SMiLE Sessions box set!

[Ron]

... and most of those people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground   60's music rocks.  The Beatles Rock.  The Beach Boys Rock.  Life Rocks. 

Hating a band because they're beautiful : Doesn't Rock. 

[Austin]

The Beatles could never release a box set like The Beach Boys are going to do on 11/1.  They've boxed themselves in from a commercial standpoint where every release bearing the name "Beatles" has to be some type of musical revelation.

I don't understand where this is coming from. The Smile box set is built entirely on the notion that what the Beach Boys were doing was going to be a musical revelation. And the Beatles have plenty of releases that aren't grand in scope -- the Yellow Submarine Songtrack, Let It Be...Naked, and Live at the BBC come to mind. I mean, sure, every release gets tons of praise, but I don't recall anybody writing about Love being some major artistic achievement.

If this is not the result and prime example of the cultural conditioning of Beatles aggrandizement and idolatry, then i don't know what is.

You can recognize that something is great and not care for it, which is exactly how I feel about a lot of Beatles music. My guess is that most Beatles dissenters here are like that and people are confusing that with arguments that the Beatles just weren't a good band. Arguing that the Beatles weren't artistically or culturally significant would be pretty close-minded, regardless of whether you actually enjoy listening to them.

[Shady]

Hey Shady, when is Smile going to be released? So you think Smile will be released on November 1, 2011? Did you order Smile yet? Where did you order Smile? How much money did you pay for Smile? Did you get a good deal with Amazon for Smile? Can you afford the Smile box set? Did you order all three Smile sets? What's the track list for the Smile sets? What's going to be in the SMiLE sets that we haven't heard before? Was Smile the best music the Beach Boys ever recorded? What's your favorite Smile track? Which version of Heroes & Villians do you like? Stereo or mono Smile recordings, Shady?
 
ROTFLMAO!

I'd love to answer those questions , shame you're being a sarcastic prick for no reason

[monicker]

There is a line of thinking throughout some of these last posts that is akin to religious fundamentalism. The bogus notion that the beatles are infallible, that to dislike them is simply an impossibility, that it must be for spurious reasons. Ah, good old beatles brainwashing.

[?]

Beatles in the Smile thread?  The Hoffman forum is that way...  

[Mikie]

What conditioning. I grew up with the Beatles, Beach Boys, and Stones, along with MANY other 50's, 60's, and 70's bands and solo artists. I wasn't "conditioned" by either the band, the fans, family, friends, radio, TV, or any other media other than the records. I always had my free choice of bands to like - I think for myself and nobody influenced me to like any band more that the other. I collected all of the Beatles and Beach Boys records and memorabilia the same. I never "idolized" anybody, including rock bands.

What it gets down to is that some people have good taste in music and some.......  

LOL!!  OMG!!  WTF!!  

[Dunderhead]

I think they were significant, but their influence was negative. Particularly the White Album, which is where a lot of the insufferable rockism of popular music comes from. It's an album that's amazingly pretentious about not being pretentious. What was cool about the 60's was these bands challenging what rock and roll was. Brian was really moving beyond that, embracing the unlimited infinite possibilities of psychedelic music. Wasn't that the whole point? Artistic freedom? Not being confined and bogged down with artificial notions of what music was or had to be? Brian ditched the notion of the band entirely, and was just doing a full modern orchestra that took advantage of all the cool possibilities of the modern studio. This is what the Beatles supposedly stood for as well, but, well, White Album.
I can at least appreciate the Pepper-era music, you know, music about their development as people. It was a concept where they tried to sluff off all the artiface that had hardened around them during their breakthrough years. Pepper was them doing something honest, talking about who they were and where they came from and what they loved. Breaking through the limitations they had placed on them.
But then they turned right around and did S/T. An album that launched generations of musicians on some bogus quest for rock and roll authenticity. When really psychedelic music was about being honest it's like they came along and killed the whole thing and codified a bunch of silly tropes and cliches and wrapped themselves in this bullshit cloak of "rock and roll".

[Mikie]

I'd love to answer those questions , shame you're being a sarcastic prick for no reason.

