The Smiley Smile Message Board

If for some reason, maybe losing a bet or something... in the 1960s, for let's say a year, a Beach Boy member had to join The Beatles (either in place of a Beatle, or by augmenting the full group), and a Beatles member had to join The BBs (either in place of a BB, or by augmenting the full group), what would be the results?

I guess we already have a brief glimpse of a Beatle joining in place of a BB during the 1980s (Ringo filling in on drums for California Calling, shortly after Denny's passing). But what about during the bands' glory years? What would The Beatles have done with Mike? What would The BBs have done with George? The possibilities are interesting to ponder.

I think the Beatle that would most fit in the BB's would be Paul.

I guess Carl could replace Paul?

Im sorry, but I think these theoretical topics that have been popping up are ridiculous and a waste of time. Are we just out of pertinent things and real subjects to talk about?

agreed gerry.

  Let's do The Beach Boys and The Rolling Stones instead.

  First, the obvious: Mike Love for Mick Jagger.

  Then: Al Jardine for Bill Wyman.

 Bruce Johnston for Ron Wood.

Geez. Sorry. If you don't dig the topic, feel free to move along to the next topic... nobody is forcing anybody to read or reply.

.

The Beatles wouldn't need Dennis if they still had Ringo, so...
the two bands swap drummers....Friends now features "Don't Pass Me By", 20/20 includes "Octopus' Garden". The Beatles get to do "Be Still" and the Manson song on the white album - right after "Helter Skelter".
Or...
during the Let it Be sessions, when George is bickering with Paul, "i'll play whatever you want me to play", Paul says "I'd like you to play with the Beach Boys", and the Fab Four get Carl. Carl, being the peacekeeper he is, tries to bridge the widening gap between Paul and John, but even Carl's patience is tested when Yoko stars squalling during "I Can Hear Music" and "Get Back".

Could either Dennis or Mike even exist within The Beatles? In terms of personality, I mean.

If either of them were added to The Beatles, would their personalities and different work ethic (when compared to The Beatles) rub The Beatles the wrong way? If Pete Best got the axe (in part) due to being too attractive to the ladies, how would Dennis fare?

And for that matter, could John's personality and radical ideas exist within The Beach Boys? What would John do if Mike questioned him about lyrics?

Carl to the Beatles.   Paul to the Beach Boys.

I think the Pete Best was too attractive thing is a myth.
I would love to see the effects of embedding John Lennon in the Beach Boys. That would've shaked things up!

No kidding!

 "This post is so ridiculous, I'm going to stop and let you know just how ridiculous it is. Because my opinion is important to you".

How about instead of complaining, people come up with a "better" topic? One that isn't, you know, ridiculous and a waste of time.

I rather like the idea of simply moving Mike to The Beatles. Then they could swap anecdotes about their time in Rishikesh while the Boys continued to make great music as a quartet with external lyricists.

Yes, definitely a myth. The Beatles were a hive mind and if you didn't have the right personality you were tossed. Same clothes, same hair, same music tastes, same drink, same drug, same sense of humour, etc etc. That's why they eventually broke up because as they matured, they began having their own independent and individual interests. In other bands that might be okay but not in The Beatles. In that sense, it would be quite difficult for a Beach Boy to join the band. I can't see any of them having the right personality but maybe...Carl? Meanwhile Paul or John would have dominated Brian in The Beach Boys because that was their personality. Ringo would be an interesting addition but I'm not sure what the band would do with both Ringo and Dennis. So maybe send George and give The Beach Boys a bit of a rockabilly flavour. Throw in a first round draft pick too.

How about swapping Mike and John.

Imagine Brian Wilson music with John Lennon lyrics? 

Who cares about the lyrics anyway? The BBs' strength is the music. I never understood people whining about a song that they don't like because it has bad lyrics. Big deal.

I agree with you to an extent.  It's the music that draws you in.  Great lyrics are pointless if there's no tune around it. 

You know, this really isn't pointless. It can lead to some insightful discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of both groups.

I would swap Paul into the Beach Boys rather than John. One of the difficulties, I think, that Brian had in the Pet Sounds/Smile era was feeling a certain intimidation from Mike. As bad a Mike was, John would be worse, ego wise. Yes, I know the story about John meeting Brian, but that's a bit of rare sensitivity on John's part, I imagine.

Paul would be capable of more insightful lyrics than Mike, but without the intimidation factor. Plus, John veered more toward political and social statement, and I'm not sure that's where Brian's head was.

I would definitely give Mike to the Beatles then sit back and watch the fireworks.

I do agree that Paul would be a better fit with Brian.  I think that Paul, like Brian, is gifted musically, but no so much lyrically. 

But I think John wouldn't worked well with Brian too, at least until Yoko came into his life.  John seemed to be much more sensitive then.  I also think John was more willing to progress than Mike was, so John would've been a good ally when Brian was putting together Smile.  And I think John would've supplied better lyrics than Van Dyke. 

If Mike joined The Beatles, he'd pair up with George.  They're Pisces brothers after all. 

