The Smiley Smile Message Board

I keep coming upon references to the Beach Boys as being a "pop" band. I think this appellation has even been applied to the Beatles. I read somewhere of Ringo actually responding to such.

I know it can get rather dicey putting artists in neat little boxes, and I'd agree the BBs might from time to time slosh over into "pop" territory. But then I have to ask -  what is "pop" if not shorthand for popular music? And what idiom dominated popular music in the '60's if not rock n roll? And if Fun Fun Fun is not rock n roll, what is?

It seems to tag a band as "pop" is a sort of put down.

I think that calling the Beach Boys a pop group, or a rock & roll group, or just a 'rock' band are all correct ways to describe them.

Yes, when some people call something "pop", it is intended as a put down. However, it really shouldn't be, as pop music is wonderful. And, personally, I don't think many people have done it as well as the Beach Boys have.

When it comes to the 60's, I think pop and rock evolved simultaneously and gained very similar qualities. However, I think the difference between the two usually lies in the approach. Rock will be more about a sort of a strong presentation and sound, where pop tends to go more toward finesse. Consider "Paint It, Black" by the Rolling Stones and "Wouldn't It Be Nice" by the Beach Boys (released two months apart from each other as singles in 1966), and I think the difference is clear.

Obviously, this is just the way I think of these things, and I'm sure people disagree with me.

I'd classify them under both. You could probably play Pet Sounds-Holland material on a classic rock station and it would somewhat work, but I've also heard many rock fans say the Beach Boys aren't true rock.

What is "Classic Rock" ?

The Beach Boys started as a Rock "n' Roll band.  They moved into a more Rock phase...as the Rock 'n' Roll faded into history.  Unfortunately they petty much stopped Rockin'...on RECORD/cd in mid 1975.  They sort of hovered between rock 'n' roll and pop from then on.  They were lost.  Treading water.  Sha na na at the Beach.  The Beach Boys with brief flourishes have sat stagnant for far too long.  Carl tried to find a sense of new direction for himself.  Didn't really work out.  But he KNEW that it was a necessity.  Dennis was far more successful...and he could write his own music.  But his health issues took him down and out.  And Brian proves time and time again that he has the creative talent.  Brian does MUSIC.  Brian is an icon.  What he does has never been 'pop'  The Hollyridge strings playing his songs?  THAT was pop.  Mike Love touring his songs?  That's NOT pop...but it comes close. :o

Pop isn't a put down, it's a compliment.  The Beach Boys can be classified as the greatest of all genres: the original, 50's, 60's, ROCK & ROLL !  They're in the same category you would put Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, The Beatles, CCR, The Everly Brothers, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc. are all in, Rock & Roll. 

"Rock" is different. 

So what is Rock as opposed to Rock n Roll ?

I wonder if it is really possible for a musician to go in a "new direction" after a certain point without sounding false?

There is a natural progression from Surfin' Safari thru Surf's Up, although connecting Feel Flows to anything prior to PS would take some close analysis, melodically and harmonically speaking, no to mention production wise. But then again, not such a stretch from PS to FF.

I don't know about CATP/Holland (I tend to think of them as the same album) - but still a departure from Sunflower/Surf's Up.

I guess I'm drifting here...

Maybe it's an age thing - Louis Armstrong was still blowing the 1920's in the 1960's, but it still rang true.

So if Mike wants to rock the car songs - it's still rings true too.

I guess in the end it's still rock n roll to me.

What a mess this post has become....

Led Zeppelin, Cream, Lynyrd Skynyrd.

In the 1960s there's no shame being labeled pop, it was a great era for pop.

all rock is pop but not all pop is rock.

the Beach Boys are obviously a rock band, though people like George Martin and others disagree.

I think of "rock'n'roll" as the music of Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, etc. in the 50s and "rock" as almost everything that came after that.


in the end, it's a bit silly and sticky to label music. a song like Don't Talk doesn't really "rock" but it can be found on one of the greatest rock albums by one of the greatest rock bands.

So maybe rock n roll as a descriptive term inclines more to the rhythm n blues/country-western roots, whereas rock absorbs popular song forms and jazz?

Pop. Every time. Never liked the word "rock"----except as a verb.  ;D

 Their music is too diverse to pigeon hole. Too eclectic.  I would call them a music group.

To my way of thinking, "pop" was more melodic than rock 'n roll. And "rock" really kicked off in 1965 with folk rock (the Byrds, Dylan) and blues rock (the Blues Project, Paul Butterfield). I mean, they weren't calling it folk rock 'n roll.

what comes to mind is the genius pop interpretations of the Wondermints.    If this is pop, give me more!

I'd call 'em a rock and roll band. But then I call almost everything I like besides jazz and blues rock and roll.

i think of rock as almost any type of counterculture music, but jazz is another genre entirely.

there's some very experimental, loud, dissonant, and even controversial classical music... but it's still classical music, distinct from rock.

I think of Rock being more instrument based and pop more vocal. 

Take a look at a photo of one of the old swing orchestra's of the 30's or 40's. Remove to horn sections and you've got a rhythm section of drums, bass, piano and guitar. There's your rock n roll band. The human voice, amplified thru a mike takes the place of the horns. There were sweet bands (pop) and there were serious swing bands (blues).

The blues lends soul. Pop lends variety of harmonic color. Straight blues I find tedious. Straight pop I find insipid. Black and White compliment and complete each other.

Billy Corgan's thoughts on Rock/Pop.

http://www.stereogum.com/1783648/billy-corgan-finally-breaks-his-legendary-silence-about-kanyes-grammys-intrusion/news/

I think Kurt had an incredible level of integrity and I often say that he would know what to do with the pop miasma we’re dealing with right now. Because rock needs to be free and independent; it doesn’t need to imitate pop to survive. That’s very telling and negatively impactful to the music business as a whole. The music business worked fine when you had pop stars and you had rock stars and everyone was doing their own thing.
Corgan also said rock should be waging war on pop music, pop is turning into pornography, and sales are down because everyone wants to chase trends and no one wants to be an iconic individual.

I've a lot of time for BC. Besides being a phenomenally talented and ridiculously prolific songwriter and musician (seriously, the amount of non-album SP tracks is mindblowing) he was once tremendously kind and thoughtful to me when I was struggling through some stuff.

To me rock and roll is pretty much anything rooted in the combo of drums, bass; lead & rhythm guitar. But yeah labelling isn't really worth it. There's too much crossover.

Interesting that, at least in the mid-60's, many of the original British Invasion bands (acts that would later be classified as "classic rock") had no qualms labeling themselves as "pop". I.e. Pete Townshend calling the early Who sound as "power pop".

Every time I hear the term "classic rock" I get this image in my mind of Madame Tussauds. ;D

I agree with your last paragraph.   And.. you know Billy?  Nice he was able to help you out :)

Nah, not really. Only spoken a couple of times but he was kind enough to give me some very heartfelt and thoughtful advice on something that was troubling me.