Whose being a prick, Shady? I haven't been here in awhile. You post on this thread just about every day, right? I figure you're the go-to guy for the lastest of the greatest updates to the Smile release.  Anything change lately? C'mon, please give me some answers, from one Irishman to another.  

[brother john]

People are really uptight about it.
I just don't know what's so great about them.

There is a dark part of your soul which I find sad and disturbing. Maybe you just hate Scousers?

[Andrew G. Doe]

There aren't really too many Beatles songs I like. I used to absolutely hate them and every song they ever did.

Unbelievable.  Just................unbelievable. Yet you're an extreme SMiLE fanatic who knows every little snippet ever bootlegged and what's been released and what hasn't. I don't get it. Same decade, same genre of music, same label, names that began with BEA, writers who were born two days apart, Rolling Stone's number 1 album of 500 (Sgt. Pepper's), same two bands who admired one another and were influenced by the same legendary rocker(s). By the end of 1966 (when most of SMiLE was recorded) the Beatles had 20 top 10 hits and the Beach Boys had 13. That means that they were in the top 10 at the same time from '63 to '66. But set aside all that for a minute. The melodies and lyrics, the innovative productions, the instrumental tracks (played with instruments mostly by the Beatles themselves) the vocals and harmonies, the powerhouse songwriting team, the influence in hair/dress style; what else ya want? Oh yeah, the FANTASTIC ageless music from a band who continues to sell millions of records and will endure through many generations to come.

But there "aren't too many Beatle songs to like".  I think maybe that's the first time I ever heard of someone say that. Ever.

Problem I have with The Beatles is, they're not as good as their most rabid fans - that is, pretty much all of them - would have us believe. Don't get me wrong, they were very good, sometimes great and on occasion, outstanding ("Tomorrow never Knows" is one of my all time top 10 songs, and always will be - still blows my mind), but to hear a Beatles fan talk, you'd think they did everything first and best in between brokering world peace and finding a cure for cancer. No-one's that good. God isn't that good. The Beatles are very possibly the most over-rated band in rock history (only challenger - The Smiths), but only because they've been invested with a messianic aura. They're just four guys who made fine music. That's all. And some of it wasn't very good.

[Mikie]

That said, Andrew, who do you think my favorite band is?  Granted the order of preference could change on any given day, but based on your intuitiveness, who do you think my favorite band is?

Happy Birthday by the way, sir. 

There. Now I don't have to post it on your Facebook page, the lazy butt I am!

[brother john]

I love the Beatles but I can understand why some aren't drawn to them.  Compared to the BB their music lacks depth [...]

Oh come on... I'm not even going to bother going to YouTube for some links to prove to you what you must already know, that the above statement is patent nonsense.

Brian Wilson was musically more sophisticated, but one should not deny the Beatles their own innate sense of how to create, express and resolve musical ideas. BW used a lot of Maj7s and Bm7b5ths, whereas the Beatles tended, with perhaps a more cold, Northern sensibility compared that of Southern California, tended towards straighter majors and minors. This doesn't mean that the Beatles weren't sophisticated. They were natural craftsmen.

[monicker]

This:

I think they were significant, but their influence was negative. Particularly the White Album, which is where a lot of the insufferable rockism of popular music comes from. It's an album that's amazingly pretentious about not being pretentious. What was cool about the 60's was these bands challenging what rock and roll was. Brian was really moving beyond that, embracing the unlimited infinite possibilities of psychedelic music. Wasn't that the whole point? Artistic freedom? Not being confined and bogged down with artificial notions of what music was or had to be? Brian ditched the notion of the band entirely, and was just doing a full modern orchestra that took advantage of all the cool possibilities of the modern studio. This is what the Beatles supposedly stood for as well, but, well, White Album.
I can at least appreciate the Pepper-era music, you know, music about their development as people. It was a concept where they tried to sluff off all the artiface that had hardened around them during their breakthrough years. Pepper was them doing something honest, talking about who they were and where they came from and what they loved. Breaking through the limitations they had placed on them.
But then they turned right around and did S/T. An album that launched generations of musicians on some bogus quest for rock and roll authenticity. When really psychedelic music was about being honest it's like they came along and killed the whole thing and codified a bunch of silly tropes and cliches and wrapped themselves in this bullsh*t cloak of "rock and roll".

