RS's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time - Beach Boys take up three spots.

[Rocky Raccoon]

The vocals on "If I Needed Someone" are probably some of my favorite harmonies in any song ever.

[JohnMill]

The vocals on "If I Needed Someone" are probably some of my favorite harmonies in any song ever.

"You Won't See Me" is pretty awesome too.  That and "Here There & Everywhere" are on the level of The Beach Boys in my opinion.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Does it have something to do with the fact that you like harmony based vocals better?

Maybe that's part of it. I hit submit too soon, and I edited my post a bit. Hopefully I explained it well enough.

I don't see how you can like music at all and not like the Beatles.  That just doesn't make sense in my mind.

I do think they were great songwriters, but I prefer some of the covers of their work to the originals. It's mainly stuff like 'Love Me Do' and 'Mr Moonlight' that grate  on me. I do like the later stuff. The thing is, I hate how most people act like they were the be all and end all of 60s music; they weren't. Culturally, well, yeah. And yes, they influenced a lot of artists. But (and again, this is only my opinion), other artists took that influence and improved on it.

[Runaways]

"here, there and everywhere" is one of the songs i just never got, it's really overrated for me and the harmonies are pretty mediocre too.  "Because" though, thaat is some great harmony.  And "this boy" is soooo good.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

"here, there and everywhere" is one of the songs i just never got, it's really overrated for me and the harmonies are pretty mediocre too.  .

Huh...that's actually one of the songs I *do* like.

[JohnMill]

"here, there and everywhere" is one of the songs i just never got, it's really overrated for me and the harmonies are pretty mediocre too.  

I disagree but will admit I never fully appreciated the harmonies until they got a fresh mix for "Anthology 2" where they paired them with Paul's scratch vocal.  I really like that outtake and it's probably one of my personal highlights of the entire "Anthology" series.

[Runaways]

"here, there and everywhere" is one of the songs i just never got, it's really overrated for me and the harmonies are pretty mediocre too.  .

Huh...that's actually one of the songs I *do* like.

well i'm kinda weird and "revolver" overall just kinda grates on me.  I like some individual tracks, but meh.  There's a lot of beatles i love, but then there's other stuff other people love and it just doesn't hit me at all.  I think my analogy is gonna be my opinion on asian girls, i can look at them and appreciate that they're really pretty, but i'm just not attracted to them.  

[JohnMill]

I don't see how you can like music at all and not like the Beatles.  That just doesn't make sense in my mind.

I do think they were great songwriters, but I prefer some of the covers of their work to the originals. It's mainly stuff like 'Love Me Do' and 'Mr Moonlight' that grate  on me. I do like the later stuff. The thing is, I hate how most people act like they were the be all and end all of 60s music; they weren't. Culturally, well, yeah. And yes, they influenced a lot of artists. But (and again, this is only my opinion), other artists took that influence and improved on it.

I have to disagree with you there Billy.  In my opinion the sixties produced a ton of great artists and great songs for that matter but to me each one of those acts were flawed in some way The Beatles weren't.  I'll just use The Beach Boys for example:  The Beach Boys to me have both the greatest album of all time ("Pet Sounds") and the greatest single of all time ("Good Vibrations") in their trophy closet along with a ton of other well deserved kudos and accolades.  That being said there are songs in the canon (and I'm not talking post sixties either) that are downright cringeworthy and embarrassing particularly coming from an band of their high standards.

For me The Beatles don't have anything remotely like that in their closet (that they released officially anyhow).  "Mr. Moonlight" isn't a great song, but it has a great vocal by John Lennon on it.  Likewise a few months ago I made the point that "Little Child" wasn't all that great either but it's once again saved by a great Lennon vocal.  The point being that in my opinion every Beatles song has something to recommend it.  Most of the time both the songwriting and the execution were there but even when only one was present the result was better than what most of their contemporaries could muster.

[Runaways]

i've said i think the best of the beach boys beats the beatles, but the worst of the boys is worse than anything the beatles ever approached.  However, sometimes i don't believe what the beatles are singing.  Sometimes i felt like they were just singing lyrics instead of feeling them.  That's probably blasphemy, but i don't mean it for every song or something.  I don't feel like they exposed themselves emotionally very much, and that kinda dampens certain songs for me because it doesn't feel real.  and that's really the only problem i've had with them.  they're still objectively the best ever.  

[Justin]

Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are still two of the most recognizable musicians in the world. 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/who-is-paul-mccartney

[JohnMill]

Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are still two of the most recognizable musicians in the world.  

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/who-is-paul-mccartney

Morons.  Nuff Said.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I'll just use The Beach Boys for example:  The Beach Boys to me have both the greatest album of all time ("Pet Sounds") and the greatest single of all time ("Good Vibrations") in their trophy closet along with a ton of other well deserved kudos and accolades.  That being said there are songs in the canon (and I'm not talking post sixties either) that are downright cringeworthy and embarrassing particularly coming from an band of their high standards.

