The Smiley Smile Message Board

Just curious on your thoughts

Beatles had two great musicians, Paul and Ringo

Beach Boys had longevity, better songs

Beach Boys had Dennis, how cool is that

My two all time favourite bands are The Beatles & The Beach Boys. But to me The Beatles never made me as happy or as sad as Beach Boys music could. Listening to Pets Sounds makes me so emotional and often leads me to cry,Sgt Pepper is a perfect album but I don't really have a very deep emotional connection to it.

They didn't have Brian Wilson.

Bingo.  :bw

Copied my reply from the Gallagher thread 'cause I'm lazy...


I think this may be one reason of many why Sir George Martin AND Sir Paul McCartney were and are such admirers of Brian Wilson. Both men obviously know what it takes to cut hit records, not just hit records but ones that last and help shape a culture more or less around the sounds of those records that become legendary hits. As they say, it ain't easy.

And here was a guy *with only one good ear* in Los Angeles cranking out hit after hit, pretty much as a self contained operation. Writing, arranging, producing, and performing. The Beatles were not that. And they knew what went into making the kind of music Brian was making in the 60's.

I think that's pretty much it, what OSD said. They did not have Brian Wilson. Take George Martin out of the mix, and those records would not have been the same, in some cases nowhere near as impactful or advanced in a musical sense. They would have been damn fine pop/rock records, but the band may be remembered today more like Manfred Mann or the DC5...solid bands, great players, good songs, had classic hits...but without the magic elements that a good producer and arranger adds.

Uh, okay. George Harrison is on my list of great guitar players. So is Carl Wilson.
Both groups had great songs, but the Beatles body of work is more consistent - primarily because the broke up in 1970. The Beach Boys had MIU and SIP. If the Fab Four had stayed together, they would have put out a few stinkers, too. Individually, they gave us such "gems" (ha ha) as Electronic Sound, Sometime in New York City, Ringo the 4th, and Off the Ground.
The Beatles had John, how cool is that?

Brian Wilson is an inspiration in a way that none of the Beatles are.  Also the Beatles stopped in 1970, but the Beach Boys continued with at least some good work.  "Band on the Run, "My Sweet Lord" and "Imagine" are the only post-Beatle memorable stuff their members did.

You guys forget one thing that's definite: Harmony.

Plus, both Brian and Paul write quirky songs, but Brian is clearly better at them.

I disagree. The sum of the solo works by the Beatles easily excels the sum of Beach Boys in 1970 onwards. They've made about ten absolutely great albums and numerous great songs, on the other hand The Beach Boys & each of the members have made only a few such classic albums.

Still, I love the Beach Boys more :-D

PS. I agree that "Brian Wilson is an inspiration in a way that none of the Beatles are".

The one thing The Beach Boys did better than The Beatles - Christmas music. 

Im a huge Beach Boys fan, but I think its unfair to compare ANY band to The Beatles.

There are bands Im a bigger fan of, but nobody compares. 

But Paul and Ringo are just about the best at their respective instruments, Ringo certainly is. I wouldn't put George and Carl near the top. Beatles had one up on BB there. BB had several perfect albums, Beatles only one: AHDN.

For cool, I'd say Stuart Sutcliffe was cooler than John. John became rather uncool in his solo years; he was best in the Hamburg days when he was the leader of the band. Dennis is cooler than Stu and John, combined.

The Beach Boys did spirituality better than The Beatles.

Music

Beat me to it, O'Driscoll.

Brian's songwriting chops
Dennis's bad boy sex appeal
Carl's voice
Mike's spirituality

Exactly. And they were better singers too.

Say what??  ??? ???

That too! I find Beatle xmas music dreadful.

Everything?

Nothing? ... Maybe somewhere in between?

It's interesting to think about, but I disagree with most that has been written in this thread. Dennis was cooler, because John was less cool at times? Dennis had his uncool moments (or years) too. Drop George Martin from the Beatles equation? Okay, are we dropping the wrecking crew too? To say Brian did more for the BBs than any individual Beatle did for the Beatles doesn't speak to what one group did better than the other. The only memorable solo Beatle songs are 'Band On The Run', 'My Sweet Lord', and 'Imagine'? Gee, shall we apply this strict standard to the BBs later material? Christmas music? We can do this all day, the BBs were better at everything the Beatles didn't attempt to do, and the Beatles were better at things the BBs didn't attempt. Mike is more spiritual than George? How many 'My Sweet Lord's did he write?

Sorry if that sounds harsh. Just didn't seem balanced enough for me.

I'm with ya for the most part B.E.

And once again, why the need in our Beach Boys fan circles to always compare to The Beatles? They are both freaking amazing gifts to my life and that's all I know.

Absolutely. My two favorite bands and it's not even close. I listen to them both every single day.

I agree the comparisons usually turn into pissing matches but there is a fascinating discussion bubbling underneath all of that regarding what made the bands different, specific to music and what they could each bring to the table. I love them both, I gave up trying to rank them or pit them against each other in a "who's better" kind of way a long time ago. But there is a great discussion to be had just the same as long as it doesn't turn into a rivalry, which it never was even among the bands at the height of their popularity.

Getting back to Brian Wilson's role. One of the issues that gets bypassed too often in the discussions overall is how a kid (and I use that term as the industry saw these people and this music in the early 60's) was able to get almost full autonomy and control including a producer credit when he did, and given the state of the music business at the time.

It is amazing to me that a young guy with a few hit records under his belt was able to get that kind of creative control and credit on and from a label like Capitol, where they basically said if you keep cutting records like this for us, do whatever you want and record wherever you want. As long as you keep making those hits.

I can't think of anyone in that situation who was given such control at a young age and was able to keep cranking out the hits. The system at that time was to have a producer assigned by the label to oversee the process, and when the BB's first got into it, of course they had Nik Venet in that role. But he was soon gone from the credits and the nuts-and-bolts process.

Again it's the fact the Beach Boys had a performing member (leader) in-house doing all those roles and being allowed to do it within a corporate structure that did not allow for that kind of control or autonomy at that time, as a general rule.

I think if anything that aspect speaks volumes about the whole scene, and I go back to that being one of the primary sources of admiration coming from someone like George Martin, because he knew intimately what was involved in making the kinds of records The Beatles and Beach Boys were making, and was impressed if not in awe that one man (with one good ear) in the band was responsible for those roles.

Late to this thread but, I think The Beach Boys made music for the soul, or as Carl put it music that "celebrated the joy of life".

The Beach Boys music is just so soulful (and I don't mean that in a R&B/Motown/Soul genre way). It just hits you right in the heart, in a way that no other band could match. When I hear that intro to California Girls just has so much power. Or even the beginning to Surfin' or Surfin' Safari make me nostalgic about surfing--- and I've never been surfing! I sang God Only Knows to girlfriend when she was going through some hard times, because if she would ever leave me, life would have gone on, but there would have been nothing the world could offer me! I suppose I'm going on a personal tangent, and now I'm just babbling, but the point I'm trying to make is that The Beach Boys music is for the heart. And that's, in my mind, what sets them apart (and slightly above) The Beatles.

And I LOVE The Beatles.

Although, as a solo artist, John did write one iof the greatest Christmas songs of all time.  As a group, they could only muster Christmastime is Here Again.

Yep.  Just as Cal Ripken Jr is my all time favorite baseball player, but he doesnt compare to Babe Ruth

Ok gonna throw in another band now.. The Bee Gees

Off topic, but that picture of Dennis reminds me of Jeff Bridges in Starman (1984).

Agreed. The Three B's it is for me, so close together in any record store bin. So few people truly get what a great a run of superb lp's they had from "The Bee Gees First" to "Mr. Natural", before the ubiquitous disco era (which I now adore, but didn't back then). One gorgeous, indelible melody after another, eccentric lyrics, and a beautiful blend that only shared DNA can make possible (Louvins, Everlys, Wilsons, etc). First, Horizontal, Idea, , Odessa(!) (and they had Stigwood for orchestral accompaniment) , Cucumber Castle, Trafalgar, 2 Years On, To Whom It May Concern, Life in a Tin Can...love em all. (Especially Odessa). Barry's "a (melodic) genius too..."

The Beach Boys sang better than the Beatles.

John, Paul and George wrote better lyrics then any of The Beach Boys.

In 1965and 1966 when both Bands were at their creative peak The Beach Boys peak was higher than that of the Beatles.

Snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

Ok too harsh. I’m sure if the Beatles had continued they would have made some career miscalculations as well. McCartneys snub of the Beatles Hall of Fame induction in 88 was a shot in his own foot, not unlike Mikes speech.

The Beach Boys sang ballads and harmony better than Bech Boys.  But on the rockers both John and Paul out sang any and all of the Boys including Carl.

At his best Brian and his collaborators wrote lyrics that matched or surpassed the best of the Beatles' lyrics.  But at his worst Brian and the other writers in The Beach Boys outstank any Beatles lyric by a wide margin.

https://solobeatles.com/2012/03/12/solo-beatles-1-singles/

To say the the solo releases of the Beatles only had 3 memorable songs is not true, just check out the above link and as of 2012 the solo releases (and Wings), collectively, add up to 20 number one hits..and there are also memorable songs not even on that list can you say "Give peace a chance"," starting over" and "watching the wheels" just to mention a couple that are obviously memorable. Comparing the Beach Boys with the Beatles are like comparing apples to oranges. They both have their merits,.

Brian was a singer , composer, producer ( better than G. Martin ). He was a more sophisticated artist than any solo Beatle and was more of a powerhouse than any of them and much more misunderstood by the public than any of them. His music was quite often understated which went above most peoples heads.

Reading through some of the opinions and comments in this discussion about the Beatles, I'm a little shocked. I just got through watching the documentary "Eight Days A Week" on the local PBS station, and it's followed tonight by the documentary on Sgt Pepper that came out this year. So I'm a little biased in the moment.

But I go back to something Jim wrote in another thread about being so wrapped up in one specific music or artist, whether it be the Beach Boys or someone else, to the point where the perspective gets skewed as to all the other good if not amazing music that is out there, and therefore how to judge for ourselves what is good music. Jim's comments stuck with me, they were really insightful in that regard.

But I'd encourage everyone who has not seen it to listen to some Beatles, watch the documentary Eight Days A Week, the Pepper film, Anthology, even dust off a copy of Beatles For Sale or Revolver or any of their albums or collections and listen. If you like it or don't like it, that's everyone's perogative.

But it really surprises me whenever these Beatles v. Beach Boys talks pop up that it can feel like we're comparing Freddie And The Dreamers to the Beach Boys or something.

It's good to be reminded of what's being compared by simply listening. Both groups were different and special in their own way.

It can never be more than subjective. For some of us, the Beatles do nothing for us, despite repeated listens. Nothing to be shocked about.

I do find this disbelief common with Beatles fans though, no offense to you there GF.

This incredulous cry of "How can you not like the Beatles???"

It only serves to reinforce my opinion.

Some Beatles songs do something for me, but by no means everything! I had them constantly rammed down my throat at school in the UK, which has coloured my view of them ever since. So yes, never more than subjective.   

No incredulous crying here, just mild disbelief at the lack of objectivity. Different schools of thought, though.

I agree.   Fandom is funny that way.  When the Yankees Aaron Judge deservedly won the AL Rookie of the Year last month, there was a segment of Baltimore Orioles fans who cried fowl thinking it was Yankee bias that gave Judge the award over Orioles rookie Trey Mancini. 

I basically put Christmas music down half jokingly because the Beach Boys did a full fledged Christmas album, and The Beatles did a song segment for their fan club. 

This one speaks for me as well...although, given the lack of a very deep emotional [or spiritual for that matter] connection...I would also, personally, put Bob Marley and the Wailers ahead of the Beatles as well.

What did the Beach Boys do better than the Beatles?

I don't know, but the Beach Boys touched my heart and the Beatles didn't.

Objectively, the Beach Boys sang more intricate multi-part harmonies than the Beatles did on record. And that's about it.

If we're trying to quantify something one did *better* than the other. Literally everything else either the Beatles measurably did better at, or it's completely subjective.

"The Beach Boys touched me more than the Beatles"; that's subjective. Which is fine.

I'm just not a fan of this sort of stuff, where we can like both bands and find them equally great in whatever measures we choose. Threads like this tend to come across as another of many BB fan hangups about the Beatles being more popular than the BBs.

"Rubber Soul" is front to back (US or UK version) stronger than any '65 BB album. I'd put "Help" up against either as well. The highs of the BB albums are right up there with the Beatles. But as *albums*, there's still more lows/fillers on BB albums. It's once again why I posit than PS is amazing more than anything not due to some unifying feeling or theme, but because they're simply *all* great songs. Though "Revolver" is its equal and I'd say probably better.

This is why I think The Beach Boys are the better band. There is something spiritual connected with The Beach Boys Music, it’s a feeling I don’t get when listening to the Beatles. I think it’s the harmonies and the angelic voices that completely soar above the Beatles. In regards to hits, the Beatles knock it out of the park - there are some moments in their songs (be they chord changes, lyrics, or experimental instrumentation) that blow me away as much as the greatest Beach Boys music. But there is an atmosphere in Beach Boys songs that has never been duplicated by anyone.

How can it be objective?

Define 'better'

Were the Beatles better instrumentalists than the Beach Boys? To answer that objectively you'd first need to define a sytem of judging rock playing in a way that eveyone hearing it agrees on. It would need to be a consistent, cross-genre scale of judging. Would it be purely technical? A big problem would be that rock is generally not written down, so there would be no score to consult. At least in a classical performance you could judge a players expressive capabilities by seeing how they interpret a score.  How is that possible with rock? You have no frame of reference.

Conversely with harmony, unless you are familiar with  different styles of harmony, for example, close part jazz harmony and doo wop, and unless you can judge which of those is better in a way that everyone accepts, then how can you possibly say which band is better at harmonizing.

You can use as many technical terms as you want, ultimately it's subjective. 

I think Baroque music is better than Hip Hop. I could give 100 reasons why. Why am I right and some kid in New York wrong? Unless we have a frame of reference we can agree on, it is subjective.

Sorry to give you aestetics 101, I'm sure you know all this already. And I would defend your right to love the Beatles to the death.

What I don't like though, is having my opinion met with any sort of shock or disbelief.

Or judgement.

It's snobbery of the worst kind.

Rant over, you know I love you guys.......

Just Paul and Ringo? :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

What about those other two guys?

I believe the Beach Boys top the Beatles in terms of:

Vocal Harmony

Production/Arrangement (in general, backing tracks are more orchestral, specifically 1964-1968)



For example, compare what the two groups were doing in the studio at the end of 1964.  Compare the backing track of In the Back of My Mind with stuff from Beatles for Sale.

I agree with everyone who posted about both bands being loved and revered and all else almost equally as peers. I also see validity in discussing the differences, specifically "why" The Beatles may be more revered than the Beach Boys, or what elements of the Beach Boys or Beatles catalog of songs and records stand out over the other.

But even if it hasn't come up as obviously here, yet, it is disappointing to see these discussions turn into Beach Boys fans lobbing grenades at the Beatles music as if (I'll say again) we were comparing the Beach Boys to some lesser group. Or comparing the Pepper or Revolver album to something by The Archies or whatever.

Both groups were in that upper echelon of 60's pop music, for a number of well-deserved reasons, namely that they were innovators and made great music, and wrote great songs consistently from year to year in the 60's. There was no outright crap or throwaway nonsense on Beatles albums, and apart from the filler tracks and the joke tracks on BB's albums, it was the same for their catalog. Quality and consistently, with innovation.

So I have to question why a lot of times these talks turn into people taking shots at The Beatles, rather than staying on point and discussing the tangible differences. Not that people are doing what has been done previously, like saying "Sgt Pepper is overrated crap" or whatever the variations might be, but there has to be some leveling of the two as peers or else it turns into mudslinging.

Maybe the more interesting comparison would be to put up The Who or The Stones next to The Beach Boys and run those through the discussion wringer, and weigh those. There are two artists considered "legends" as well, who put out very influential albums which are considered among the best of all time and alongside that, have a reputation for great live shows and some legendary tours...and have continued to tour into the 21st Century, which obviously the Beatles cannot do.

Hopefully this can stay a frank and open and respectful conversation. I say that because I have to inevitably lob what some might see as a very mild generalized accusation.

To back up, I think it obviously makes sense if one band speaks to you personally more than another, if you like another band more than another, etc. Digging the BBs more than the Beatles is not surprising or in any way objectionable.

