The Smiley Smile Message Board

I know this series of thread has been pretty controversial, but I'll go on anyway.

Two album (Smiley Smile and Wild Honey. Sorry but NO SMiLE!) and one non-album B-side (You're Welcome)

vs. One album (Sgt. Pepper), one EP(Magical Mystery Tour) and three singles (Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane, All You Need Is Love/Baby You're a Rich Man and Hello Goodbye/I Am The Walrus)

The question was supposed to be "Which do you think did better in 1967?" But it's very odd that I've told you to go only with your subjective preference. I guess it's one of the reasons for confusion here, so I apologize. So from this time the question is:

Which band's output do you prefer in 1967?

Look forward to your opinions & discussions :)

This was easy for me. I prefer the Beatles this year.

Wild Honey is a very fine album, and Smiley Smile is great when you're in the mood, but I'd take the brilliance of Sgt. Pepper and Strawberry/Penny Lane for me. any day.

It could've been completely another story if BB had managed to release SMiLE, even if in incomplete form, though.

The Beatles achieved more than anyone that year. But no band gives me the same spiritual uplift that the BBs do, and since Smiley Smile in stereo and the exceptional Sunshine Tomorrow sets, I so much prefer the BBs output of 1967.

The Beatles.  I really can't get Smiley Smile other than GV and Vegetables and only get some of Wild Honey so The Beatles (mainly off their singles and a few album/EP tracks) win.

Good Songs from The Beatles in 1967:
Strawberry Fields Forever
Penny Lane
Good Morning, Good Morning
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
With A Little Help From My Friends
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
Getting Better (kinda)
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)
Magical Mystery Tour
Your Mother Should Know
Hello, Goodbye
All You Need Is Love
I Am the Walrus (sometimes I like it, other times I don't)
Baby You're A Rich Man (sometimes I like it, other times I don't)

Good Songs from The Beach Boys in 1967:
Heroes and Villains (kinda)
Vegetables
Good Vibrations (yes I know the single was 1966 - but it was released on an album in 1967)
Wild Honey
Aren't You Glad
Darlin'
I Was Made to Love Her
Let the Wind Blow (kinda)
I'd Love Just Once to See You (kinda)

For me, this was the year that required the least amount of thought.   Even 1966, with Pet Sounds being my winner, I had to really think about it, being against Revolver.  

But, in my opinion, 1967 is a no brainer for The Beatles.  

Granted it might be overrated, and it's probably not even in my Top 5 favorite Beatles albums, but Sgt Pepper is still an incredible achievement, and still sounds great 51 years later.  

In my opinion, Magical Mystery Tour is even better (depending on whether you consider it a true LP or an EP plus five great songs).  

With songs like Strawberry Fields, Day in the Life, She's Leaving Home, Lucy in the Sky, Penny Lane, even George's underrated Blue Jay Way, The Beatles were taking their music to new heights.

The Beach Boys on the other hand fell flat (IMO) with their attempt at more experimental music.  While it's developed a cult following, I still think Smiley Smile is their worst album to date.  Take away the two brilliant, already available, singles, and there's not much there.   The eventual release of superior Smile versions of Wonderful and Wind Chimes make the versions on SS obsolete.  

Wild Honey is a return to form album, but still pales in comparison to what The Beatles were doing.  

Sadly, 1967 was the year that The Beach Boys stumbled.   In the eyes of many record buyers in the US, they would never really recover, and they got left in the dust by bands that adapted better to the changing landscape of rock music like The Beatles, The Stones, and The Who, as well as new up and coming groups like The Doors, Pink Floyd, and Jimi Hendrix.  

The Beatles by a long shot.

Smiley Smile is an album I go back and forth on a lot. Sometimes I will listen to it and think how creative, unusual, almost magical the album is. Sometimes I listen to it and think how it feels bare and creepy next to the previously released album. In my mind this album teeters on the fence between greatness and a foul ball. But I will say that the stereo version really opens my eyes to how incredible this album is - one thing these guys never slacked on was perfection when it came to harmonies.

Wild Honey has a special place for me, I remember vividly when I first heard it, I was (and still am) blown away by ‘Aren’t You Glad’ and ‘Darlin’ is one of the coolest songs these guys did. In my opinion, the album should’ve been released in stereo in the first place, and I think had it had Pet Sounds-like production it would be ranked among the greats this band did (and probably charted as much)...‘Darlin’ has this kickass booming sound (because of the brass section) that seems to be missing from mostly every other song. Give this album the wall-of-sound treatment and I think it would’ve definitely helped the album.

I can’t really describe how good I think Sgt Pepper is. Ya know, when Brian says “The Beatles beat me to it” (I know he was referring to ‘Strawberry Fields’) I know exactly what it means when it comes to this album. In the Brian Wilson Songwriter Documentary, the narrator straight up says that the psychedelic new sounds Brian was looking for didn’t come out of the sunny beaches of LA but instead the dreary streets across the pond. Each song is a little pop masterpiece - the wide use of instruments is incredible. Each song is a tale. ‘She’s Leaving Home’ is one of the greatest songs these guys did...the lyrics, those amazing strings, its pure beauty. And the recently released remix of this album makes the whole thing even more stunning.

Magical Mystery Tour was my favorite Beatles album for a while - ‘Songs Your Mother Should Know’ I thought was so creative in scope, the bass line in ‘Baby You’re A Rich Man’ is one of my favorite bass lines in any song I’ve heard...simplistic yet it friggin rocks with that song. It’s like an actually listenable Still Cruisin album haha.

Had Brian created/released something like his BWPS album in 1967, this would’ve been a much harder year to decide, perhaps even impossible to decide. But The Beach Boys went a simpler route while the Beatles kept pushing the limits of what popular music could sound like, and thus I feel they won with flying colors in 1967.

