Beach Boys beat Beatles in 1966 music polls

[Moon Dawg]

I like both.

There seems to be some weird mindset that people have to somehow defend the Beach Boys by dismissing the Beatles, which I think is flat out wrong. Both bands are superb and owe a great deal to each other. Without one, we may never have gotten the best the other had to offer. I don't want to let this turn into some hating-on-the-Beatles thread.

Also, to say that Beach Boys made more substance than the Beatles is really just flat-out wrong. Up to 1965, the Beatles had practically made filler-less albums, while there were a great deal of duff tracks on each Beach Boy album up that point. Then, 1966 and Pet Sounds rolled around, both made perhaps their best albums, and then the Beach Boys went off and started making albums with throwaway tracks once again. The Beatles stayed consistently strong (though, I'll admit, they had some weak songs scattered throughout their next albums), both musically and lyrically. The Beach Boys, not so much.

Like I said, though, I love both bands. Both are giants of the 60's and music wouldn't be the same without them.

  I like The Beach Boys better than The Beatles.
  I like The Rolling Stones better than The Beatles.
  I like Elvis more than The Beatles.

[alf wiedersehen]

I like The Beach Boys better than The Beatles.
I like The Rolling Stones better than The Beatles.
I like Elvis more than The Beatles.

So?

[pixletwin]

  I like The Beach Boys better than The Beatles.
  I like The Rolling Stones better than The Beatles.
  I like Elvis more than The Beatles.

[Moon Dawg]

  I like The Beach Boys better than The Beatles.
  I like The Rolling Stones better than The Beatles.
  I like Elvis more than The Beatles.

  Who gives a sh*t? You I guess, since you were compelled to respond. Thanks Pixietwin.

[Mike's Beard]

I like The Archies more than The Beatles.

[Dancing Bear]

"The Cowsills Plus The Lincoln Park Zoo" totally slams Sgt Pepper.

[pixletwin]

Thanks Pixietwin.

You're welcome? 

[kookadams]

I like both.

There seems to be some weird mindset that people have to somehow defend the Beach Boys by dismissing the Beatles, which I think is flat out wrong. Both bands are superb and owe a great deal to each other. Without one, we may never have gotten the best the other had to offer. I don't want to let this turn into some hating-on-the-Beatles thread.

Also, to say that Beach Boys made more substance than the Beatles is really just flat-out wrong. Up to 1965, the Beatles had practically made filler-less albums, while there were a great deal of duff tracks on each Beach Boy album up that point. Then, 1966 and Pet Sounds rolled around, both made perhaps their best albums, and then the Beach Boys went off and started making albums with throwaway tracks once again. The Beatles stayed consistently strong (though, I'll admit, they had some weak songs scattered throughout their next albums), both musically and lyrically. The Beach Boys, not so much.

Like I said, though, I love both bands. Both are giants of the 60's and music wouldn't be the same without them.

so.... because the BBs had one or two filler joke tracks on a album here or there it meams the beatles made nothin but solid albums? Thats new to me, the beatles shoulda quit making albums after revolver like the BBs shoulda after holland or love you... I dont undermine the beatles, they had some catchy tunes but the hype was/is pretty ridiculous and overdone. Paul was a great composer almost as good as brian but not exactly, lennon on the otherhand was the equalivent to mike love, so much ego....

[alf wiedersehen]

so.... because the BBs had one or two filler joke tracks on a album here or there it meams the beatles made nothin but solid albums? Thats new to me

Did you even read what I said? Because I didn't say that. That doesn't even make sense.
It's like you misunderstand points in order to not have to answer to them.

the beatles shoulda quit making albums after revolver like the BBs shoulda after holland or love you...

I disagree on both counts.

I dont undermine the beatles, they had some catchy tunes but the hype was/is pretty ridiculous and overdone.

Oh, the irony.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I dont undermine the beatles, they had some catchy tunes but the hype was/is pretty ridiculous and overdone.

Do you feel the same can be said about Shakespeare and his plays?

[kookadams]

so.... because the BBs had one or two filler joke tracks on a album here or there it meams the beatles made nothin but solid albums? Thats new to me

Did you even read what I said? Because I didn't say that. That doesn't even make sense.
It's like you misunderstand points in order to not have to answer to them.

the beatles shoulda quit making albums after revolver like the BBs shoulda after holland or love you...