What I *do* think is odd is to LOOOOVE the Beach Boys top to bottom, front to back, and also say the Beatles *do nothing* for you whatsoever. I'm not saying it's impossible. But in my experience dealing with people talking about music and also interacting with a wide variety of "fandoms", if someone loves the Beach Boys' music more than anything on this Earth and professes that the Beatles do *zero* for them in any way, I find that sometimes that means there's some "fanboy/girl-ish" stuff going on, a little bit of "my team is better than yours" going on.

Look, I love the Beatles and therefore everybody I know thinks I must *love* the Rolling Stones. I dig enough of their stuff, but they've never been a huge deal to me. But I can't say that *nothing* they do does one iota to move me or make me enjoy something. And I'd argue frankly the BBs and Beatles, especially in the most prolific era, have more in common than even the Beatles and Stones as far as melody and ingenuity, etc.

As a HUGE fan and scholar of both the Beatles and BBs (its pretty equal for both all things considered), I've had plenty of interactions with both fan bases regarding the other band, and I find far more sort of catty, "my team is better than yours" stuff from BB fans regarding the Beatles than vice versa. There's probably more dismissiveness about the BBs among some Beatles fans, where the BBs don't even enter into the picture for them (and that puzzles me just as much and suggest a lot of musical tunnel vision). But, as a Beatles fan, I find that one of the go-to arguments *against* them is their popularity. "They may have more hits, but....." "They may be the bigger pop culture phenomenon, but....."

I've been neck-deep in the deepest analysis of the Beatles, and have also had times of pulling back and giving it some space. After all this time, every accolade and "best of all time" platitude ascribed to the Beatles is warranted. They truly were like no other. Their songs were better. Their albums were better. If they didn't "get there" first when it came to something, they still got there early and better. They made every song they covered theirs. Again, I submit that every BB barring *possibly* Mike (and maybe even Mike) would tell you, if asked, that, as Howie Edelson put it, "there's the Beatles, and then everything else."

The internet allows someone to get "into" a band very deep and in detailed fashion *very quickly*; someone can become "fanatical" more quickly and, despite the internet's ability to give us access to *more* music, can just as likely lead to that tunnel vision and becoming single-minded about one band. I've been guilty of this myself over the years; I probably *still* don't have as adventurous of a musical taste as I'd like. It branches out, but it's still into stuff like ELO, or Emitt Rhodes, the Zombies, Billy Joel, stuff that still in the same general big wheelhouse of melodic rock/pop.

But I also recognize that you like what you like, and I'm not going to waste a TON of time in my life listening to music that I have zero interest in.

I think there's enough commonalities between the BBs and Beatles to do some comparison/analysis of their musicianship. Namely, as a self-contained musical performing group.

And on that basis, the Beatles were far better musicians across the board. As Howie Edelson once put it, given the proper technology, Paul McCartney could have performed and sang every element of the "Sgt. Pepper" tracks barring orchestral overdubs. None of the BBs could have done the same for even the most stripped-down of their albums, not even Brian. (I suppose barring something like "Love You").

Apart from the '66 Beatles tour where they got sloppy and lazy and bored (I'd say the tightest '66 BB shows like Michigan *do* sound better than the worst '66 Beatles material like the Budokan shows), the Beatles were much better and tighter as an on-stage rock and roll band.

Compare "Wendy" from the Ed Sullivan show (or even "I Get Around", which does sound better) to the Beatles on Sullivan that same year. No comparison, and I still adore watching the BBs do "Wendy" live on that show.

Fast forward even to 1969, where the BBs were doing some pretty awesome shows. The Beatles once again were lazy and lacked motivation throughout the "Get Back" sessions, yet got their s**t together for the "Rooftop Concert", which blows away anything the BBs (or any other live band) were doing in 1969.

Was Brian a better piano player in his prime than McCartney? Maybe? I dunno. Same for Bruce. Other than that, I can't think of anywhere where the BBs match up to the Beatles in terms of musicianship. Harrison was doing amazing slide guitar work in the 70s and 80s while Carl was doing "Fun Fun Fun" on autopilot. The solo on "Keepin' the Summer Alive" was as *hot* as it ever got. Al, who is actually a very solid guitarist and much better than most think he is, was still only marginally a part of the musical bed at live shows as the years went on. Dennis could cook with raw power, but even in the 70s and 80s when Ringo was at times probably almost as wasted as Dennis was, he still was a technically more proficient drummer.

Not a dis against the Beatles. I agree that as an album Help is better in total than the B.B. albums in total, however, my point remains. The peaks of The Beach Boys we’re higher than that of Beatles. I would just point to, for example, the intro to “California Girls”.

With regard to PS versus Revolver or Rubber Soul it gets down to a matter of opinion. I believe that PS is a greater artistic achievement but that is me. I think to that one our must add Good Vibrations and even the unreleased SMiLE stuff - Brian was operating on a different plain than anybody else.

I would further stipulate that as self contained units the Beatles were a better band than The Beach Boys.

Without whipping out my dictionary, thesaurus, philosophy textbook, and re-reading the thread a bunch of times (all of which I am prone to do :thud), I just want to clarify a few things...I have no problem at all with someone who doesn't like the Beatles (or any other group - unless it's a particularly hateful group or something). At most, if someone loves the BBs but the Beatles do absolutely nothing for them, I may be a bit surprised, but only because in the grand scheme of things the BBs and Beatles have far more in common than not (unlike Baroque and Hip Hop). My comment about 'lacking objectivity' was in reference to the discussion in the thread that I felt was lacking impartiality. I also objected to your post in that I didn't notice any "How can you not like the Beatles???" going on, but as a general statement I understand and have no problem with. I also understand where you are coming from when you say, "it can never be more than subjective", but ultimately I disagree. I just can't believe that Pet Sounds isn't better than anything I've ever done! For the reasons you illustrated, though, it seems rather impossible for us to crack and it's rather unimportant. You like what you like. That's what matters. My problem is when people confuse what they like for what's better (not that I know what is...).


Agreed!

"California Girls" is amazing. But the Beatles did a dozen songs or more in 1965 that are just as good if not better. (The BBs did too; I don't even think CG is the best of Brian or the BBs that year).

"Smile" is awesome stuff, and to me, when we're comparing to other bands/artists, the asterisk that goes next to "Smile" is not that that it went unreleased, but that Brian and the BBs were singing mostly some other guy's lyrics. VDP's lyrics are great on multiple levels, but as with the majority of PS, it's Brian and the band singing words that a guy outside the band wrote.

One of the things that spoke to fans of the Beatles back then was that, whether it was the story-telling of McCartney (though sometimes still imbued with personal experiences, just in a more veiled fashion) or the confessional nature of Lennon, those were THEIR words. The one (or two or three) guys singing those songs also, for the most part, wrote those words.

Similar thing with musicianship; once they hit PS and Smile and session musicians were playing on a lot of the stuff, there was something about dudes were already in their 30s and 40s in 1966/67 playing on those sessions that ever-so-slightly arguably undercut the "hipness" and cutting edge nature of the material. Carol Kaye reading Brian's charts on a PS or Smile session wasn't the same "vibe" as McCartney drooling at the prospect of getting to add bass to a great Lennon song, or carrying tape loops in to add to "Tomorrow Never Knows."

As another aside, I also think we're well past the stage where we can say "The Beatles had George Martin, Brian had nobody." Not only did Brian have great engineers just as the Beatles did, I also think what Howie posted here some time back in another Beatles-Beach Boys discussion is apt: McCartney, especially once they reached a certain point, was essentially the band's producer and/or co-producer. George Martin was integral for 27 reasons, but again, McCartney was producing that stuff after a couple of years as much as Martin was. And McCartney was giving "arrangers" a lot of the melodies that they wrote their arrangements with.

I remember making a drôle remark a few years ago (here on Smiley) that The Beatles threw in the towel in 1970 because they had "no stamina". Ye gods did I get a bollocking for my pains. Maybe Beatles fans are more sensitive about such things...

I guess it's natural that the most loyal fans of any major artist will take that artist above all others and have a list of reasons why they're better than others or simply the best - I've talked personally with fans who put everyone from Bruce Springsteen to the Dead to Santana to Pearl Jam on that pedestal, and each had those near religious experiences either in concert or just listening to specific songs where they've been brought to tears or have been convinced on almost a near-messianic level that this is the greatest musical experience they've ever seen or that ever will be. It's personal and as mentioned, purely subjective. But as I listened years ago to a Springsteen fan describe one of those concerts almost 40 years ago describe how Bruce was leading the crowd almost like leading them as a Moses figure or something, there is no way to refute or argue what that person felt. But it wasn't a case where they were downing Bruce's peers or trying to knock those other artists down, it was just a case of expressing what it was about Bruce's performance at that show that really touched them or led them to have such strong feelings about it. And in return, I wouldn't try to argue that by saying what I felt from another artist or suggest my artist on that level was any better. It's just sharing feelings as fans.