Smiley Smile versus Sgt Pepper?  Even with that last minute album Wild Honey jumping in as the year came to a close...it's NO contest.  Beatles by at least as large a margin as last years' Beach Boys victory. :hat  Maybe more.  And that's before I even begin to incorporate Magical Mystery Tour or Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane into the equation.  1967 was their best year...by far.  In spite of infighting...1969 would be a VERY good year as well.  When the Beach Boys fought...it all went down the dumper.  The Fabs got 'er done.  And when they couldn't any longer?  They went their separate ways.  Smarter thinking I would wager.

Like...I was happy and grateful to finally get a followup to all of the Brian Wilson 1966 mega-creativity in the form of Heroes and Villains...and I'd rank it as 'equalish' to one of either Strawberry Fields or Penny Lane...but not both.  If SMiLE had been released [and not that awful dog-turd Smiley Smile]...rab2591 nailed it...except for the 2 glorious hitchhikers Good Vibrations and Heroes and Villains it is "creepy." I would have gone Beach Boys.  But it wasn't...so in real time?  NO contest.  [thanks Mike.  >:(  Now on his 52nd annual being a "dick" tour.   ::)]

By easy calculation & by elimination process:

Beatles's best this year: Magical Mystery Tour. Best singles: "Penny Lane", "Hello Goodbye".
BBs' best this year: Smiley Smile. "You're Welcome".

Singles: Wins "Penny Lane".
Albums: Wins Smiley Smile but MMT is easily favorite Beatles album. Whilst I dislike BYARM, rab2591 is totes right about bass. Paul's created many cool basslines. :3d

Ultimate victory: Beach Boys.

Hmmm, its not fair to compare one of these albums to the greatest album ever made.

Peppers is OK I suppose,  but Smiley Smile is so awesome that there's just no contest.

If we include the unreleased Smile, I vote Beach Boys. But if we are going by what was officially released in 1967, The Beatles.

Fascinating, the mental gymnastics one would have to go through to declare this year a win for the BBs. 

Yeah, you've got me. Secretly I love the Beatles and think they're the greatest composers who ever lived.

Deep down I know my love of the pure musical perfection of Smiley Smile is but a sham compared to the Sgt Pepper,  which is in no way overrated, full of genius tracks such as When I'm 64, Good Mornihg, Good Morning and Wthin You Without You, (which isn't the least bit boring)

'Cos anyone who says they don't like the Beatles must be lying right?

I definitely wasn't referring to you, as your sarcasm moves at typhoon force in this thread!

It is unstoppable.

Never mind "mental gymnastics", I knew very clearly, chiming in this thread, who wins in my eyes - or rather, to my ears - in 1967.

The Result:
The Beach Boys 9 votes
The Beatles 16 votes

The winner is The Beatles.

I had meant to post on who I picked for this year.

The BBs had Smiley Smile which in my opinion had some great songs, H&V, GV, Vegetables, some clunkers, a "noble failure" - Fall Breaks (I absolutely love the version on Sunshine Tomorrow) and a Transcendent moment (the latter part of Wind Chimes).

The Beatles had great songs, good songs, no bad songs.
Faves are SFF, Mr Kite, I Am the Walrus, A Day in the Life.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it was the Beatles year.

Like every year in the competition - Beatles.  Except 1966 where I'd flip a coin, and maybe give it to the Beach Boys. 

I don't even bother to answer these polls, because for me it's Beach Boys every year. I know, if you measure achievements, sales, chart positions, cultural impact, The Beatles win every time. But when it comes to music, it's the Beach Boys that touch my heart more. Everry time. Even when they suck, their stuff is more direct and heartfelt. And that does it for me, no amount of studio breaktrhoughs and cleverness can change that.

Just (truly, honestly) some friendly advice: Perhaps if you stopped framing this as a case of the Beatles only being noteworthy due to sales/chart success/cultural impact, etc., to the point of music that you admit "sucks" strikes you as more "direct and heartfelt", maybe you'd actually like some other music.

People don't note the Beatles more than another bands because of "cleverness" or "chart positions", etc. They note them because their music is great. It speaks to people. It never would have survived had it not. They were successful because they spoke to people. Not the other way around.

Like what you like (obviously), but if anyone told me that everything the Beach Boys never did is more "heartfelt" than anything anybody else ever did, even when the BB material in question "sucks", I'd tell them to get out more and listen to other stuff and allow themselves to actually like something other than the BBs.

I'm not telling people how to feel, what to feel, what to like. If you think the Percadella Mix of "Rock and Roll to the Rescue" is more "heartfelt" than anything the Beatles ever did, I'm not saying you can't feel that way. But I think it's worth trying to reach out to people who are self-identifying as super narrow-minded musically and let them know that there is other stuff out there. For crying out loud, I'm not saying we all have to go listen to Freeform Jazz or something. To me, The Beatle and the Beach Boys are both *it*. I don't spend one moment of my life announcing that everything the BBs ever did is better than anything else. I enjoy the BBs, their music changes my life, and then I *also* have the same experiences with other music. If Mike Love's Hyatt Regency jingle started speaking to my soul more than "In My Life" or "For No One" or "Let It Be", I'd seriously start to self-assess what the problem is.

Coming in late but it’s easy for me:  I much prefer Smiley Smile and WH.  By a long shot.  I like Sergeant Pepper and MMT quite a lot but there’s no contest.  WH is just one of my favourite albums ever; I just love it and there’s no sense telling me I’m wrong :)    And for all of the criticism of Smiley Smile, well, it’s got Good Vibrations.   I love the Beatles but if I had to choose between every Beatles song ever recorded or Good Vibrations, I’d pick the latter. 

(Decided to delete. Sorry(

My vote still goes to the Beatles, but you’re so right about Good Vibrations. I’d take that song over anything the Beatles did in ‘67 - which is ridiculous because everything the Beatles did in ‘67 was monumentally amazing. But GV will always sound like a record recorded 1000 years in the future.

But in total, I just love the Beatles output so much in this year over most everything The Beach Boys put out. Both bands did a great job following their own unique muses in this year though.

