Overrated artists/albums

[Ana-Lu]

I think it's healthy that on a site dedicated to the Beach Boys that we can be honest and address both strengths and weaknesses, and place the group in broader contexts.  It would be really boring if all of our tastes and interests were limited to the Beach Boys, and all we did was post about how great they are over and over again.

As for the Beatles comparison, regardless of advantages and disadvantages that either group had - and regardless of personal taste -  Beatles albums simply do not contain the filler that Beach Boys albums do.  We all understand that Capitol was trying to milk the cash cow and that they put enormous pressure on Brian Wilson.  The fact that he was able to do what he did is a testament to his abilities, and sure, he would have made more consistent albums under other circumstances.  But that's not how things worked out, and you can't blame us for programming out unlistenable tracks that were the result.

[Wrightfan]

Although it's a great album, Abbey Road isn't a top 10 LP imo.

Also, count me on not really caring for Dylan.

[the captain]

Everyone on here that's saying the Beach Boys had a lotta filler on their albums and that the Beatles were more consistent etc. are joking right? Every album the Beach Boys made all the way through Love You was at least decent. Everything leading up to Pet Sounds was incredible and even after when they got more experimental they were still making masterpieces even if their records weren't commercial hits in the US. Americans in the late 60s and early 70s just bought into all the hippie garbage while the Europeans were eating it up. If the Beatles hadn't have gotten all the press and publicity and George Martin producing their music they wouldn't have been nearly as big as they were; ya gotta give Brian Wilson credit for doing it all, Lennon and McCartney would have been nothing without George Martin. It just boggles my mind how this is supposed to be a site dedicated to the Beach Boys and there's a lotta fans on here undermining their music...

               (Sorry for no lines between the quote and my post ... a friend spilled wine into my computer and "Enter" no longer works. We're drunks.) Anyway, that post is ridiculous to me. First of all, whether we're on a Beach Boys site is irrelevant. What, we can't try to be objective? We have to forsake other interests? If the Beach Boys are my second-favorite band, do I have to find a new site? Are we paid advertisers? You get the idea ... I say what I want to say, where I want. I'm not "undermining" anything; I don't pretend to be that influential.             Second (again, apologize for no line break ... damn wine), the Wilson = Lennon/McCartney/Martin/etc line is irrelevant, too. We're not saying "which individual person is better than which others?" We're talking about the general opinions of bands compared to how they are perceived, period. The end result is all we're discussing, and it isn't better or worse for having been the creation of one person versus three, four, five or however many.            Third, I enjoy how you act as if your taste somehow mattered more than others'. You say the Beach Boys had no filler. I say they were more filler than not on almost every album. So maybe YOU must be joking, right?

[Alex]

The "skits" were really the only filler the BBs had. Stuff that's commonly called "filler" like Denny's Drums, South Bay Surfer, the surf instrumentals on Surfin' USA, I actually LIKE. On Surfer Girl, Brian was already doing a majority of originals on a record when the Beatles were still in half covers/half originals mode. Brian was already using string sections, harp, organ, vibes, and harpsichord when the Beatles were still into just guitar/bass/drums/harmonica/piano. BB harmonies, even without double tracking, could beat the snot out of Beatles harmonies. Hell, Brian was doing double tracking of voices on Surfin' USA in 1963, while the Beatles wouldn't attempt that kind of stuff until songs like Nowhere Man and Paperback writer a full 2 years later. Although I like Sgt. Pepper, I think Pet Sounds is 100 times better. The Beatles never really had in their music the "personal" vibe or emotional honesty that Brian conveyed. The only reason the Beatles get all sorts of credit and the Beach Boys are left by the wayside is because the Beatles (and just about every British group from that time-don't get me wrong, I like British invasion rock) got their asses kissed by the media, and because the BBs never made any attempts at updating their cheesy striped-shirt image.