I actually enjoy hearing fans describe what it was about a certain artist that generates such strong emotions, and most times it doesn't have to include a negative or a feeling of dismissing another artist in order to say what made that experience so deep and personal.

The 27 solo albums that came out in the early-mid 70s would tend to belie such a theory.

I think if you suggest, even if très drôle, that stamina was a problem with the Beatles and their careers in 1970, you're just going to be pegged as unfamiliar with their history. 1970 saw "Let It Be", "McCartney", "All Things Must Pass", "Plastic Ono Band", "Beaucoups of Blues", and "Sentimental Journey" all hit the market. That's EIGHT LPs worth of material. Plus singles.

The Beatles had the luxury of not having to stay together to remain successful (or at least keep a record deal and stay a viable, going concern) in 1970. The Beach Boys didn't.

The Beach Boys are my favorite group but The Beatles are right next to them and were better in many respects. It's easier to list things that The Beatles did better than The Beach Boys to be honest, but...

As wonderful, groundbreaking and beloved as their songs are (and they were far more consistent in their songwriting than Brian ever was because they had several brilliant minds involved), I always feel that there's a bit TOO much craftsmanship in their music, whereas Brian at his best is achingly honest with no filter at all. Even the songs that are generally held up as example as of The Beatles writing and recording deeply personal music ("Julia" and "Let It Be" for example) seem somehow removed from any genuine emotion by virtue of the way they were composed, performed and produced. Brian on the other hand could have french horns and a theremin and a lyricist writing it all and STILL cause "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times" to sound like a man who's utterly alone in the darkness. The Beatles could never match that.

However, I do think The Beatles pass them in nearly every other category except their harmony vocals ("Because" is impressive for them but not for The Beach Boys).    

The Beatles were a 'better band' than The Beach Boys, but as mentioned, they didn't have Brian Wilson (or Dennis and Carl). and nothing, NOTHING else has lifted my spirits from my worst periods of depression like Pet Sounds. I love The Beatles, but their music as brilliant as it is, never felt truly mine. Does that make sense?

I'm a pale British introverted guy, don't care about surfing, bla bla bla, but in Brian, Carl, Dennis, Al, even Mike I see people who I can relate too on a personal level. It's hard to see that in The Beatles because they've always been viewed in a god like sort of way. Nothing new can be said about them. The Beach Boys is a rollercoaster saga, that continues today, through the good times and the bad.

 I can look back on all the beautiful music they gave us in the 60s and 70s, and in some respects that Brian still continues to give into the 21st century. I feel a strong emotional connection to the man and his music. The Beatles may have songs like For No One, Here There and Everywhere and Strawberry Fields which are ridiculously well crafted songs. They may have a clearly more consistent catalog. But it was still God Only Knows I chose to walk down the aisle to when I married my wife on August 26th of this year. Nothing pulls at my heartstrings like Til' I Die or Midnight's Another Day or Only With You.

For better or worse, they are more honest in their music than almost any other band ever. Pacific Ocean Blue and Love You are perfect examples of that.

Compile the best 200 something Beach Boys songs from 1961-1974 or whatever and I couldn't tell you if they are better than The Beatles catalog, but for me they are equally satisfying. Listening to material from Wild Honey or Friends or SMiLE or Surf's Up is like climbing into a musical universe all of its own. Their music is sometimes quirky, sometimes offbeat, sometimes just lyrically clunky.. but it's most often genuine. Because Brian was/is the real deal, and that translates into all of their best material. Even with his use of outside collaborators, his music is unmistakably Brian. He's a musical painter, with an artistic palette of his choosing. Those melodies will stick with me forever.

Beach Boys had/ have a longer career.  Granted the BB put out a few dreadful albums, but maybe the Beatles would have as well if they stayed together another 10-15 years.

Beach Boys were a better longevity as a touring band. Beatles hung it up in 1966 as a live performing act.

And of course they didn't have Brian.

I personally like 'Tell Me Why' and 'I Should Have Known Better' on the Party! album. I always felt, although shortened, that those versions were better than the Beatles' own versions.

Everything else, the Beatles sorta mopped (no pun intended) the floor with the Beach Boys. I guess it really is better to burn out, than fade away.

It's a pretty hard comparison, and I actually had this discussion with my family last night. Bruce could play circles around Paul McCartney on keys, and I think Carl was just as good as George Harrison, they just played different styles. Ringo and Dennis both created their own styles that have been imitated ever since their music came out. Ringo with his heavy "Ringo Swing" as Taylor Hawkins calls it, and Dennis with that Beach Boys shuffle. I think instrumentally, McCartney's bass lines are one of a kind, and in a league of their own. No one could play like McCartney in my opinion. Not Carol Kaye, Jamerson, Sting, etc...

As far as songwriting goes The Beach Boys are far superior in my mind. Good Vibrations, God Only Knows, Surf's Up, All I Wanna Do, Forever, All This Is That, California Girls... I could go on and on.

I read in Emmerick's book on recording the Beatles that Harrison had major anxiety about playing the guitar solo for the 'All You Need Is Love' live television performance - like he was jittery for weeks up until he had to play it if I recall correctly. Just a small anecdote that shows how much more confidence Carl had as a musician...and, imo, Carl did a lot more intricate guitar playing. Nothing that Harrison did in the Beatles ever completely wow'd me - whereas Carl was playing hit records when he was 16-17 years old and sounded just like Chuck Berry in certain songs at that time.

Anywho, agreed with the rest of your post. McCartney's bass playing is out of this world and its one of the main reasons I like the Beatles so much.

I had a discussion about this with my fiancé the other night - she thinks the Beatles are the best band in the world and, from a musical point of view, I couldn't disagree. They had so many hits and they were just consistently knocking it out of the park. But I counter that by saying that where the Beatles had hits the Beach Boys had spirituality...Their songs sound heavenly, where the Beatles sound like they come straight out of Liverpool.

There's a kind of ethereal magic in songs like God Only Knows, Surf's Up, Cali Girls, etc that the Beatles just don't have in anything - even 'Here There And Everywhere' seems like its missing it (and that song is beautiful). I'm not the most religious person, but when Brian says that he and Carl prayed for God to help make Pet Sounds great, I can't help but think that a divine power did intervene.

With the exception of some of Ringo's late 70s output ("Ringo the 4th", etc.), I'd say the collective Beatles solo records outpace the BB albums from that same time period.

The BBs had a great, vastly underappreciated run from 1970-1973, but that was all during the same time that we also got "All Things Must Pass", "McCartney", "Plastic Ono Band", "Ram", "Wild Life", "Band on the Run", "Ringo", "Living in the Material World", "Mind Games", and even Lennon's sketchy "Sometime in NYC." And a couple more Ringo albums at the front end as well. Plus the "Concert for Bangla Desh."

I'd put the majority of those individual solo albums up against those BB albums, and certainly if you do a theoretical "Group" Beatles album from the best of each of those years, you'd have stunning albums as well.

I think the Beatles even as solo artists just had way more fuel in their tanks. I adore even the late 70s and early 80s BB stuff. I'll defend most of "Keepin' the Summer Alive" even, and hunks of MIU I love too. But objectively, that stuff isn't on par with Lennon's "Double Fantasy" and "Milk and Honey" tracks, or McCartney's "McCartney II" or "Tug of War" (or even "London Town" or "Back to the Egg"). Lost in the shuffle is a procession of surprisingly very strong Harrison albums in 1979's "George Harrison" and I'd argue even "Somewhere in England" and "Gone Troppo."

If you move later in time, there's really no contest. Harrison's "Cloud Nine" and McCartney's "Flowers in the Dirt" (and I'd argue even "Press to Play") are immensely more substantial than "Still Cruisin'", as is pretty much everything and anything the solo Beatles did in the 90s compared to "Summer in Paradise."

Carl was apparently a very good guitarist, but he *so rarely* showed it after his early-mid 60s work that there's really no comparison to Harrison. Harrison went through his lazy/sloppy periods (which had less to do with his ability and more to do with simply being interested in other things; even Clapton has gone on record saying Harrison could have been as good as him (Clapton) if he had wanted to).