Good points, but missing the point. Me, I love the Beatles, they're great, and they've made some great music, some even best ever. I don't have nothing against them and they continue to inspire me on an everyday basis, and I still listen to them regularly. But, this is The Beach Boys vs The Beatles topic, and so it happens that I like the Beach Boys more. In my opinion, they are musically superior. Especially their 1967 output. Mike Love's jingles don't really belong to this discussion... All the Beatles songs you mentioned are great, of course, and I don't think there's much point in comparing B's and BB's. But, while were at it, that's where I stand.

HeyJude, you must stop forcing people like Beatles. They're not be-all, end-all, for Pete's sake. The way you advise Jukka to be open-minded when you don't know AT ALL his music likes & dislikes is completely dumb. For all you care/ know, he could have very diverse taste.
If Jukka chooses BBs every year - then what? If BBs is big deal to him that even bad songs sound good to him - cool.

You're not telling people how to feel or how to vote, but you're kind enough to tell them how wrong they are. 

I’ve said it before, but I do think the Beatles are the greatest band. When you listen to that Beatles 1 album (that comp of their number 1 hits) you can’t really deny how flippin great these guys were - with the exclusion of one or two songs on that album (personal preference) every song hits it out of the park (whether because of harmonies, chord changes, lyrics, advances in experimenting, etc)...and that comp doesn’t even begin to delve into what their albums were like. But all that being said, I acknowledge them being the greatest band but The Beach Boys make music that hits me on a whole other level.

I know some here get angsty when others of us talk about the spiritual impact The Beach Boys music has on us. But it’s an aspect that I can’t help but override the chart numbers, the catchy riffs and hooks, the cultural impact, the phenomenal songs in general - whether by The Beach Boys or the Beatles.

If someone asked me to give them an album 100% full of the catchiest/happiest/interesting tunes ever recorded I’d hand them the Beatles 1 album. If someone asked me to give them an album that would move them spiritually and possibly change their life, I would hand them Pet Sounds. And before I get a 5 paragraph essay on why that statement is wrong: I’m not trying to simplify the Beatles catalogue with that statement, I’m sure there are those who hear that type of life-changing spiritual beauty in the Beatles catalogue, and that’s perfectly fine. But this is a thread about personal preference and some here prefer The Beach Boys every year in this regard (whereas most here chose the Beatles for this particular year so I don’t get why jimmies are being rustled yet again).

I think this is in line with what Jukka is saying and it’s insulting that every time someone is overjoyed by Beach Boys music in these threads HeyJude has to swoop down with his Sgt. Pepper cape and save the day by telling people they are musically narrow minded. HeyJude, you’re implying that there are people here who value a Mike Love hotel jingle over the Beatles when literally NO ONE in these threads has done that at all. You’re implying that some here are spending every moment of their life claiming The Beach Boys are the best band in the world, when literally NO ONE here has done that. You’re implying that someone here likes a 1980s Beach Boy track “Rock and Roll To The Rescue” over the Beatles when literally NO ONE here has done that. Per the rules of the poll a few people have said they’d take The Beach Boys every year vs the Beatles. This does not mean these people are jamming out with Sennheiser HD 800s to Mike Love’s Hyatt Regency jingle for gods sake. The more you make these outlandish claims the more my ignored argument (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,25742.msg628793.html#msg628793) looks pretty spot on.

Again, with all respect, I think *you're* missing *my* point. You can like the BBs more. You can like ZZ Top more. You can like whatever you want. My suggestion was that your words imply you think that BB material that *you* identify as material that "sucks" is STILL "more direct and heartfelt" than Beatles material. As in (assuming material you think "sucks" is the bottom rung of BB material) *everything* the Beach Boys did was "more direct and heartfelt."

If you're trying to walk back this extreme viewpoint, if your words didn't mean to imply that "Ten Little Indians" and "Summer of Love" are "more direct and heartfelt" than *any* Beatles track, then I think my only advice would be to not post with such sweeping generalizations and absolutes (which I feel are much more common in these "versus" threads).

If, on the other hand, you truly hold the extreme viewpoint that even BB material that "sucks" is more "direct and heartfelt", then that brings us back to the point of my previous post, which was simply that your words indicate a very narrow assessment of music, and I was suggesting opening yourself up to be moved by something other than your "hometown team" so to speak.

[facepalm]

I'm loathe to re-explain my point for the millionth time.

ANYBODY who says THIS about the Beach Boys vis-à-vis the Beatles (or any artist):

"Even when they suck, their stuff is more direct and heartfelt"

*Anybody* who says this, while 100% entitled to say so (obviously), I would *genuinely* tell that their WORDS *strongly suggest* they are narrow-minded in that they believe Beach Boys music that they admit SUCKS is "more direct and heartfelt" than anything the Beatles (or any other artist) recorded.

Remove "Beatles" and put in the name of any other great artist. This isn't about the Beatles. It's about my (clearly unsuccessful) attempt to try to snap some BB fans out of continuing this epic circle jerk of fandom.

No, it's more like "Hey, try this other music and maybe something else will speak to you, because if you think Beach Boys material that you ADMIT SUCKS is more direct and heartfelt than any Beatles material, I have a feeling you're missing out and not letting something else speak to you."

I disagree. While the term in question was "more direct and heartfelt" as opposed to simply "liking" something more, Jukka's post took the extreme position that even when the Beach Boys "suck", they are more direct and heartfelt. That is, in my opinion, an absurd statement. I'd say the same regarding *any* musical artists being discussed.

When I read someone say stuff like that, I absolutely DO assume they feel "Rock and Roll to the Rescue" is more "direct and heartfelt" than "Let It Be."

The Mike Love jingle stuff was of course a bit of hyperbole, only in that his Hyatt Regency jingles (which I think are actually quite enjoyable in a surreal way) are technically I suppose not "Beach Boys" tracks but solo recordings (most likely with Adrian Baker).