[Ana-Lu]

The "skits" were really the only filler the BBs had. Stuff that's commonly called "filler" like Denny's Drums, South Bay Surfer, the surf instrumentals on Surfin' USA, I actually LIKE. On Surfer Girl, Brian was already doing a majority of originals on a record when the Beatles were still in half covers/half originals mode. Brian was already using string sections, harp, organ, vibes, and harpsichord when the Beatles were still into just guitar/bass/drums/harmonica/piano. BB harmonies, even without double tracking, could beat the snot out of Beatles harmonies. Hell, Brian was doing double tracking of voices on Surfin' USA in 1963, while the Beatles wouldn't attempt that kind of stuff until songs like Nowhere Man and Paperback writer a full 2 years later. Although I like Sgt. Pepper, I think Pet Sounds is 100 times better. The Beatles never really had in their music the "personal" vibe or emotional honesty that Brian conveyed. The only reason the Beatles get all sorts of credit and the Beach Boys are left by the wayside is because the Beatles (and just about every British group from that time-don't get me wrong, I like British invasion rock) got their asses kissed by the media, and because the BBs never made any attempts at updating their cheesy striped-shirt image.

I agree with everything you wrote.  Still, it doesn't change the fact that the Beatles' albums are overall fairly consistent while the the Beach Boys albums are filled with brilliant tunes alongside some really unlistenable crap.  I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Back in the mid/late 1970's, when I became a Beach Boys' fan, the original albums were out of print. So Capitol records actually re-issued the early albums, some as 2-fers and some with different album covers. But the amazing thing was that they deleted some of the songs, as if the albums weren't short enough! A couple of songs that I remember being deleted, only to discover later, were "In The Parking Lot", "In The Back Of My Mind", and "Amusement Parks USA". Also, some of the "skit" tracks were deleted also. Talk about a lack of respect...

[lance]

I don't mean to be trouble for anybody but I kind of think the whole idea of "objectivity" with popular music is more or less BS in my opinion. Also, why would anybody WANT to be objective anyway?

 I mean, what are the criteria and how do you measure it other than subjectively?

 The only real objective measure is record sales, which of course is no way to judge an artist.

 I can see someone saying the Beatles were a more well-rounded band, insofar as they had more than one very good or great songwriter, they had a great lead guitarist and drummer i.e., they had a greater arsenal of "weapons" than the Beach Boys who were perhaps limited by Wilson's vision(even though they were also totally dependent on it.) They were able to do more styles of music, from country/rockabilly to hard-edged r'n'b to sheer hard rock.

But that's stupid. Who listens to an album and says, for example, why didn't they stick a really hard-rockin' Helter Skelter style song here?
 I just dont' get that..

I have no problems with someone saying "The Beatles were a greater band than the Beach Boys." Heck, I might even agree. What i don't get is someone saying "objectively the Beatles were a better band than the Beach Boys.
To reiterate: what instrument measures that?

I could also see someone saying that the Beatles were able to realize their potential to a greater extent and they definitely had far, far greater taste than the Beach boys but I really am going to

 a)disagree that the Beatles mid-to-late sixties output was that much better than the Beach Boys
b) call the idea that "objectively" say, Abbey Road is better than, say, Sunflower pure bullmerda.

I want to stress that I'm not looking for any rancorous arguments here and I have a great respect for nearly all the posters on this board but opinions are opinions as we would all agree and to pass them off as something objective is, well, kind of pretentious.

Regarding the question of "filler"--I think that in the early sixties both bands had "filler" I can list them by the Beatles: Hold Me Tight, Little Child, Devil In Her Heart, When I Get Home, ANytime at all(IMHO), I Only Want To Dance With You, half of HELP(IMHO), Wait, Run For Your Life.
Each of those songs has something going for them, I reckon--with the exception of I Only Want to Dance With You and the Harrison songs on Help!--but so do much of the Beach Boys filler--with the exception, maybe of Denny's Drums and the "skits"--even the skits, I think were probably more a product of BW's weird sense of humor and strange taste(the same taste that compelled him to make a "Party" album that was totally faked. I do skip the skits and I do skip Denny's Drums, but that's about it. I also skip the filler on Beatle's records.

 AS far as their late sixties and early seventies stuff, I really don't hear much of what I would call "filler"--I'm not a big fan of "Add Some Music" or "The Nearest Faraway Place", but I don't know if I would call it "filler" in the sense that I don't think that it was merely tossed off to fill a record..

[Ana-Lu]

I hear you.  As for my contributions to this topic, I was simply addressing the issue of filler.  Whether one artist is better than another is of course subjective; whether an artist has issued tracks like "Our Favorite Recording Sessions" or "Bull Session with the Big Daddy" is not subjective.

[lance]

I don't like those tracks you mention, in fact, I have never heard any of them all the way through. Lord knows, I've tried.