But then Harrison busted out great guitar solos on songs like "One After 909", "Let It Be" (especially the "album" version), "Something", and so on. Carl wasn't doing any work like that on record or on stage during that same time.

And certainly by the 70s and 80s Harrison developed an amazing and unique slide guitar sound while Carl pretty much just did the same old stuff in concert. Carl did some cool stuff on his solo tours. I think he certainly had more ability than he usually put on record (or on stage), but the BBs were (to their detriment at certain points in their career) so non-guitar-oriented that there's no contest really between Carl and George.

It's kinda the same thing for Bruce vs. McCartney. Maybe Bruce was a more polished, closer-to-virtuoso piano player, but he stopped using his ability in the 1970s.

I love Dennis's drumming, and he had power and sometimes some finesse as well. But he wasn't in the same league as Ringo. Ringo was never a virtuoso either, but the fills alone that he devised are genius. And he was a professional, working drummer for years while Dennis kind of just defaulted to drums in his family band. I would never have expected Dennis to be a virtuoso.

I don't think that anecdote really tells the story of Harrison as a guitarist. It's well established that he never liked being an improvisational guitarist. He always liked planning his solos and guitar work in general. I'd say actually a better word was that he liked to *write* his solos in advance.

What Carl (and David Marks) did on those early records is in so many ways so far removed from what Harrison did in the 60s that it's hard to even compare.

I disagree that, across the board, Carl did more intricate playing that Harrison. As I mentioned in a previous post, by the late 60s, Harrison was doing work *far* beyond anything Carl was putting down on record or on stage (how much ability he had beyond what he put down is unknown I suppose).

Hell, listen to *McCartney's* lead guitar work on stuff like "Taxman" and "Good Morning Good Morning." In its own way, that was miles beyond anything the BBs or Carl were doing.

Harrison was a melody guy when it came to his solos. He dug Chuck Berry and even more so Carl Perkins and all of that. But I don't think he even ever aspired to be a guitarist like Perkins.

Harrison without question atrophied for a period of time around 1967-ish for a while. He himself mentioned in interviews that he was more into the sitar and Indian music and all of that, and described coming back to his guitar a few years later and discovering that guys like Clapton and Page were doing the virtuoso thing, and thus Harrison devised something different, which resulted in his morphing out of left field into a truly unique *melodic* slide guitar player.

Listen to his work in later years on "Cloud Nine" or even "Brainwashed" (or the "Threetles" tracks). All that stuff was done while Carl was on autopilot playing "Fun Fun Fun." Which is a bummer, because we could have heard him sing and play so much more, and play much more interesting stuff.

Not that I think Carl should have morphed into a "guitar" guy. I've long said Carl should have been cutting stuff like Petty's "Wildflowers" albums. Tasteful acoustic guitars and acoustic pianos underneath his true and actual gift, his voice.

I think it's safe to say that George isn’t Geoff Emerick's favorite Beatle.

Great post(s), HeyJude! I don’t know much about Harrison so that was an enlightening read. I’ll look into Cloud Nine tonight.

Wish I could say more right now but time says I can't.

I'll just say Carl and George were in different situations using different skill sets as musicians and as men in general so it's hard to compare other than what were the end results which we can all see and hear.

But consider Carl was a teenager, basically high-school age or just beyond, and was playing high-stress sessions with some of the finest musicians in the country. There was young Carl playing lead guitar alongside professional musicians who were cutting records with Sinatra and for Hollywood soundtracks. Harrison wasn't that kind of player.

And there was Harrison learning the intricacies of Indian music to the point where he could lead ensembles of Indian players on instruments no one was familiar with, and could actually teach a schooled, trained musician like George martin on how the music worked and how the musicians played it. Indian music is based on cycles like the Tihai which Harrison used on Here Comes The Sun, "Badge", and others. very few if any "pop" songs were going this deep into incorporating such exotic concepts beyond the sounds and instruments and making a seamless transition to pop music and hit records.

Carl was nowhere near that level of musical understanding, just as Harrison may not have been comfortable in 65 and 66 in the pressure cooker studio situations Carl was in at age 17 or whatever.

More later.

Good points. Also worth considering is that while Carl had pro, in-studio session work at an earlier age than George, George was at the same time a professional musician at a more or less equally early age and had been a pro for much longer by the time he was recording with the Beatles. The Beatles had been doing the 12-hours-per-night (or whatever it was) for several years by the time they were cutting their first records for EMI.

Also worth considering is that George had his own high-pressure situations early on. He was doing multiple lead vocals alongside John and Paul at an early age/date. He has a TON of lead vocals at their Decca audition (and, many fans and scholars argue George does the best job and biffs it the least of the four Beatles at that audition, at least in terms of confident lead vocals).

George was also doing some impeccable guitar work even at an early age. His work on "Till There Was You" in 1963 is so spot-on that some fans over the years tried to claim someone else was playing it.

Carl and George indeed were not often at the same "place" musically throughout their careers. And there were times where they *should have* been. Carl would have sounded great cutting stuff in the general mold of something like George's "Cloud Nine" in the mid-late 80s.

Great post!   :)

Well, subjectively, the Beach Boys were much better at harmonies than the Beatles. I am not knocking the Beatles, because they are an amazing band with a tremendous amount of talent, but the subject of the thread is what do the Beach Boys do Better than the Beatles. I can say that the Beach Boys harmonies have made me happy and they have made me sad. They have made me laugh and they have made me cry. They are stunningly beautiful. I am not familiar with all the different styles of harmonies, but I know the Beach Boys harmonies touch me on such a personal level that I should sue them for harassment. 

Other bands have harmonies that are very good at times, but they are good to the ear. The original Beach Boys harmonies (Brian, Carl, Dennis, Al, Mike and Bruce) reach beyond the ear, and poke into the soul sometimes getting tangled up there and absorbed. Their harmonies were so great that they cannot even be reproduced by any of the iterations of the band that have popped up throughout the years. They can sing the notes, but their harmonies always sound like a cover band doing a very good job at reproducing a sound rather than a group singing as if each note meant something special.

I have seen the term technically proficient thrown about in this subject - usually with respect to George Harrison's playing vs. Carl. But Carl had a very personal feel in his solos that I have never heard reproduced. I have heard Beatles cover bands that sound strikingly like the original Beatles, but I have never heard anyone play Carl's leads and sound exactly like Carl. Maybe it's just me.

But because Yngwie Malmsteen is more technically proficient than Eddie Van Halen, does that make him better? I don't think so. Music has feeling. Clapton has it. Page has it. Dave Davies has it. Berton Averre has it. The list is endless. Some are more technically proficient, but some just feel better and they feel better on a consistent basis. That is why I really like The Beach Boys. They consistently make me relate to the music on some level for some reason. No other band - no matter how much I like their music - has done that.

Very nicely put, sir.

Agreed.

Not intentional but bb’s/brians story does infom the music and makes them more sympathetic once you know about murry/landy/drugs/mental illness/dennis etc.
John lennon on the other hand seemed like kind of a prick and sure his mom died etc but none of the beatles had to overcome as much adversity while they were alive, imho, which can make you have more of an appreciation for bbs music.

While I think there's some truth to this, I wouldnt use it as a tiebreaker.

Pink Floyd is my favorite band of all time, but Roger Waters is an insufferable, bitter, hateful person, and Dave, Nick, and Rick seemed to be relieved that he left the group.

Ritchie Blackmore is my all time favorite guitarist, and he's so disliked that he wasn't allowed to attended Deep Purple's RNRHOF induction.

But that doesnt affect my love for their music.

I think NeedleInTheHay is just saying that the story makes the Beach Boys music more immersive. That John Lennon was a prick doesn't make me dislike his music any less, but his story doesn't make the music much more immersive - unlike that of the Beach Boys where you can look into these guys' lives and see a lot of perpetual suffering and it helps make the music come that much more alive.

Take 'In My Room' - its a beautiful song if you're just introduced to it. Soaring harmonies and a great melody. But when you hear of Brian's story you start imaging Brian as a scared individual hiding from the world/father/etc....it makes the song much more powerful.

So while artists being pricks doesn't affect my love of their music, artists having a vividly powerful story behind the music does affect my love for the music...for the better.