And, regarding your "ignored argument" from the "1966" thread, I absolutely read it. I continue to try (unsuccessfully) to minimize my comments in these threads because continually calling the threads out as a big giant circle jerk was simply prolonging threads that were otherwise pretty quietly floating away. Look at my posts in the ten zillion C50 threads, or my "time I'll never get back" back-and-forths with filledeplage and Cam over the years. I have no problem laying out a 27-paragraph point-by-point rebuttal of *anybody.* My tact instead has been, of late in this thread anyway, more along the lines of one of my previous explanatory responses, which is to say "hey, it kinda sounds like you're pretty narrowly focused on the BBs to the determent of your possible enjoyment of other bands, so my honestly, truly friendly advice is to try to let go of that a bit and let other music speak to you."

As (I believe) I mentioned way back in one of the old threads, there were times in my youth and zeal in deep fandom of bands (mainly the Beach Boys and Beatles not surprisingly) that I CLEARLY became WAY TOO close-minded about other music. I never really did that "my team is better than yours" stuff, I didn't need to s**t on other bands to explain why I liked the Beatles or Beach Boys. But I certainly *did* refrain from letting myself let other music be on par with the stuff I loved the most.

But yeah, all else aside, if people continue to post absurd (in my opinion) statements along the lines of sucky BB material being more heartfelt than other artists' material, I'll probably continue to (politely and respectfully) call it out, at least from time to time.

Frankly, what you said before about people should be agreeing with/ listening to what Howie Edelson says doesn't make sense. 1stly, why, what for we must listen to him when he says this is "embarrassing" fandom? It's just fun, can't we have fun, you know? YOU know? I said this before & I'll say it again - it isn't obligation to listen to what people say because they're friends with BBs, honored guests, experienced long-timers etc. I don't owe to respect them, agree with them etc. If you agree with Mr. Edelson - fine but don't tell the other BBs fans to do the same, even to just listen to him.

Jukka confirmed plentifully in his single post Beatles is great band. No? NO?

Nope. The original post I responded to noted the Beatles "achievements, sales, chart positions, and cultural impact", but didn't seem to profess actually liking their music. Indeed, the point was then made that even BB material that "sucks" is "more direct and heartfelt." In a subsequent post, I suppose this position was walked back. I appreciate the clarification, but posting such extremes as the "even when they suck" comment is a big part of what I was criticizing about the nature of these threads in previous posts.

Feel however you want to feel. I don't tell people to take a moment to listen to Howie Edelson because he's an insider, or because he's friends with the BBs. I suggest that people take his opinion into account because he knows his sh*t, and knows how to respectfully, cogently, and engagingly talk about BOTH bands, and talk about fandom.

That he also happens to be the guy that writes the liner notes for Beach Boys releases and is a working journalist would only serve to help make the argument than maybe you SHOULD stop to listen to him.

But of course do what you want. If you don't want to listen to Howie Edelson, then than tells me all I need to know.

In response to what I said you’re totally right and I guess that part of Jukka’s post completely escaped my mind when replying to you. That being said, if he does find ‘Rock and Roll To The Rescue’ more heartfelt than ‘Let It Be’ then Jukka has every right to feel that way. Music hits us all in different ways for different reasons. In your opinion it is an absurd notion, and I almost feel the same way, but in a thread about personal preference its completely justified for one person to think that ‘chug-a-lug’ is superior to ‘Across The Universe’ - as ridiculous as it may seem to most of us.

I think I mentioned this before, but I think Abba’s ‘Dancing Queen’ is one of the greatest songs I’ve ever heard - even topping some of my favorite Beach Boys songs. It’s an absurd song in that its lyrically immature, but there is something about the way that song sounds that takes me to another place. When I think ‘Dancing Queen’ is a better song than ‘You Still Believe In Me’ or ‘The Warmth of The Sun’ I completely understand how absurd that is. But that’s the way I’m wired.

Maybe Jukka likes how Brian and Carl’s vocals sound on any Beach Boys tune, or he just likes the fun or ethereal vibe on any Beach Boys release and that makes him like those songs better than even the best Beatles songs. It’s rather crass to call someone musically narrow-minded just because they prefer one thing over the other.

Right. 

I'd much rather listen to classic Bon Jovi than pretty much anything Bob Dylan ever put out. 

That would cause a huge gasp among many music fans, but that's where my taste lies. 

Just as I'd personally rather listen to the BB85 or Still Cruisin over Love You. 

That's just my preference, and no matter how crazy is sounds to many, to my ears, it's anything but wrong. 

I mean, I do have to disagree with Howie about these threads being the worst of the fandom. The idea behind people discussing what they prefer between two of the greatest bands ever isn’t that ridiculous, and far from anything bordering on being the “worst”.

Again I’ll say: Watamushi has helped bring some positivity to both forums with these poll threads (not counting the bickering that has plagued many of them because of your negativity regarding these threads). Instead of discussing Mike Love’s latest petulant outburst we’re talking about ‘Time To Get Alone’ and ‘Rain’. Because of these threads I have been playing more White Album and the deeper Beatles cuts lately because of these threads - I have played Beatles songs for people lately that they had never heard before, garnering very positive reactions. That’s not the worst of any fandom. You’re the one picking on people for having different musical tastes than your own, calling out their own personal preferences....I think that is the worst of any fandom.

If you don’t like these topics, start a thread on any subject you want to discuss - I’d be happy to participate as I enjoy most of what you post on this forum. But here and now most of us are all happy to discuss why we like certain things about either band, and most of us are happy that the Beatles music exists and most of us even enjoy it more than our favorite band here as these threads show. This is nothing to hate or be negative about.

So, because he's an insider, we should all think along the same lines as him. 

I respect his opinion, but I 100% disagree with this being the "worst of fandom." 

Exactly. I think our personal preference is shaped by a ton of things; where we grew up, when we grew up, brain chemistry, events we’ve lived through. And those preferences can change depending on where we are in life. I know someone who dislikes the Beatles, I can’t at all see how they feel that way. But they are justified in feeling that way (and their multi-room vinyl collection with most of the Beatles albums tells me they are musically open minded). It all just depends on who you are and how you’re wired.