I disagree on both counts.

I dont undermine the beatles, they had some catchy tunes but the hype was/is pretty ridiculous and overdone.

Oh, the irony.

no I know what ya mean, hard to type everything on this touch-screen tablet

[rogerlancelot]

I like The Archies more than The Beatles.

I would pay good money to see an Archies reunion concert. If only they could find Jughead.....

[RangeRoverA1]

I like Eleanor Rigby more than Good Vibrations

Weird pairing. They sound nothing alike. GV is more complex, layers of harmonies & all. But I'd take both songs.

[kookadams]

I like Eleanor Rigby more than Good Vibrations

Weird pairing. They sound nothing alike. GV is more complex, layers of harmonies & all. But I'd take both songs.

good vibrations is not ony THE greatest single ever made, but about as complex as it gets....the epitome of brilliance.

[Gabo]

I like both.


Also, to say that Beach Boys made more substance than the Beatles is really just flat-out wrong. Up to 1965, the Beatles had practically made filler-less albums, while there were a great deal of duff tracks on each Beach Boy album up that point. Then, 1966 and Pet Sounds rolled around, both made perhaps their best albums, and then the Beach Boys went off and started making albums with throwaway tracks once again. The Beatles stayed consistently strong (though, I'll admit, they had some weak songs scattered throughout their next albums), both musically and lyrically. The Beach Boys, not so much.

Like I said, though, I love both bands. Both are giants of the 60's and music wouldn't be the same without them.

I think The Beach Boys were always a much more lightweight group than The Beatles. That's not a bad thing.

[Mr. Verlander]

I like The Archies more than The Beatles.

I would pay good money to see an Archies reunion concert. If only they could find Jughead.....

Hate to break the news to you...  http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/08/showbiz/archie-comics-death/

[Fire Wind]

I agree about rock n' roll music up to 1966, without necessarily saying that music generally was better before that.  It changed.  After 1966, it was kinda pear-shaped for the earlier pop bands.  There's a washed out feel to stuff post-Revolver.  The original energy had gone.  Bands who were new produced stronger, more potent work at that point.  Doors, Velvet Underground etc.

The Beatles didn't have singing voices, but made it okay for that to be.  You still hear people who were around then say that they didn't get what the fuss was about - they didn't have voices.   It's true in that sense.  I listen to I Get Around/Don't Worry Baby, then listen to the competition (the Hard Day's Night album) and the latter sounds hopelessly colourless and amateur, like any bloke on the street was just having a go.  But the Beatles pushed through with 'personality' (you end up liking John singing because it's John singing) and songwriting.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

good vibrations is not ony THE greatest single ever made, but about as complex as it gets....the epitome of brilliance.

And yet I'd rather listen to Day Tripper.

[Gabo]

I agree about rock n' roll music up to 1966, without necessarily saying that music generally was better before that.  It changed.  After 1966, it was kinda pear-shaped for the earlier pop bands.  There's a washed out feel to stuff post-Revolver.  The original energy had gone.  Bands who were new produced stronger, more potent work at that point.  Doors, Velvet Underground etc.

The Beatles didn't have singing voices, but made it okay for that to be.  You still hear people who were around then say that they didn't get what the fuss was about - they didn't have voices.   It's true in that sense.  I listen to I Get Around/Don't Worry Baby, then listen to the competition (the Hard Day's Night album) and the latter sounds hopelessly colourless and amateur, like any bloke on the street was just having a go.  But the Beatles pushed through with 'personality' (you end up liking John singing because it's John singing) and songwriting.

John Lennon and Paul McCartney are two of the greatest singers in rock history. I've never heard a Beach Boy sing as well as John in Sexy Sadie.

Besides Carl, the Boys had a tendency to just sing the composed notes. Lennon-McCartney were leagues above them in sheer expressiveness.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Sorry, we expect a much higher standard of trolling on this forum. 3/10, must try harder. 

[Gabo]

Im not a troll im an antihero

[rogerlancelot]

I agree about rock n' roll music up to 1966, without necessarily saying that music generally was better before that.  It changed.  After 1966, it was kinda pear-shaped for the earlier pop bands.  There's a washed out feel to stuff post-Revolver.  The original energy had gone.  Bands who were new produced stronger, more potent work at that point.  Doors, Velvet Underground etc.