How familiar are you with the Beatles story? Have you read Mark Lewisohn's "Tune In?" The "sure, his Mom died, but...." suggests to me you're not super familiar with the Beatles.

Outside of John Lennon, the rest of the Beatles grew up in squalor compared to the relatively middle class upbringing of most of the Beach Boys members. The Beatles' families gave birth to the members in the midst of WWII bombings, etc.

There doesn't need to be a tit-for-tat, and Murry was awful, but an argument could easily be made that the Beatles, especially in the early era, suffered more adversity than the BBs.

The BBs essentially cut their first record before and/or as they became a band. The Beatles gigged around for years before they had the chance to make a professional record. Murry was awful, but he also was there to help the BBs immensely. Who out of all of the Beatles' parents actively helped them succeed in a way at all similar to what Murry did? Mostly Pete Best's Mom, that was about it.

Also, have you read Steven Gaines' book (not to mention Stebbins and others)? All the BBs and everybody else for that matter are human and have failings just like all of us. While Brian suffered greatly under Landy and deserves a huge amount of understanding and empathy, most of the BBs (and not just Mike) were pricks at various points over the years just like the Beatles were (and Lennon himself to a certain degree admitted as such; I believe one of his famous interviews referenced that the Beatles could be some of the biggest bastards around).

Lennon got shot, Harrison was attacked in his home. There are plenty of ways all of these guys were a-holes and also plenty of ways they faced adversity not of their own making.

I'm not sure every female Dennis had relationships with left those relationships with nothing but positive feelings.

Pretty much every one of the BBs was at the forefront of any number of business/money/artistic dealings that left others feeling slighted and disgruntled.

Have you read Lewisohn's "Tune In." That story (which only takes it up to the end of 1962) has everything. You can't *not* be inspired reading that book. Inspired by everything. The hard work. The lucky breaks. The moments of chance/happenstance. The fortune of meeting Epstein. The drive to succeed and not settle.

There are just as many links between the Beatles' compositions and their lives as there was/is with Brian. Listen to "There's a Place" or "In My Life" or "For No One" or "I'm Looking Through You", and many many others. You need to know the Beatles story to get the context, just the same as you do with Brian and "In My Room" and other songs.

I'm not sure where it's coming from that Lennon was a prick, and meanwhile the BBs were victims of immense suffering. Lennon could be a prick, and also did great things. The BBs suffered, and could also be a-holes themselves.

Several members of the Beatles grew up in arguably something approaching near poverty.

I would never assume or expect everyone to be super familiar with the history of the Beatles. But a lot of these blanket statements about them are, in my opinion, false and/or overgeneralized.

I think Lennon's story is very sympathetic, as well as, 'vividly powerful'. An obvious choice, but look no further than 'Mother'.

Edit: Nice posts HeyJude, I agree. Also, I'm not attempting to rank who suffered more. Basically, just responding to "sure, his Mom died, but...".

I'd also say there's a wide gap between "victims/suffering" and being a known and infamous prick in the industry.

Neither the Beatles nor the BBs fall into either of these extremes (not even Mike).

If we weighed *heavily* these people's personal lives and dealings, we wouldn't listen to most any of their music. I'm not trying to be a misanthrope or anything. They're all just human.

The Beatles suffered too and I never said they didn't. I also know my Beatles history and have a fairly good grasp on why I think Lennon was a prick at times. I never said any of the Beach Boys weren't assholes - my posting history here about Mike Love should back that up quite easily. My point is that the Beach Boys stories is far more immersive than that of the Beatles....I wrote "perpetual suffering" regarding the Beach Boys for a reason: Brian has had to deal with manic depression and schizophrenia every day of his life since the mid 60s. I'm not trying to make a pissing contest out of the Beatles vs Beach Boys suffering, but it is obvious that someone who writes 'A Day In The Life Of A Tree' has some serious sh*t going on...and the ins and outs of that are deeply woven into a story that is unrivaled in the history of rock music, imo. Its the reason there was a feature film made about Brian Wilson revolving directly around his mental illness. That is the point NeedleInTheHay was making, which I agree fully with, and I don't think anyone could change my mind about it.

OK. So do we all agree that the Beach Boys do suffering better than the Beatles?

;D

Shouldn't that be  :(

Yeah, exactly the point i was trying to make. I guess putting the "lennon was kind of a prick" thing might not have been completely relavent to what I was saying. The reason i said that is i had recently read cynthia lennons book and he comes across not great...of course, she was trying to sell books and had an ax to grind, etc...

Lennon's first album after the Beatles was basically 35 minutes of him screaming out the misery and pain in his life. So he might tell you he suffered more than those pampered, middle class Wilson boys. "Mother, you left me, but I never left you". If that's not pain, I don't know what is.

Whereas Brian's scream, albeit quieter, lasted longer than 35 minutes. It began with In My Room and continues to the prssent day.

Although a case could be argued that Lennon's inner scream began with There's a Place. As Lennon actually wrote those lyrics, it could be a stronger case than In My Room. However, it could be argued that Gary Usher was merely transcribing Brian's feelings, which adds to the idea that this is a form of therapy for Brian.

What do you guys think? Who did 'enormous cry for help disguised as innocent 60's lyric' better. Brian or John?

Jokes aside, both these chaps suffered, and that suffering both informed and infused their art. And if Lennon was a prick, he was aware of it and tried to change his behaviour. This is also well documented in his music.

I'm no great Beatles fan, but I've always had a respect for John's honest lyrics.

Oh, and talking of In My Room, watch this study of it. I challenge you not to cry.

https://youtu.be/nTtbqs4OrfU (https://youtu.be/nTtbqs4OrfU)

Beach Boys did surfing songs and songs about tomboys better. Also they did beards better and weird stage clothing too.

.

What did the Beatles do better than the Beach Boys ??

They broke up at the right time !

Again, nobody said that John or any of the other Beatles never felt pain. The point that was being made was that The Beach Boys story is more immersive than the Beatles - and this doesn’t solely include pain these guys felt. Between the alcoholism, cocaine abuse, manic depression, schizophrenia that told Brian to kill himself while on stage, deaths, “therapy” that almost killed Brian, mental illness that drove a wedge into the heart of the band, fist-fighting on stage, going from the pinnacle of fame to nearly homeless and alone, infamous lawsuits between the members, having to fire their own father, creating one of the most famous albums that didn’t even get released until decades later, etc. I would say with confidence that The Beach Boys story is more immersive (including pain but also many other aspects of life) and makes some of the music come that much more alive to the listener.

On a side note, The Cocaine Sessions bootleg is one of the more heartbreaking recordings I’ve ever heard.

None of this stuff about the BBs is incorrect. It's an epic saga, immersive as a musical experience and as a drama.

But I think "I'm not as interested in the Beatles" is being confused with "not as immersive as the Beach Boys."

If you're not as into the Beatles' story, that's fine. But as someone who has intensely studied both stories, and who has also gone on record many time saying there are elements of the BB story that are as epic as it gets, I'm *not* prepared to call the BB story more immersive or tragic or full of more suffering than the Beatles' story.

I feel silly even having to try to measure such things. If you knew both stories well and were equally interested in both stories, you'd find they're both plenty immersive (to the degree I can parse what that even means when it comes to these bands) and neither story sticks out as insanely more so than the other.

In some senses I guess the BBs were more dysfunctional than the Beatles. But to the degree the ills of their lives and profession impacted their music, I'd call that aspect pretty equal between the two bands. At a certain point, it kind of strays from the music and just becomes a "who was more f-ed up" contest.

Yeah, I guess Dennis let his drug and alcohol problems take a worse toll than any of the Beatles. None of the Beatles ever had a Landy situation. But as much as those things ended up being channeled into their music, I'm not sure the BBs being more dysfunctional on certain levels really qualifies as "doing something better than the Beatles" as the thread title implies.

It's certainly most likely the case that the Beatles collectively or individually never turned in anything as bizarre and creepy as "Lazy Lizzie."

I'd also say McCartney did a better job of keeping a beard without looking like he was 50 years old.

Look at some of the pics of the BBs circa 1976, where Carl is 30, Dennis is 32, Al and Brian are 34, and Mike is 35. Al, Brian, and Mike in particular look like they're in their mid-40s if not older.

When Al shaved in 1983, he literally looked 10-15 years younger.

Lennon's pain (both expressed and not) did not begin nor end with the "Plastic Ono Band" album. Again, read "Tune In" by Mark Lewisohn. It literally tracks all the families from before the Beatles were born, goes through their entire childhoods all the way up to the end of 1962.