and:

Problem I have with The Beatles is, they're not as good as their most rabid fans - that is, pretty much all of them - would have us believe. Don't get me wrong, they were very good, sometimes great and on occasion, outstanding ("Tomorrow never Knows" is one of my all time top 10 songs, and always will be - still blows my mind), but to hear a Beatles fan talk, you'd think they did everything first and best in between brokering world peace and finding a cure for cancer. No-one's that good. God isn't that good. The Beatles are very possibly the most over-rated band in rock history (only challenger - The Smiths), but only because they've been invested with a messianic aura. They're just four guys who made fine music. That's all. And some of it wasn't very good.

Both excellent points. And coming from two guys who don't even get along. Imagine that.

Given the treatment that the Beetuls have received over the decades, and undoubtedly will continue to receive, there is nothing for them to be other than overrated. It's certainly not their fault.  

"Rock and Roll is a thing that needs to die."

[Paulos]

Being a fan of The Beatles led me to me being a fan of The Beach Boys, I love both but don't see the point in comparing them. For me it's great being a fan of both - so much amazing music to enjoy!

Anyways, back to the topic which this thread is about, I am really, really excited about hearing a clean, properly mastered version of Mrs O'Leary's Cow, same goes for Child Is Father of the Man, Look & Holidays.

[Wirestone]

Problem I have with The Beatles is, they're not as good as their most rabid fans - that is, pretty much all of them - would have us believe. Don't get me wrong, they were very good, sometimes great and on occasion, outstanding ("Tomorrow never Knows" is one of my all time top 10 songs, and always will be - still blows my mind), but to hear a Beatles fan talk, you'd think they did everything first and best in between brokering world peace and finding a cure for cancer. No-one's that good. God isn't that good. The Beatles are very possibly the most over-rated band in rock history (only challenger - The Smiths), but only because they've been invested with a messianic aura. They're just four guys who made fine music. That's all. And some of it wasn't very good.

True as far as it goes, but I'm not sure how far that is.

The point, to me, is the group's consistency. They really didn't ever make a bad album, and they broke up at the perfect time with a perfect sendoff album. No one else has really matched their sense of timing, of both following and setting trends, and the way in which the contrasting personalities in the group combined to make something greater than the sum of its parts.

I guess the problem with them is that it can be hard to have perspective on something so ingrained in our culture. It's like: We all agree they're good. Why both talking about it any further? And second, they probably overthought those later albums. Thus, they bear the blame for not only back-to-basics rockism, but also prog.

[STE]

Out of all the 248 pages, these last ones about the Beatles have been the most boring and pointless. For me.

[monicker]

The Residents were on to something with the artwork for their first record.  

[Dunderhead]

I instantly thought of the beach boys and beatles when I read this section from Hoffmann's Tobias Martin Master Cooper and His Men the other day:


"I remembered a pretty tale of a matter which happened some time ago in Italy when I happened to be there. I should like to tell it to you, as it shows very vividly what true friendship can accomplish"
"It so happened that a certain noble prince, a zealous friend and protector of the arts, offered a valuable prize for a picture, the subject of which, very interesting, and not overdifficult to treat, was duly announced. Two young painters, who were close friends, determined to compete for this prize. They were in the habit of working together; they told each other their respective ideas on the subject, showed each other their sketches for it, and talked much together as to the difficulties to be overcome. The older of the two, who had soon grasped the idea of his picture, had sketched it, and was helping the younger with all his power; for the latter was so discouraged at the very threshold of his sketch for the picture, that he would have given up all idea of going on had not the elder unceasingly encouraged him, and given him advice and suggestions.
"Now when they began to paint their pictures, the younger, who was a master of color, was able the elder many suggestions, which he skillfully used; thus, the elder had never colored a picture so well, and the younger had never drawn one so well. When the pictures were finished, the masters embraced each other, each of them inwardly delighted with the work of the other, and each convinced that the well-earned prize belonged of right to the other.
"The younger, however, was the winner of the prize; upon which he cried out, thoroughly ashamed: 'Why should I have it? What is my merit compared to my friend's? I could not have accomplished anything worthy of praise but for his help.' But the elder spake thus: 'And did you not help me with valuable counsel and advice? No doubt my picture is by no means bad; but you have got the prize, as was proper. To strive towards the same goal, bravely and openly, that is real friendship. Then the laurel which the victor gains honors the vanquished too. I like you all the more for your having labored so doughtily, and brought me, too, honor and renown by your victory.'"