OK, got it. But it's not like we, I, don't know about Mr. Edelson's credentials. I didn't deny he knows his stuff. BUT it doesn't mean I must agree with him everytime for that reason. Ditto with the other people like Mr. Edelson. I didn't like the way you said "at least listen to him". I really can't agree & fail to recognize anything embarrassing with these "vs." threads. It's fun to compare, analyze these 2 bands, whose music you like each year etc.

Yep, been there done that. People always say this to belittle smb. to prove what they say is right, their rhetoric is right.

It's not about not wanting to listen to Howie Edelson but germaine to this discussion & his point about this thread being example of worst fandom. If Howie Edelson/ Mr. Desper/ Alan Boyd/ yrplace (or is it Mr. Linett?) will bring some views with which I shall agree, then I'll listen & agree. What I'm getting at is I can't agree with people due to them knowing their stuff, being working journalists, everything else you said. It doesn't matter if, when I read what they say, I disagree with it, as I did here. I see everybody as posters who've got opinions with which I either agree or dis-.

Right, I grew up during the 1980s, so I tend to like what many critics or elitists refer to as "hair metal" or "80s cheese," so that explains by preference for Kokomo or Getcha Back over any song on Love You, or my preference for Bon Jovi or Motley Crue over Frank Zappa or Bob Dylan. 

Of course, I was exposed to The Beatles and Beach Boys as a child as well.   The Beach Boys took a lot longer to get under my skin than The Beatles for whatever reason.

I was born in the 80s so I heard my parents listen to a lot of Genesis and other bands like it. Which is why when I heard BB85 it kinda stuck with me and over the years I’ve come to absolutely love it - no doubt because of my upbringing with some very 80s sounding music. I’m glad to see BB85 getting a bit more love in the fandom recently!

Oddly enough, my folks were never into Genesis / Phil Collins.   I got into them as an adult. 

I've noticed that BB85 is viewed more favorably, even in the last 1-2 years or so. 

I was listen to Elton John’s show on Beats1, and he had Noel Gallagher in for an interview, Noel played this Genesis song from 1969 called ‘The Conquerer (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LcKypsqlgi4)’, and I’d never ever heard it before. But it absolutely blew my mind. Not sure if it’s even your taste/style, but putting it here in case no one else had heard it either.

I guess after only hearing their 80s stuff all my life I was surprised at how 60s Genesis could sound.

I'm not familiar with that one.   I've never heard anything from their debut, so the earliest work I have is Trespass (1971).   I've only recently gotten into their more prog material, which I quite like, and is definitely a far cry from the Genesis I used to hear on the radio in the late 1980s.

But, then again, anyone who only knew Getcha Back or Kokomo in the late 80s, might be blown away by Pet Sounds. 

Interesting. It's funny but in the 80's I had some friends who had older brothers, uncles, etc who introduced them to Genesis and it filtered down to me when we'd have listening sessions. In the 80's Phil Collins was very, very big. His videos on MTV were always produced up to where they were among the most popular, both Phil solo and with Genesis. "Land Of Confusion" with the puppets was always playing, then there was Phil doing a tribute to the old Benny Hill Show, with a cameo by Benny himself...all of that.

Phil was also on a very well remembered episode of Miami Vice, playing a shifty game show host that cheated one of the cops out of the prize in favor of a very well-endowed girl contestant. "Pig In A Poke" was the show Phil's character hosted - check it out, a classic MV episode. But even that show was at its peak when Phil was on, at least in the US so Phil was like a superstar at that time. His song "In The Air Tonight" which was actually over 5 years old when Miami Vice used it for a montage on their show kind of defined the style of MV cutting music to the TV action, like the famous memo said "MTV Cops". But that song took on another life after the show featured it.

The irony was that people who were "older" and music fans of a certain bent would be suggesting the only Genesis worth listening to was the earlier prog material and anything after Gabriel left was fluff. Kind of like suggesting Phil Collins and Genesis minus Gabriel had sold out to become pop artists, while the "real" Genesis was Lamb Lies Down..., and the other prog material.

Oh, and then at that same time Peter Gabriel himself became something of an MTV icon thanks to at least one truly great, classic single with Sledgehammer and two groundbreaking videos (Sledgehammer especially with the stop-motion animation), not to mention songs like In Your Eyes which took on a new audience after Say Anything and that boombox scene.

So both Collins and Gabriel (and Genesis) were essentially making hugely popular singles and had very popular heavy-rotation videos on MTV that were as far from prog-rock as you could get, yet I clearly remember it was Collins who got more of the flak for selling out, and fans saying the "current" Genesis with only Banks and Rutherford were selling out. Oh...and both Banks and Rutherford had successful side/solo projects charting at that time too. Odd scenario with the fans of the old-school variety seeming to be at odds with the new popularity the members of Genesis were seeing, except for Gabriel who escaped it despite big commercial success with the So album and videos.

Maybe some of it rubbed off on me, but I'm not a prog-rock fan of any significance, I appreciate it but don't actively listen...yet I found myself especially in the last decade rediscovering that hitmaking period of Genesis and Phil Collins. I think Phil got a really good reappraisal from newer and older fans recently and the music for the most part holds up, with some exceptions.

How does this tie into a Beatles thread? lol.

Well, most fans know Phil was a massive Beatles fan and there is one famous shot of the Hard Day's Night film concert scene where a young Phil can be spotted among the crowd in the theater where they filmed. And he did some work as a young musician on Harrison's All Things Must Pass sessions, and other little things like that.

But one of my favorite, all-time Genesis songs was "That's All". It's an amazing production IMO, just really stripped down but with a groove to die for and a pocket in the drum groove a mile wide, thanks to Phil. That drum beat and feel NAILS it, and for a long time I was trying to figure out what made it different.