I'd actually argue that there's much more murky, creepy, traumatic things in the collective childhoods and young adulthood of the Beatles than there is of the Beach Boys, at least as far as everything we know.

I don't think this needs to turn into a "who was more abused" contest, and there may not be anything in Lewisohn's book that is as heinous as the worst Murry stories told by Steven Gaines (and while I'm more inclined to believe Gaines than others, I'm never 100% sure all of his details are impeccable as Lewisohn's are). But again, if you haven't read the Beatles' story, there's no basis to compare to Brian's or the BBs stories.

In response to HeyJude I’m just going to requote my previous post here and write a little more, then let it be. I have read books about the Beatles, watched documentaries, I know their history as a band and understand what they went through as kids. Again, I wrote “perpetual suffering” for a reason in my initial post on the matter (mostly because I knew someone would turn this discussion into the pointless debate it is now). And the pain and suffering is only a small part of why their story makes the music that much more immersive...and I’d argue that The Beach Boys being around for 50+ years aids to this immersion. A lot of crazy stuff happened in those 50 years and even up to Brian’s latest solo album does he write about those crazy times.

I agree HeyJude; this shouldn’t be a pissing match about who had the most pain, and I wasn’t even trying to make it so. As my quoted above post shows there are so many aspects that make their music so immersive to The Beach Boys story...moreso than the Beatles applied to their own music, imo. But I guess we’ll agree to disagree on it.

I think there is an element of both groups doing a lot of the same things in the most formative stages and then later the most successful parts of their careers - It's almost like they were traveling basically the same path, but doing so in slightly different ways. And those different ways were due to elements out of their control, from personal and family experiences, to geography, to the general nature of people from different backgrounds and different life experiences navigating the same roads in their own unique way while still traveling the same road. There is no arbiter, there is no gold standard to use to compare other than the results of those travels, and in these cases, the music and art they created which we can experience and judge for ourselves.

It's when you can dig really deep into some of the backgrounds and find those parallels and compare/contrast the differences that the revelations may start to come out.

For example, just one for now: Consider both Carl Wilson and George Harrison were the youngest members of their bands, the "kid brother" or even the baby of the group. And that element which was totally out of their control would play a part in both the personal and the musical developments of their respective bands and the dynamics within.

George found his voice musically first through his studies of Indian music at just the right time when there was a receptive audience and formats like FM radio and the emerging importance of the rock album versus the single which allowed it to flourish. Then later, the Beatles called it quits as a band, and George since his fateful trip to the US in late '68 had been brimming with musical confidence and a backlog of original songs that would eventually comprise the All Things Must Pass album...that moment where the kid brother steps out of the shadows of the older members and is allowed to shine on his own. The same thing happened with his guitar playing - As soon as George had members of the rock elite asking his advice and respecting him, he had the confidence to tell McCartney to go fly a kite if he told him how to play, and also had the chances to develop his own voice on guitar which became as distinctive a sound and style on early 70's rock radio as Elton's voice or Bonzo's drumming.

It is almost a victim of fate and timing that at the moment(s) when Carl may have had that chance, and perhaps would have had that receptive audience for him to develop his own musical voice, it was either the band's inner politics and various crap involving everyone from the Love brothers to the market itself that may have held it back and kept him playing the hits rather than breaking away as George had done, and which his brother Dennis would eventually do as well. Right at the time the band was opening up to new musical ideas, the "Endless Summer" fluke followed by the Love brothers taking charge as managers put Carl back into the role of being the guy running the live band instead of being the guy developing new music and new styles, either for the band or for himself. And it honestly never let go of him, after that period when Reiley managed the band interrupted only by Carl doing his solo album in the 80's.

As much of a good thing it pretty much was for all Beatles when they split up and were free to do what they wanted to do musically and otherwise, there is a feeling that the aura and name of "The Beach Boys" continued to suck various members back into situations where they may have had to sacrifice the kind of artistic freedom Harrison gained after The Beatles in order to keep driving the band name. And it's like Pacino in Godfather 3, "they keep pulling me back in"...as much good as there was or could be found after the 1976 "comeback" stuff, perhaps there could have been more good stuff if there wasn't that obligation to play Fun Fun Fun for fans at every show any more than The Beatles would be replicating what they did at Shea if they had kept plugging on the road and had not dissolved the group when they did and started doing their own things.

And this adherence to the name has reached perhaps absurd depths as the year 2017 comes to a close and you have a lone original band member using the name to promote his own solo releases in front of crowds who are paying for a "Beach Boys" experience.

So maybe, after all, the Beatles had a better sense of knowing when to pull the plug before it got tacky.

Great post GF, the Endless Summer "experience" really did a number on the band as a whole. Imagine the Beatles touring the Red and Blue albums.....

I never fully fault the BBs for continuing on even when they did some hit-and-miss work that kind of spoiled their sort of "cumulative GPA" as far as critical and commercial success. I especially don't fault them for continuing on in the studio. Maybe not as much the live touring (more on that later). First, I think simply continuing to create is important and almost always preferable to not. That's why it never bothered me when McCartney would churn out albums. I'm glad the BBs did an album every year from 1976 to 1980 in the sense that it resulted in a larger bulk of material that included some really good stuff. Secondly, the BBs didn't have the luxury at many points to just quit.

The Beatles certainly had the luxury of being able to split up and continue to be successful as solo artists. They had never really seen a downturn in popularity.

None of the BBs barring Brian (and maybe, just possibly Dennis if we extend the timeline a little further) would have felt they could go make it as successful solo artists if they had split in 1970. They had to stay together if they wanted to continue any modicum of popularity, monetary success, and so on. If the BBs had been scoring continual #1 hits through the end of the 60s and then desperately wanted to split off, and could foresee that most or all of them could get solo record deals, maybe they would have quit for awhile too.

On the touring front, most all of the BBs elicit far less sympathy from me. I don't begrudge them making a living. But certainly there was a point where they could have and/or should have been pretty rich off this thing and they continued to tour and stretched the brand way too thin. That their studio work declined in quality and quantity at this same time certainly only made things worse. Not to mention stale setlists and sometimes rote (if still usually professional) performances. And of course that entire arm of the organization never giving it a rest eventually led into what we have now with Mike watering the whole thing down further.

I'm going to go slightly off-topic here, forgive me...


The Beatles touring the Red and Blue albums would have been f*cking awesome!!! I mean, it's that or a few random solo performances, for the most part. And they certainly would have been performing a lot of Blue album material, not just replicating Shea. I get the feeling that the Endless Summer "experience" is used as an excuse more than anything else. The BBs, essentially, stopped recording in '72, why? Endless Summer wasn't released until the summer of '74. If you want to blame the studio output of '76 on Endless Summer, fair enough. But, we got Love You and Pacific Ocean Blue in '77. The Beach Boys could have recorded whatever they wanted, they had there own studio. And they were free to include new material in their setlists, and they did, even after Endless Summer and the 'Brian's Back' campaign. The fans want the hits...shocking. Endless Summer was not a fluke. The music Brian made in the early-mid 60s is timeless, and the Beach Boys earned that nostalgia wave as much as anyone. What was keeping them from recording singles aimed at the Endless Summer crowd while backing those singles up with progressive album tracks? Would have been an improvement over the early '60s model which saw "Our Favorite Recording Sessions" featured on the great All Summer Long album. I don't understand why it had to be one or the other. But, the reason wasn't the success of a compilation. Who knew that music sold well?

The Gaines book doesn’t really manage to make Carl seem like a prick, though, does it?  I mean, he talks in detail about the Australia tour incident, which doesn’t present Carl in the best light, but really, it’s like the worst he could say about Carl is that he went through a period where he was a bit f’ed up and drank too much and took drugs.  But I don’t recall anything in the Gaines book (or anything else I’ve read) that indicates that Carl was ever mean or just, you know, a dick.  I find it interesting because the whole purpose of that book seems to be to trash the BB’s reputations, but there’s really nothing in there, at least that I can recall, that paints Carl in a bad light. 

I’m very late to this thread but I wanted to offer my observations. 

This is clearly oversimplifying it, but I think the Beatles excelled at beautiful, simple songs.  Think Blackbird. 

The BBs excelled at creating beautiful, complex songs.

