds. I actually get enjoyment from that! :police:

I've tried this with more than a few people (mainly militant Beatles fans) and no one can seem to get over the typical "I just can't get into anything past Pet Sounds" hurdle.  :'(

Good thoughts here which I mostly agree with. Maybe I like the Beach Boys three times instead of ten times better lol.
Dylan in a 1987 Rolling Stone interview basically called the early Beatles and early Stones derivative but said that he and the Beach Boys were more original.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Pet Sounds and Smile put Pepper to shame. He says as he quietly walks away, watching the rocks being thrown.  ;D