Then I read an interview with Phil were he explained that the groove he played on That's All was an overt, direct reference to Ringo Starr, Phil's take on the "Ringo Groove" whose definition can change depending on which drummer you ask about it lol. But after reading that, it all made sense for me. The groove was the main feature, and Phil consciously channeled Ringo to lay down that drum track.

I guess my point is every band has some kind of fan drama, in the case of Genesis the "old" Genesis versus the pop hitmakers Genesis of the 80's. I actually prefer a selection of the 80's Genesis at their best and catchiest to the prog material with Gabriel. And ironically I just heard an ad on the radio that Genesis guitarist Steve Hackett is coming to the Jersey area for two shows next week, and they are *still* asking him and the others about a possible Genesis reunion.

But yeah, I'll listen to the Collins-Banks-Rutherford hit-making Genesis any day, I really enjoy some of those songs, and of course with some exceptions. Also, Collins' solo work too. "In The Air Tonight" is a stone-cold classic.

I like the 80s rock/pop version of Genesis a lot.

But, I think my favorite era was the transitional era in the mid to late 70s, where they were writing shorter songs, but still had elements of prog.  I think the unsung hero of the group is Steve Hackett, and there's a certain musicality that the band lost when he left that, despite a lot of great songs, never got back. 

I'll have to give That's All another listen, as I usually focus on the hypnotic Tony Banks piano riff. 

KDS - Listen to "That's All" a few times in a row, I'm doing it now actually before I have to head out.

On this track, I'll go to bat and say it's one of the best, most understated tributes to the "Ringo Groove" as has ever been recorded and became a hit...that didn't involve Ringo or a Beatle. I'm going out on a limb and saying that of all drummers, it was Jim Keltner and Phil who could best lock into that groove that made Ringo's drumming so unique and so special.

The track itself - It sounds like Phil was going for the same effect as Ringo did on Hello Goodbye. The first statement of the "hook", the song's title, has no snare drum. Phil stays on only the kick drum and hi-hat for like a minute before even touching the snare. Yet the groove is massive and the pocket is several miles wide with the most sparse drumming. Just like Hello Goodbye.

Then Phil brings in the snare, and later starts to add his take on the famous Ringo Starr "backwards" drum fills...again, as heard so perfectly on Hello Goodbye.

And it's also to a lesser degree the Ringo groove from Hey Bulldog, same way he played and the same feel.

It's not so much what Phil plays, but the way in which he plays it. The groove has that loose, delayed feel that opens up and leaves room for Banks' piano and also Rutherford later in the track. The groove has that lazy, almost delayed feel like Al Jackson Jr. did for Midnight Hour, but it never drags or feels like it's anything less than a massive pocket for the rest of the song. It's something so basic, yet Phil Collins *got it* on a level that a lot of drummers who try to do the Ringo groove just don't capture.

Really esoteric stuff, but that's how big a fan I am of that one groove...and of Phil's drumming in general. What happened I think was Phil became such a celebrity, it was pushed into the back just how good of a musician and drummer he was. Great singer too. I'm glad people are reconnecting with those aspects of Phil Collins' career, and I'm happy to provide examples anytime I can.  :)

BTW..."Easy Lover", Phil Collins and EWF's Philip Bailey...Kitschy as hell 80's video, but underneath all that is a true motherfucker of a great song and performance. Listen to it with new ears. I remember exactly when it hit me as that song came on one of those retro 80's nights on a radio station. I heard it with fresh ears and haven't looked back since, some 15 or so years later.

Tying it into the topic of 1967..."That's All" is Phil doing a spin on Ringo's classic "Hello Goodbye" drum part, with touches of Hey Bulldog thrown in too. So there's that.  :)

I read an interesting article a year or two about Phil Collins about the fact that his popularity has grown in recent years.   The article basically said that he was everywhere in the 80s, between Genesis, his solo career, Miami Vice, Buster, using the Concord to play both Live Aid locations, etc.   So, that was met with backlash. 

But, since Phil has more or less retreated from the spotlight over the last 20 years, he's given people a chance to miss him. 

To be honest, I don't think I've ever seen the music video for Easy Lover, but I'm a big fan of the song itself.  I think I first took notice of it sometime in the late 1990s, at the point when rock music was getting really really bad, and I started to realize a lot of that "cheesy" music I dismissed as a child is actually really, really good.  That's basically when my Genesis / Phil Collins fandom started. 

Whoa. Great to have some proper discussion here! Anyway, when I said I prefer The Beach Boys over almost everybody "even when they suck" I didn't (of course) mean that "Problem Child" is a automatically better and more touching song than "A Day In A Life", or something like that. Come on, let's not get silly here.

But I mean... Even when the Beach Boys sound like they're not really trying, or are too out of it to really care, or the ideas behind songs are not really that inspired, they still have that spiritual quality shining through. You hear that quality all over Pet Sounds, but you (or I, at least) hear it also on "Everybody Wants To Live", the cocaine sessions' "Oh Lord" and yes, "Kokomo". I can't put my finger on it, but they always have that magical ingredient there. Maybe it's just like Brian has always said: "We made sure the harmonies have a lot of love in them." I couldn't say it better.

The Beatles made some great, spiritual music. But they were also great craftsmen, who sometimes made songs because they felt like writing a heavy rocker, a jazzy song, a country tune... Just because they could and they were good at it, but craftsmanlike songs often have this artificial quality that might hinder the spiritual aspect. With the Beach Boys, or at least Brian, even the silliest songs carry this vibe of being pulled from their souls.

Anyway, sorry for generalising. Both great bands. The Beatles' music has more impact and potential to blow young minds to see the endless possibilities of what pop music can do, a sense of adventure and something exciting to happen. But when I'm alone and feel like nobody understands, I go for the Beach Boys, and that's why I love them.

This is a weird tangent from what Jukka said.... but paraphrasing Jukka, more or less.... when the BBs phone it in or are trash, they still have a certain "spiritual quality".

What is it then, that makes this spiritual quality?  Nothing more than the harmonies?  