But I don't look at them as "filler" per se--why do them at all, they could have just done studio versions of "the Wanderer or "Monster Mash" or(God knows) put on one of their many many outtakes.\

It's a question of taste, surely.  In fact, they were not "filler' per se, but they are indicators of Brian Wilson's rather odd taste.

  I think that Wilson actually thought they were funny. Or he was having his little joke on us all and we're still talking about it forty years later. Or both.

In the same way I think that "Transcendental Meditation" is also a joke of a similar sort, perhaps darker and meaner, but very much a joke.

Perhaps it's foolish to rationalize something I don't even like, but we know that BW had a sort of obsession with humor and smiles and laughter and the like--he did(completely unnecessarily!) record a fake party and overdub it on an album. Like it or not, those stupit tracks are part of an overall picture of a strange and complex artist, much more so than "I Want to Dance With you."

[kookadams]

I just don't understand what constitutes "filler". Seems to me from what everyone is saying that "filler" is the songs on the album that weren't hit singles, and if that's so then the Beatles did have a lot of it. I think Brian and the other Beach Boys knew that they were just throwing a song in here and there and they probably did it on purpose to throw people off. But they had a formula, most of their albums contained 12 songs, there were ballads, faster songs, sometimes instrumentals etc. Nowadays people wait years and years in between albums; the Beach Boys released at least one album a year, sometimes two or three all the way through Holland. The point I'm getting at here is that I'm not trying to compare the Beach Boys and the Beatles, they were both great in their own right but it really does fucking piss me off when people do and put the Beatles on a pedestal.

[Ana-Lu]

I just don't understand what constitutes "filler". Seems to me from what everyone is saying that "filler" is the songs on the album that weren't hit singles, and if that's so then the Beatles did have a lot of it.

Curiously, the Beatles have more album tracks regularly played on oldies radio than any other artist of the rock era.  That's not a reflection of my taste - I could go for the rest of my life without ever hearing a Beatles song again - it is simply a fact.  Album tracks like "Things We Said Today," "I'll Be Back" and several others still get substantial airplay.

What constitutes filler?  In the most extreme cases, stuff like Bull Session, Fave Recording Sessions, Cassius Love, etc.   Even their biggest fans skip over this stuff. 

[lance]

I just don't understand what constitutes "filler". Seems to me from what everyone is saying that "filler" is the songs on the album that weren't hit singles, and if that's so then the Beatles did have a lot of it. I think Brian and the other Beach Boys knew that they were just throwing a song in here and there and they probably did it on purpose to throw people off. But they had a formula, most of their albums contained 12 songs, there were ballads, faster songs, sometimes instrumentals etc. Nowadays people wait years and years in between albums; the Beach Boys released at least one album a year, sometimes two or three all the way through Holland. The point I'm getting at here is that I'm not trying to compare the Beach Boys and the Beatles, they were both great in their own right but it really does fodaing piss me off when people do and put the Beatles on a pedestal.

Filler is simply a not-very-good track that was included so that the album was long enough. It doesn't mean "non-hit."
 Baby's in Black is a great song, but it wasn't a hit. It is not filler.

The fact of Beatles getting more airplay than anyone else certainly does not really mean a thing in this debate, which I'm not even sure why I have involved myself in, other than they are either more popular, better promoted, or most probably both. They were more popular in the sixties than any other band, so of course they are going to get more airplay on corporate owned radio stations.

[Ana-Lu]

The fact of Beatles getting more airplay than anyone else certainly does not really mean a thing in this debate...

I was responding to Kookadams, regarding the concept of filler being equated to non-hits.

[Mike's Beard]

The Beatles without a doubt. Not even in my top ten. I'm a fan of much of their stuff, but for the life of me I fail to see just what it is they were doing that was apparently so superior to everything else from that era. And the notion that since their breakup in 1970 no one has bettered their output is frankly baffling.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

The Killers
Kings Of Leon
Lady Gaga
Ryan Adams
Wilco
Pearl Jam
My Morning Jacket
Death Cab For Cutie


all way overrated.

Jeez... And I'm not even THAT old!

[I. Spaceman]

And I won't comment on Bob Dylan & others mentioned because it will take long sentences of why I named them.

Yes, that would be good not to comment on that. For sure.

[hypehat]

Eric Clapton. That disgusting pissmidget should be exiled from any sensible nation on this planet. He can't play the blues, he can't write songs, he plays session guitar like the bored bank manager he looks like, and he hates black people.