Well, yeah. Actually, the clunkers from the pre-1965 era I find worse than even the cheesiest post-1976 material. That being said, even the worst songs from 1967-1972 to me (stressing this is only my opinion) are better than 90% of anything else ever recorded. I find even the misses fascinating. Hell, I can find something to like out of just about every song from Pet Sounds on, even when the material is terrible. They may be a lot of things, but they were never boring. Sometimes,it comes just from being interesting from a trainwreck standpoint. So, (repeat after me: in my opinion) even at their worst they have that going for them.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

However, sometimes i don't believe what the beatles are singing.  Sometimes i felt like they were just singing lyrics instead of feeling them.  That's probably blasphemy, but i don't mean it for every song or something.  I don't feel like they exposed themselves emotionally very much, and that kinda dampens certain songs for me because it doesn't feel real.

Hmm...that may be a part of it for me, too. I think that may be why a lot of the poppier earlier songs just leave me cold. I find songs like 'Can't Buy Me Love" and "She Loves Me" to be great pop songs, but I don't get that charge out of them. They just don't get my buy-in. Now, take something bad from the Beach Boys. Let's say...um...'I'm Begging You Please'. Horrible vocal, yet there's something endearing in its awfulness. Brian's vocal imparts this kind of desperation, this tortured soul craving love and warmth, as his ruined voice struggles to hit notes that he used to hit effortlessly. Yet, if anybody else were to try to sing it, it'd not be worth even listening to.

[Ziggy Stardust]

DON'T YOU GET IT ?

THEY WERE GREAT.

G R E A T.

[runnersdialzero]

GREAT. Isn't this GREAT? GOD DAAAMN, THIS IS GREAT. Look, they're gonna kill that guy, isn't that GREAT? THAT'S GREAT.

[Ziggy Stardust]

[JohnMill]

FAB

[RubberSoul13]

Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are still two of the most recognizable musicians in the world. 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/who-is-paul-mccartney

At least they heard his name and took the time to say that, do you think they even gave an f--- when they heard the name...Mike Love! They were probably too busy watching Maroon 5 to even wonder why their grandparents were on stage.

[Ziggy Stardust]

That post didn't really make any sense at all brah, just sayin'.

[Cabinessenceking]

I think the Beatles were great songwriters (well, maybe not Ringo ), but I don't really care for the vocals at all.

*runs*

Ringo was a below average vocalist, George was an acquired taste but I'd be interested to know why you don't care for either John Lennon or Paul McCartney, who many consider to have two of the best "rock and roll" voices in the history of the industry?

TBH

I am a big Beatles fan myself, but when it comes to my beatles list, hardly any McCartney tracks make my cut. A coulpe of George songs are around, but its predominantly Lennon material. I think it is better, I can connect with it, his vocals had much more soul attached to it, Lennon was a more interesting person (this ultimately cost him his life). Lennon was the main guy, even in Hamburg he was beyond anything people had ever seen or seen since. Lennon's death was a huge loss. I value him much higher than McCartney who generally wrote pointless ditties about nothing (Hello Goodbye, Helter Skelter, Let It Be etc...). He just didnt make Lennons level in my eyes.

AND YES, there are 4-5 too many Beatles albums on that list.
IMO the only ones that should make the cut are:
Please Please Me
Hard Days Night
Rubber Soul
Revolver
Sgt Pepper

White album is too long and filled with too much junk to make it really, Abbey Road is sugar, rest is self explaining...
And I'm a big Beatles fan mind you, just a balanced one, not a slave of their legacy.

[runnersdialzero]

Much more a fan of McCartney's voice (very much so - there are only a few Lennon performances that I actually enjoy), songs, and as a person. Those "pointless ditties" connect with me more than most of Lennon's stuff. Not saying I dislike John's stuff, but very much prefer McCartney.

Also, Ringo sounds fan-fucking-tastic on "With A Little Help From My Friends". Don't be h8in'.

[kookadams]

How did Sunflower miss the cut? Oh, I forgot, they can't give the Beach Boys 4 albums! Even though every Beatles album is on there!

Yeah! f*** rolling stone, what a joke!! The Beatles get too much goshdarn credit-
The Beach Boys should have Pet Sounds, Smile, Today, Sunflower, Little Deuce Coupe, 20/20, Surfin USA and so on..

[MaxL]

I don't like The Beatles. I appreciate their influence but they're not for me. No amount of sensible discussion or trolling (I see Ziggy's kindly stepped up since some of the other resident trolls have become less active) is going to persuade me otherwise. Anyone who says I can't be a music fan because of this needs to get off their high horse.

Please just accept this as my own worthless opinion.

[Cabinessenceking]

The Who have 6 of their 10 studio albums on the list and one live album.

WHY IS NOT 'IN CONCERT' ON THAT LIST?
It is an impeccable live album by any standards, lots of very well known songs and many deep cuts. Why it is not more recognised as one of the best live albums out there i don't know.  

The performances on that live album are quite remarkable and the arrangments are unique and often very different from the studio versions thus adding to its special feel. If there really were to be 4 BB albums on Rolling Stone's list I would vouch for In Concert's inclusion as a great live album.

[Runaways]

funny the who is all over the list.  RS did rank as #13 artists all time though.  Just a little odd why they don't have more album showings.