We’re talking about two of the greatest bands ever, or maybe THE two greatest.  Ultimately it comes down to personal preference.  I love the Beatles but I love the BBs way more. 

The Beatles were effectively over when they started working on "Get Back/Let It Be" in an old airplane hangar of a film set in the dead of winter. The fact they pulled it together for the rooftop speaks more to their professionalism as performers and musicians as it does the notions of the band. And the way they also pulled it together for Abbey Road, which they knew would be the last hurrah when they were making it, speaks to the same ideals.

They ended it when it had to end, and it just happened to coincide with the end of the 60's idealistically. The Apple rooftop final concert became an iconic image as well as a fitting send-off. There would never be and can never be the sad spectacle of McCartney or Ringo touring as "The Beatles" decades later with either remaining member fronting a band of backing musicians and "still tourin'" for whatever reasons they'd give.

There was no need for a touring license with The Beatles because it ended when it had to. They have that one over the Beach Boys by light years.

The Beatles also had more people who looked out for The Beatles brand than The Beach Boys.  Even had the Beatles stayed together into the 70s and behind, I doubt they'd have made nearly as many missteps. 

This could be a book-length discussion but I'll try to condense it just a bit, lol.

Credit in the 70's and beyond for protecting and increasing the value of the Beatles brand goes in large part to Neil Aspinall, their original road manager (and protector along with Mal Evans) going back to Liverpool pre-fame. Neil was an accountant by trade, and after the band split, Neil basically ran Apple Corps up to the time of his death, including all of the successful Anthology projects, CD reissues, and related product tie-ins.

If there is anyone who was the "Fifth Beatle", it was Neil. Having him oversee Apple after the dust settled was a great move for the band, because Neil was essentially one of them, he was in the inner circle, yet had a business mind as well. The Beach Boys never had someone like Neil in that kind of position. And as it played out, in any negotiations or disputes regarding the use of the catalog minus the Michael Jackson debacle, the Beatles held the upper hand because the catalog was literally a Blue Chip stock that everyone knew would only grow in value. If an outsider was more involved like Neil, it could have been disastrous.

But...the element of looking out for the brand was a difficult journey to get to where it was at the time of Anthology and even the CD reissues in the late 80's.

Despite not as much being written about this aspect as perhaps could be, Brian Epstein did a world of good as the band's manager but he also made some reckless and even foolish deals that ended up costing the band literally millions in revenue, and also came close to cheapening the brand in the name of marketing and profit.

All of those product tie-ins, the Beatle wigs and Beatle soap and Beatle bric-a-brac that was in every five and dime store in 1964 was part of a really bad deal Brian made to sign away all of those things to various fast talkers and hustlers who were coming at him with deals and offers when the Beatles were everywhere in pop culture in '64. "Saeltab" was the company involved in this (Beatles spelled backwards), and Epstein signed deals where all those random junk peddlers scored most of the profit and signed away the band's ability to control what their names and images would appear on.

It was said that Epstein never recovered from this in the eyes of the band, who felt he let them down and lost a lot of control and money because he didn't weigh these deals carefully enough before signing, among other issues. They felt he dropped the ball and in some ways they held it against him until his death in '67.

Then, there were the issues of songwriting and publishing deals regarding Lennon and McCartney who again lost a fortune through some heavy-handed deals made by people like "Uncle" Dick James and the Lew Grade organization, who made a killing on the songs and ended up with exorbitantly more in their pockets than the Lennon-McCartney writing team. Again, the band members felt betrayed by these deals which were signed and ended up costing them millions down the road. More of the story that doesn't get reported or discussed as much...but John and Paul lost millions on these deals.

Factor in the Apple Corps debacle, and Apple in those first years was literally a financial free-for-all where the Beatles thought they had endless supplies of capital and income which they simply did not, and they ran a company which was throwing money out the window on a daily basis.

Then...factor in John and George (and Ringo by default) bringing in Allen Klein and Abkco to manage their affairs, in direct competition with Paul who wanted to bring in his new in-laws the Eastmans to do that job, and the two sides barely spoke to each other, which also led to the less than positive split. But Klein came in offering to audit the books and recoup back payments owed the band by various label interests, almost exactly what David Anderle and Nick Grillo did for Brian and the band over the Capitol royalties and unpaid amounts due the band when they took over management and were setting up what became BRI.

It was a mess, to put it simply. It should have collapsed by all rights, but Apple Corps again thanks to Neil Aspinall in large part, turned around and became a juggernaut that even Apple (the Steve Jobs Apple) could not push around, because that back catalog and legacy had so much demand and therefore industry clout. It had to be on The Beatles' terms or else it wasn't done. And credit to the estates including Yoko Ono and Olivia Harrison for seeing that the decisions made were respectful and beneficial for that legacy when necessary.

Were there missteps? Yes. Mistakes? Yes. But nothing in the 70's and beyond compared to the mess that both Epstein and later the Apple Corps organization created through naive and outright bad business deals that could have torpedoed the band at any time.

The Beach Boys never had a figure like Neil Aspinall. Having a genuine friend if not the true "Fifth Beatle" overseeing these affairs was huge. Credit to whoever around the band managed to get the box sets and other rarities released, in spite of the issues that could have scuppered any of those deals.

But there seems to be nothing in the present day in terms of something or someone at BRI (or even BRI in general) who can put on the brakes on some of the less than positive things being done in the name of the legacy and the brand over the past 40 years or so.

And the Beatles really didn't have more people looking out for them and protecting the brand and legacy, but perhaps they had the right people, competent people, a better structure in a corporate sense, and a lot more clout to where the word "no" could be said with authority rather than having to come to a Kangaroo Court type of board vote that usually runs 2-2 for various reasons whenever something is tabled and parties seem to do whatever they want.

I agree 100% that The Beatles made questionable business decisions. 

I was referring to artistic missteps. 

Ie.  Imagine (no pun intended) The Beatles in the late 70s doing an 11 minute disco version of Getting Better.   Or a rap version of Love Me Do in the early 90s. 

Not quite rap, but this is perilously close to "Here Comes the Night" territory (and in some ways arguably worse):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxilLKjWxhs

The move was potentially arguably as cynical as the decision to bow to (belated) disco trends with HCTN. In the case of "PS Love Me Do", those two tracks being the only two Beatles songs that McCartney's MPL owned the publishing to probably had something to do with the weird choice.

Of course, McCartney warbling through a new "Wonderful Christmastime" with Jimmy Fallon this year is pretty bad too.

P.S. Love Me Do embarrasses me.

Have fans like OSD.... :hat

"...the right people, competent people..." - so true.  If only re:  The BBs - someone to say "no" to stupid stuff, someone to actually care about the art and the artists.  I think there was the occasional good guy (Jerry Schilling?), but something always fell through the cracks, or was blocked by the wrong people, or blocking of Brian (and Dennis) getting the proper medical care for so long.  Hollywood arrogance played a role in many cases, I fear - Just plain stupid decisions in the end.

Seems like Paul redoes Wonderful Christmastime every few years or so.   

The Beach Boys from 1966-1967 imo had superior production, and their music also has a "spiritual" quality that i haven't experienced with The Beatles music personally.
The Beatles were stronger from a LYRICAL standpoint. Also as a unit they had stronger musician ship.
At the end of it all though, The Beach Boys had Brian Wilson  :bw which I think kind of ends the conversation.

The Beatles never made albums on the same level as Pet Sounds, the SMiLE Sessions, or even Smiley Smile. I'm not bias toward the Beach Boys! Revolver, Rubber Soul, and The White Album are absolutely wonderful, So is their pre Rubber Soul material. If I'm being honest....I Prefer The Beatles boy-band stuff than the Beach Boys surf songs..... :shrug

Another great conversation.  I love Craig's expertise and everyone's knowledge about the subject.  I kind of feel ridiculous comparing the bands, in that they each had such a crucial role in many of our lives and brought us such happiness.  Obviously, I'm a BW fan above all, but the Beatles as a band and individual artists always make me smile, as did the BBs as a band and as individuals (well, mostly - loved Denny's stuff and Carl did some beautiful work - then there's Al's earthiness and voice - wonderful).  I also thought Bruce was a talented songwriter in a genre that didn't really interest me.  I wonder how much happier he'd have been if he pursued that?  Mike, well...I guess he's happy doing what he's doing.

We're lucky to have enjoyed their absolute brilliance for so long.  I'm grateful.  Even some of the mis-steps had their brilliance.  I'm happy for all of us.