If I genuinely hate any musician, it's Eric Clapton.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

But will you remember his name if you see him in heaven?

[hypehat]

But will you remember his name if you see him in heaven?

I will. Then I'll kick him in the nads.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The Beatles without a doubt. Not even in my top ten.

They must be overrated then.

I'm a fan of much of their stuff, but for the life of me I fail to see just what it is they were doing that was apparently so superior to everything else from that era.

Creating culture, changing history, changing the very medium in which they worked. They did that far better than anybody else, which is precisely why whether or not they made the best music, they were uncontroversially the most important band from that time, making the most important music. This is why they, like Shakespeare, like Mozart, like Picasso, cannot under any circumstance be legitimately or seriously labelled overrated. Should everyone like them? No. Does everyone like them? No. Overrated? No.

[Aum Bop Diddit]

Eric Clapton. That disgusting pissmidget should be exiled from any sensible nation on this planet. He can't play the blues, he can't write songs, he plays session guitar like the bored bank manager he looks like, and he hates black people.

If I genuinely hate any musician, it's Eric Clapton.

Many years ago, under the influence, Clapton said some regrettable things, with unclear intentions.  Obviously he has some unpopular and politically incorrect worldviews.  To say he hates black people is over the top and unfair in my view.  People can look into it if they like and form their own opinion.

The remarks on his talents are laughable to me.  He isn't my very favorite, but "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs" could  be the the pinnacle of the bell bottom blues if you will -- not the blues as a purist form but as an expression of unnamable, unbearable emotion.  Granted, after "Slowhand" or so he eased into a career of far less inspiration -- pretty much in the same timeframe  as most great 60s rockers including the Beach Boys.

[EthanJClarke93]

Mostly any popular artist/Band are mostly over-rated. Could u name any band that is creative in the studio? If i were a musician, i'd only do it for being creative and not caring if it's successful or not.

[Bean Bag]

Creating culture, changing history, changing the very medium in which they worked. They did that far better than anybody else, which is precisely why whether or not they made the best music, they were uncontroversially the most important band from that time, making the most important music. This is why they, like Shakespeare, like Mozart, like Picasso, cannot under any circumstance be legitimately or seriously labelled overrated. Should everyone like them? No. Does everyone like them? No. Overrated? No.

You make that point well -- as well as it could be made.  And I believe it to an extent.  But...I'm not sure I totally believe it -- or to the extent they're given credit.  "Changing History."  "Changing Culture."  Yeah...that's what we're told.

Now...Elvis.  I believe he did all of those things.  I feel like his impact was real.  You say "changing culture" -- that happened because of Elvis. The world was going to be much different after Elvis.

The Beatles impact may have been the result of being the next thing after Elvis.  To me, much of it seems stylistic.  A continuation of that one (perhaps a few) facets of what Elvis opened up.  They wore a different hair cut.  A new sound, a different attitude.  And "hey...they're coming over from England!"  And a new form of marketing, seizing on the new audience that Elvis created.

But, whatever.  It is what it is and it was what it was.  I just think they fit the description of "overrated band" -- precisely because of the image they're afforded to this day.  Again...it's image.  White album.  Green apple.  Style.  The Beatles caught a wave.  But - hey...they rode it well...with the spotlight on them - I might add.  Won the game, got the girl...etc. etc.

Honestly, the Beach Boys were better.   

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

The Beatles without a doubt. Not even in my top ten. I'm a fan of much of their stuff, but for the life of me I fail to see just what it is they were doing that was apparently so superior to everything else from that era. And the notion that since their breakup in 1970 no one has bettered their output is frankly baffling.

1 million percent agreed.

edit

Wait...Eric Clapton hates black people?

[MBE]

The Beatles without a doubt. Not even in my top ten. I'm a fan of much of their stuff, but for the life of me I fail to see just what it is they were doing that was apparently so superior to everything else from that era. And the notion that since their breakup in 1970 no one has bettered their output is frankly baffling.

1 million percent agreed.

edit

Wait...Eric Clapton hates black people?

I love the Beatles but  other than their cultural influence I fail to see why their work is held up so much higher than the other great acts of the day. In the sixties there were dozens of excellent groups and singers, and while the Beatles are clearly among the best, they don't tower over the other greats like the Beach Boys, Stones, Who, Dylan etc. That said I still don't really see the big deal about Bruce Springsteen.