Tangent 1- it is mostly the harmonies, but there is another ingredient, which is Brian's frequent use of obscure chords and unsensical structures, that form a beneath the surface counter-melody to the complex harmony that he created with the b'ground vocals.  When these intertwine, subtly undermine each other, and eventually resolve it can be overwhelming to some.  Even when they suck!

Tangent 2- On the idea of harmony and neuroscience, etc.  I highly suggest the book This Is Your Brain On Music for anybody interested in this intersection.  It is very easy to digest- not complicated at all.

Conversely, do a random internet read sometime on the "Devil's Tritone"- diabolus en musica- augmented 4th- it has many names - if you aren't already aware.  It was supposedly (contentious) a banned harmony within Catholic music in the early modern era- because this harmony is so unsettling (unspiritual!) it was seen as the work of the devil.  It came back into normal use in mid-century American Jazz (irregular use in lots of classical music before that), and you can pick it out from Purple Haze through a lot of metal music ever since.  Can anyone think of Brian ever purposefully trying to utilize the augmented 4th in any of his compositions?  It wouldn't surprise me if Transcedental Meditation does, but I am not good enough at theory to know for sure.

Awesome post. That last paragraph is really intriguing. Maybe Guitarfool could shed some light on that.

To add to your harmonies bit...the beach boys had such an incredible vocal blend. I mean, no other band has ever come close to how unique and beautiful The Beach Boys sounded on most of their albums. Even when they’re not blending they sound angelic...take Carl’s solo lead on GOK, or I think his vocal on ‘I Can Hear Music’ is one of the best sounding lead vocals ever...that tone and range is outta this world. Even his part in ‘Kokomo’ is a thing of beauty.

A lot of elements come together to give us that heartfelt feeling, but those harmonies and vocals for sure are the main reason.

Oh, the dreaded tritone! Now I'll have to go through all the songs in his catalog. Went through a few songs that had weird harmonies but hadn't found any in the vocals.
It does indeed sound like one of the instruments in Transcendental Meditation is doing an augmented 4th. I find that hilarious as Brian wanted his music to be prayed to LOL.

I can, and I'll try.  :)

The "diablo musica" topic is absolutely true. That interval was indeed banned by the rulers of the church in the "Dark Ages" because they decreed the tritone interval was the work of the devil, and composers of sacred music were banned from using it. This is why Gregorian chant has no thirds in the chords...the harmony is nothing more than a series of parallel fourths and fifths moving up and down the scales with little ornamentation.

It should be noted that during the Bach period, when Bach all but codified the "rules" of harmony, counterpoint, and chorale writing in 4-part harmony, arranging using the parallel fourths and fifths especially in 2-part counterpoint was not "allowed" under the rules. That is still taught to students of traditional harmony and counterpoint today as one of the rules of that style. No parallel fourths or fifths, but instead emphasize the key harmonic notes of whatever chord is being stated or implied (in the case of 2-part writing).

Now fast forward to the impressionistic period, then into the modern era, with blues, jazz, popular/secular styles...some of the rules were indeed broken and elements like tensions on top of chords as well as blatantly discordant (to the ears of that time) chord structures were being used by composers. This extended beyond classical and those "discordant" intervals and chords formed the foundation of jazz, which also borrowed heavily from what was considered experimental or even atonal works in the styles like serialism with Shoenberg, and even more radical departures from traditional Bach harmonies.

Now...fast forward to jazz. And blues, and before that (but to a lesser degree Dixieland, Ragtime, etc). It all kind of gels together but at the same time it doesn't.

This is where the Brian Wilson connection comes up, eventually.

Blues and jazz (and other popular styles as mentioned above) would often use a dominant 7th chord, I'll also call it the flat 7th, as the strong tonic chord of a progression or song. This is the very nature of the blues form, whether 12-bar, 16-bar, whatever...the strongest chords of blues are based on dominant 7ths, not major chords...those being the I the IV and the V.

In sacred music, chorale writing, and the Bach "rules", the dominant 7th is a chord of unrest, of tension, which wants to and most often does *resolve* to a more settled chord. If it doesn't, it still leads somewhere else more calm, because in that writing, the tension has to go to a resolution.

However, in the blues and early jazz, those tension filled chords never resolve, in fact they're built on the sound of unrest and tension but listeners accepted that as in the I chord going to the IV chord in the blues form, as the norm, as the chords that were the tonic, subdominant, dominant, etc. The I7 to IV7 to V7 is the foundation of all blues which translated into rock, jazz, country, etc.

A listener in the 18th century would be aghast if a song form was built around three strong dominant 7th chords that never resolve.

Almost done, haha...

The "tritone" as in "diablo musica" is in each and every dominant 7th chord. The third and the flatted 7th of every dom 7 chord is the tritone. Example: G7 is G-B-D-F. C7 is C-E-G-Bb. Major triad with flat 7th scale degree added.  B to F in the G7 is the tritone, E to Bb in the C7 is the tritone.

So basically every 7th chord in Beach Boys music - if you get some Beach Boys sheet music books or charts and see the E7 in I Get Around for example, is that tritone which was banned by the church.

Even more interesting: The diminished chord is built on two tritones. The diminished scale is built on a scale that ascends in flat 3rd intervals. It's so easy to play when you map it out.

Example: Take a C# diminished chord or scale. It's spelled out C# - E - G - A# (or Bb enharmonically). The C# diminished chord is EXACTLY the same chord structure as an E diminished, a G diminished, an A# diminished...you can build the same chord on each note on which the chord is build and have any of the four notes act as the root.

Enter...jazz!

Let's say a jazz player is playing a dusty old standard with a ii-V7-I chord cadence, or let's say a jazz player is improvising over that chord change (the most common in jazz). In this example, Emin7 to A7 to D.

That jazz player will often substitute that diminished scale or chord for the A7. So he/she would play the A# diminished chord or scale, which is also E dim, G dim, C# dim...you see the usefullness of that kind of substitution. A chord or scale that can carry four names and behaviors in context and still be the same notes. All purpose, plug in and play, and there is the sound of 20th century jazz in a nutshell.

