beach boys can be considered better than beatles?

[Chris Brown]

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

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

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

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

[Sheriff John Stone]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LittleSurferGirl]

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

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

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

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

[Chris Brown]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Shady]

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

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

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

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

[TdHabib]

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

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

[Sheriff John Stone]

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

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

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

[nobody]

I really like your avatar

[Dr. Tim]

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

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

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

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

[SG7]

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

[Aegir]

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

[runnersdialzero]

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

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

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

[Aegir]

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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

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

[hypehat]

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

 

[B-Rex]

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

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

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

[Sheriff John Stone]

Looking at the best 20 singles from either band, it's a close call...

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

[Chris Brown]

Looking at the best 20 singles from either band, it's a close call...

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

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

[Sheriff John Stone]

Looking at the best 20 singles from either band, it's a close call...

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

That's very true Sheriff, the casual music-listening public does sell the Beach Boys short against the Beatles, most associating them with songs like "Kokomo" and "Barbara Ann," not realizing that songs like "Surf's Up" and "Til I Die" (just to give a few examples) exist. 

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

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

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

[MBE]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jay]

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