The Beatles didn't have singing voices, but made it okay for that to be.  You still hear people who were around then say that they didn't get what the fuss was about - they didn't have voices.   It's true in that sense.  I listen to I Get Around/Don't Worry Baby, then listen to the competition (the Hard Day's Night album) and the latter sounds hopelessly colourless and amateur, like any bloke on the street was just having a go.  But the Beatles pushed through with 'personality' (you end up liking John singing because it's John singing) and songwriting.

John Lennon and Paul McCartney are two of the greatest singers in rock history. I've never heard a Beach Boy sing as well as John in Sexy Sadie.

Besides Carl, the Boys had a tendency to just sing the composed notes. Lennon-McCartney were leagues above them in sheer expressiveness.

+1 and very happy to see some love for "Sexy Sadie".

Also want to add that "Surf's Up" was a single (UK?) and is better than "Good Vibrations" to me. Hell, "Strawberry Fields Forever" smokes "Good Vibrations" compositionally and production-wise. Didn't Brian even say something to that effect ("they beat me to it") when he first heard it on the radio?

And, so sorry to hear about Archie's death. I never got the chance to hang out with him and I would have gladly taken Betty off his hands.

To those Beach Boys fans who feel that they must hate the Beatles, try this at home: listen to Magical Mystery Tour and Wild Honey back to back and then we'll talk. It's like one of them is in full color and the other is black and white.

[Moon Dawg]

I agree about rock n' roll music up to 1966, without necessarily saying that music generally was better before that.  It changed.  After 1966, it was kinda pear-shaped for the earlier pop bands.  There's a washed out feel to stuff post-Revolver.  The original energy had gone.  Bands who were new produced stronger, more potent work at that point.  Doors, Velvet Underground etc.

The Beatles didn't have singing voices, but made it okay for that to be.  You still hear people who were around then say that they didn't get what the fuss was about - they didn't have voices.   It's true in that sense.  I listen to I Get Around/Don't Worry Baby, then listen to the competition (the Hard Day's Night album) and the latter sounds hopelessly colourless and amateur, like any bloke on the street was just having a go.  But the Beatles pushed through with 'personality' (you end up liking John singing because it's John singing) and songwriting.

John Lennon and Paul McCartney are two of the greatest singers in rock history. I've never heard a Beach Boy sing as well as John in Sexy Sadie.

Besides Carl, the Boys had a tendency to just sing the composed notes. Lennon-McCartney were leagues above them in sheer expressiveness.

+1 and very happy to see some love for "Sexy Sadie".

Also want to add that "Surf's Up" was a single (UK?) and is better than "Good Vibrations" to me. Hell, "Strawberry Fields Forever" smokes "Good Vibrations" compositionally and production-wise. Didn't Brian even say something to that effect ("they beat me to it") when he first heard it on the radio?

And, so sorry to hear about Archie's death. I never got the chance to hang out with him and I would have gladly taken Betty off his hands.

To those Beach Boys fans who feel that they must hate the Beatles, try this at home: listen to Magical Mystery Tour and Wild Honey back to back and then we'll talk. It's like one of them is in full color and the other is black and white.

  "Good Vibrations" was out 3-4 months before "Strawberry Fields Forever"....your comment would make it seem otherwise to a reader unaware of the chronology. No one - not me at  least - is saying anything about hating The Beatles. It's the unquestioning worship of The Beatles that can become tiresome.

  For me Elvis Presley, The Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones, and The Who - at their best - all illuminate the human condition musically in a way The Beatles do not. It is just as true that The Beatles were far more consistent and had a better career than any of the aforementioned.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

No one - not me at  least - is saying anything about hating The Beatles. It's the unquestioning worship of The Beatles that can become tiresome.

I asked this question to an above poster (and indeed have asked it of others on this forum before) but I'd like to ask it again: would you say the same thing about Shakespeare?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Hell, "Strawberry Fields Forever" smokes "Good Vibrations" compositionally and production-wise. Didn't Brian even say something to that effect ("they beat me to it") when he first heard it on the radio?

1 - "SFF" is a better production than "GV" ?  With the world's most obvious edit ? Seriously ?

2 - As "SFF" was released some four months after "GV", Brian's alleged comment is nonsensical (and he was referring to Smile anyway).