In early jazz, like the Joplin rags, Gershwin, the old 20's hot jazz...they would often start the piece laying out a diminished chord. Think any of the most famous ragtime tunes like Tiger Rag, The Entertainer...that initial flurry of notes is a diminished chord and harmony. It surely would have been banned by the church... ;D

But that's where modern jazz and blues broke the mold and set the standard which is still the cornerstone of popular music. The tension-filled chords do not have to resolve. They can be the tonic, the strong chord, the foundation of the entire chord structure and progression.

Enter the Brian Wilson connections.

The Four Freshmen for the most obvious example had arrangements which featured what jazzers call the "tritone substitution" technique in their charts. Some of those vocal harmonies that people would hear and describe as "thick", "complex", "jazzy"...often it was based on this technique of chord substitution and specifically tritone substitution. Back to that A7 example, all they'd need to do is if that A7 were in a song, one of the voices would raise the root note A a half step, and it became the diminished chord...which would have more impact and more jazzy sounds than a stock A7 stacking of voices or parts. They'd do the same with the flat 9 chord, and a whole host of other go-to techniques that you learn and add to the bag of tricks as you learn them, for use in your own musical explorations or jobs to come.

So beyond his obvious use of dominant 7th chords as mentioned (any blues-based song form he wrote has them, as do most of his tunes), listen to Brian's work for some of these Freshmen-like "jazzy" harmonies, and you'll find him pulling from the same well of technique and influence. You'll hear these diminished chord "tritone substitutions", tensions atop dominant 7th chords like the flat 9, sharp 9 (the "Hendrix chord" sound) and 13ths, sharp 11ths, etc...and also the type of tensions and upper structure triads (example, a Bb/C substitution acting as the dominant V in the key of F, the famed 'Brian Wilson Chord') that were the hallmark of some of his best works.

Here's the payoff.

God Only Knows.

   D/A          Bm6
   I may not always love you
   F#m F#m7                 F#m6/A
   But long as there are stars above you
   E/B           Cdim
   You never need to doubt it
   E/B                    A#m7-5
   I'll make you so sure about it
   A              E/G#                            F#m7       (E)
   God only knows what I'd be without you


The chord struck under the word NEED, C diminished, is the all-out full diminished, "diablo musica", multi-purpose unsettled chord built entirely on tritone intervals. C-Eb-Gb-A. If you spell it in sharps...it becomes C-D#-F#-A. The B7th chord which in traditional harmony leads to an E major to be "settled", is spelled out B-D#-F#-A, 1-3-5-b7.

What Brian did was the classic tritone substitution. He raised the root of that chord a half step (B up to C), and it becomes a fully diminished chord with the same tritone as the B7, but with even more tension and character...and, as tradition would dictate, he resolves it to E. Well, in Brian's case E major with the 5th in the bass, otherwise known as "second inversion" in theory terms.

The chord struck under the word SURE is in music theory terms a "Half Diminished", a favorite again of the jazzers, and basically a minor 7th chord with a flatted 5th degree (or as the poster above called it, the raised 4th). Same interval, but in jazz terms it's more often seen as flat 5. A# - C# - E - G#, 1-b3-b5-b7. To make it full diminished, the G# would be dropped to G natural to create the two tritones in that chord. This substitution leads the E-G# right to the following A major chord (in traditional Bach style counterpoint, the V resolving to the I) while the C# is a common tone between both chords and the A# resolves beautifully down a half step to A, the root of the next chord.

So yes, on perhaps Brian's most heralded and beloved composition, he's incorporating tritones, full and half diminished chords, jazz substitutions, tension-resolution, modulations, the whole ball of wax.

Not bad for a 24 year old guy with one ear and no formal schooling in music.

Great stuff, guitarfool! Thanks!

Guitarfool that’s exactly the explanation I was looking for, and more! Will delve more into it later, but I’m really intrigued by that GOK part of your post.

You just melted my mind. Thank you for that, guitarfool.

Very cool!

I just noticed too how those substitutions Brian used on the GOK chords allowed for a really, really cool bass movement to develop under the chords, whereas if he had used the "standard" dominant 7th chords instead of the tritone substitutions, the bass motion would not have been as interesting. If you play those voicings on the piano and hit that bass movement with the left hand, it creates a really interesting motion based on half-steps and the chromatic approach versus wide leaps in the bass voice, especially in that one section of the form.

There is a reason, I'd say, why the song is so highly regarded among musicians too, and it includes some of the smallest details like what bass notes he's voicing under those chords.  :)

Woo hoo! Love this stuff!

Guitarfool, thanks for explaining that (a lot of it is beyond me, but I did try to keep up). 

I think the story about the tritone being banned by the church is myth, though. 

Any chance you want to deconstruct the opening bars of Let the Wind Blow and tell me why they make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up? 

It’s not myth. It really was.

Yes, and 3/4 time was the favoured time signature because of the holy trinity. That's why it's called perfect time.

Beach Boys. Sgt. Pepper is a fine album, and Penny/Strawberry are fantastic, But Smiley Smile/Wild Honey hold up so much more in these times. I find them more compelling and interesting. If Smile had been released, it would be no contest whatsoever. I think Pepper, to me at least, suffers from a song-writing perspective for most album tracks, and is often made up by the heavy production. There aren't a lot of super strong songs besides a few if you pull back the bells and whistles. Smiley Smile and Honey are very home-grown like albums, mostly recorded in Brian's house, with very minimal production but insanely powerful and great songs underneath it all. Not saying big grand production is bad by any means, have you heard Pet Sounds or Smile? What matters at the end of the day is the songs behind all the production, or at the very least you need a good balance between song and production. Smiley Smile / Wild Honey very much have the right mixture. The Beach Boys could do a lot with a little, where I feel like the Beatles in 1967 had to compensate and catch up in that sense. (The White Album made up for these mistakes, improving immensely on songwriting.)