I think Paul is much too controlling in the studio. More than Lennon. Brian would be smothered. In terms of Brian getting by to shine, George is the best option.
Brian and Paul are in some ways too similar.
But I agree with KDS about John.

Yeah, I could see that too. 

My only concern with George joining the BB would be that his talent as a guitarist would be wasted.  When Brian really started to flourish in the mid 60s, the Boys weren't exactly a guitar driven group.  Take away Sgt Pepper / MMT, and the Beatles pretty much remained a guitar driven band. 

But George could have slayed on Student Demonstration Time, right? Right?

Yeah, you have some outliers like that, It's About Time, Bluebirds Over the Mountain, etc.

Nah. That's a good point. And your point about John being really experimental right at the same time is good. But he also was not interested in orchestrating. He deferred to Martin on that. So, I'm going with John. He would've been an enthusiastic sounding-board but wouldn't have tried to take the reins.

Toe be fair though, I don't think George became a really good guitarist until 1969 as The Beatles were falling apart and I would say that he never became a great guitarist. He did have a nice style though that, of course, worked very well with The Beatles.

Murry for the Beatles (yes with a Beatles hair cut and as the lead singer and producer and sole songwriter) "Do do be do do do do, do be de do Hey Jude! Boppity bop!" and Jimmy Nichols for the Beach Boys..

I think George was a great guitarist in the Carl Perkins/Scotty Moore tradition; if you're looking for speed and all that, no, he's not going to measure up to the Guitar Gods that came along later in the 60's, but like Ringo, he played what was right for the song - and there's nothing wrong with short, concise solos. That's what he grew up listening to - James Burton, Chuck Berry, guys like that. Later on he developed that distinctive slide style - I rate him in my top 5.

I think the more realistic thread title would be if one of the members could work with the other band for a track or two, which one would it be?  And in truth - any of The Beatles would work fine that way and vice-versa.  I could totally see Mike or Carl or Brian or anyone being on a track like Back In The USSR or Revolution or co-write something.  Paul and Brian in a long term thing you say would clash - but I say maybe not because Paul and John worked together all those years.  And had Yoko not been adding to the tension (by John insisting she sit there) things might have been more pleasant.  By the way Paul always wanted John's approval (even when John admitted behind the scenes "I can't keep up with this guy."  And one more thing - don't assume John was the experimental one.  Paul was the real experimental one.  He was into avant garde first, getting into John Cage and Stockhausen before John.  He came up with the tape loops on Tomorrow Never Knows.  He was behind the Carnival of Light idea they did in early 1967.  John was at his best doing lyrics.

Yes, McCartney and Lennon worked well together because they complemented each other in various ways. They didn't want to do the same thing. McCartney could be control freaky without bothering Lennon. But McCartney and Brian Wilson (at that time) were both control freaky so would step on each other's toes.
And I disagree with the latter part of your comment.

If Carl and George traded places, how different would the guitar parts have sounded on the early records? Listen to the intros of Fun, Fun, Fun versus Roll Over Beethoven.  Similar riffs, but Carl's FFF part sounds a little more fluid and effortless, and George's ROB part sounds a little more clunky. 

Yes, Paul and Brian together in the studios in the 60s would have been a disaster. Brian was in charge, and that wouldn't have sat well with Paul. On the other hand, would Brian have been intimidated by John's personality? I would hope John had enough respect for Brian to step back, but his humor would not have meshed with the cornier humor of the Beach Boys.

That's true.

Completely agree.  Brian was/is a pretty sensitive guy, and John's biting, sarcastic wit would probably have been misunderstood.  I can visualize John telling Brian to "Sod Off" and Brian taking that to heart.

Too bad they never got together to work on some songs. I think they played similar roles in their respective bands - lead guitar, backup vocals (although Carl got more lead vocals as the years went on), didn't write a lot of songs although both came up with some gems (Here Comes the Sun and Something are the 2 best songs on Abbey Road, and Carl came up with 2 of the best on Surf's Up, Long Promised Road and Feel Flows); and both were very spiritual men (yes, Mike is the one always talking meditation and all that, but Carl was the one that always had that Zen-like calm about him; George had a grumpy side that came out from time to time).

Agree about Yoko - she should've been out of the studio - as in go home or sth. John wasn't very nice to let her stay there. It's business, nobody should be allowed *in* besides the Beatles, engineers etc. Just because he's leader doesn't mean he should annoyingly let any interloper. I can't believe that Yoko & other girls sang background vocs. Wish it was just the guys. Not some off-key, can't-sing-at-all unprofessional girl vocals. F.ex. "Birthday", "Bungalow Bill". Business is business, the other stuff is the other stuff. There's place & time for everything. John was being capricious by making Yoko being eyes & ears of the sessions. As if she could add anything useful. No wonder the other 3 were annoyed & frustrated big time.

You're right, Paul was into experiments. People credit John for being the weirdo & Paul traditional but it's just myth, nothing else. What you said about Paul plus his MMT creation shows he could be equally as weird, if not more. John's suit was, by & large, lyrics.

Best post of this thread.