[Mikie]

Out of all the 248 pages, these last ones about the Beatles have been the most boring and pointless. For me.

You're kidding, STE.  Did you forget the countless posts on this thread speculating about Smile release dates?

[brother john]

One of the reasons that the Beatles are venerated is not just because of their music but because of the breath of cultural fresh air that they brought to life both here in the UK and over in the States. They brought irreverence, wit (which is different from just humour, which they had lots of too) and an emourse sense of possibility to the world, and they did an enormous amount in the UK (and for all I know elsewhere) to emancipate the Northern (and Southern) working class, making them culturally credible and breaking the hegemony of the middle and upper classes.

The Beatles did an enormous amount for Britain and its sense of itself at a crucial point in history, and in a way we love them because they stand for something we value about ourselves.

It's hard to be critical of the Beatles because they were so influential (and clearly so good) and I agree there is a bit of a critical vacuum in debates. But the same can be said of other bands such as the Stones (amateurs... ) and there's a certain amount of that around here too when it comes to our guys!!.

But the reverence shouldn't be overstated. Lots of young people today have no interest in the Beatles at all, and only like house, rap, R&B, whatever. Most of the reverence comes from people who grew up with the records because they were there first time around, or because their parents who are old played the records as they grew up.

But also, I think some of the antagonism to the Beatles on this down to good old-fashioned team rivalry, and good perhaps also a smattering of old-fashioned anti-Englishness!

[Ebb and Flow]

I love the Beatles but I can understand why some aren't drawn to them.  Compared to the BB their music lacks depth [...]

Oh come on... I'm not even going to bother going to YouTube for some links to prove to you what you must already know, that the above statement is patent nonsense.

I simply find that the music of the Beach Boys is more rewarding musically.  I don't think that's an especially controversial statement or attitude to have, particularly on a BB message board.  And it's not "patent nonsense" , just my opinion.

Brian Wilson was musically more sophisticated, but one should not deny the Beatles their own innate sense of how to create, express and resolve musical ideas. BW used a lot of Maj7s and Bm7b5ths, whereas the Beatles tended, with perhaps a more cold, Northern sensibility compared that of Southern California, tended towards straighter majors and minors. This doesn't mean that the Beatles weren't sophisticated. They were natural craftsmen.

You seem to have read a lot out of a small part of a short sentence.  I love the Beatles, but like you say it's typically just straight chords and simple progressions.  Their harmonies were usually simple block stuff.  And when it comes to both arrangement and production, what The Beatles, George Martin and their team of engineers did doesn't hold a candle to what Brian was doing on his off days.  That's one of the biggest things that sets them apart from the BB's to me.

I find the sophistication lies in the fairly short progression from boy/girl pop to more introspective and artful material...when they could have easily "stuck with the formula" and coasted.  And the two-part harmonies on many of their lead vocals are outstanding when examined closely.  There's sophistication in their music but to me it's just not as appealing as what Brian did.

[Mikie]

It's [Beatle music] typically just straight chords and simple progressions.  Their harmonies were usually simple block stuff.

Sometimes less is more.

[Dove Nested Towers]

The Beatles music is full of intelligence and stunning universal appeal. They were truly amazing, if a bit detached and calculatingly aloof. They captured lightning in a bottle and rode the tail of the tiger for years, at no small cost. They had a powerful sense of themselves and their moment and always rose to the occasion in the studio. I am astounded by anyone who doesn't grasp the enormity and power of their overall merit. Not everything they did was perfect by any means, and they could be cloying, but they can't possibly be "overrated".

[Iron Horse-Apples]

It's not the Beatles I hate, but Beatles fans.

Especially ones who are unable to grasp the fact that you might not agree with them and share their tastes.

I've always found Beatles fans are the potential suicide bombers of the rock world.

[Andrew G. Doe]

So... how 'bout that Smile box set, huh ? I hear it's gon' be some good.