Quote:
Originally Posted by Burning Down
Pet Sounds WAS much better than Sgt. Pepper's in terms of fluidity. I love the Beatles, but Sgt. Pepper's is definitely a weaker album in their discography. I don't know why, I guess that's just how I feel about it.
|
well, the discussion wasn't "Pet Sounds" vs. "Sgt. Pepper." - it's Beatles vs. Beach Boys.
And "Sgt. Pepper" may be the worst LP in the Beatles catalog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus waltz
That's a bit of an unfair argument, as it says more about the stability of Brian Wilson's psyche than it does of his capability as a musician. We know that he was depressed and had a troubled childhood, but that he was a great talent nonetheless..
|
maybe unfair...but entirely accurate.
I don't care about his depression; my dad beat me when I was a kid, too - I don't get to have a breakdown and lay in bed for years because of it.
Lennon was abandoned by both parents; his mom died when he was just starting to reconnect with her...but he wrote top-notch stuff his entire life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus waltz
For me personally, the Beach Boys have slightly more high emotional peaks than the Beatles. "Pet Sounds" is my favorite album of all time, after all. I also think that if Brian Wilson hadn't collapsed and had been able to release "Smile" as was intended (discounting the 2004 version), it would've been a classic on par with Sergeant Pepper and it'll always be a bit of a thorn in my side that things went the way they did. Songs like "Heroes ans villains", "Good vibrations" and especially "Surf's up" are simply brilliant, multi-layered and splendid..
|
I agree - Pet Sounds is a masterful record.
Smile could have been great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus waltz
But yeah. It's difficult. Maybe I have to give it to the Beatles in the end, for all of their accomplishments and rock history "firsts". That was an awful lot of pioneering in a few years. They were also hugely talented and all-rounded and had a number of great songs and albums. Comparing the two, I think my "objective" vote goes to the Beatles, but the Beach Boys are closer to my heart.
|
I guess I can understand that - basically, you're saying that our personal preference is the Beach Boys, but that the Beatles are obviously more consistant.
Yeah, I agree somewhat - the Beach Boys' high points eere arguably as good or better than the Beatles from '63-'66...but from '67-on, the Beatles surpassed the Beach Boys by far.
The sheer consistancy of the Beatles recorded catalog (every song from every album is a winner) compared to the Beach Boys (some really good songs mixed with an overwhelming amount of schlocky crap) would easily beat that out.
Great first post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VocalsBass
I like your short review on the subject, I dont know if I agree that McCartney is all that more competent on bass guitar than Wilson was, I always thought McCartney was a little overrated as an accomplished bass player in my book when holding in consideration to the level of talented bassist from that era,
|
umm...have you ever heard "Drive My Car"?
"Taxman"?
"I'm Only Sleeping"?
How 'bout "I Want You (She's So Heavy)"?
Or "Come Together"?
"While My Guitar Gently Weeps"?
Paul had a knack for coming up with inventive, moving grooving basslines which were complex but not obtrusive; moving but rock solid; simple but harmonically complex, all at the same time.
I would rather listen to Paul dong descending runs in "Why Dont We do It in the Road" than anything Victor Wooten has ever done.
As much respect I have for players like Wooten, Flea, or Claypool...my favorite bassists are guys like McCartney, Rick Danko, Geezer Butler, Sven Pipien, Duff McKagan,John McVie, Carl Radle, Nikki Sixx, etc. Guys who work with their drummer and bandmates as a rhythm section. I LOVE Ronnie Wood's bass playing on those first Jeff Beck records. Two recent favorites are Tod Bowers from the Steepwater Band and Shonna Tucker from Drive-By Truckers.
You know; dudes who play the SONG, who don't care about showing off as much as making the SONG sound as good as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VocalsBass
Although..I will admit that I may be a little bias with my opinion, since I almost always support the 'underdog'. I have a friend from Iowa that thinks George Harrison is it!
when it comes to guitarist, and I really respect this guys opinion,
|
George Harrison IS "it as a guitarist" - so, this makes you biased against Paul as a bassist?
Because your friend in Iowa thinks George is awesome?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VocalsBass
hell he is an unknown muti talented artist in his own right,
|
aren't we all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VocalsBass
the only point I am trying to suggest is, I just dont believe that the Beatles were all that much more talented as musicians,
|
really?
Is that why they played all the intruments on all their records, and the Beach Boys ALWAYS used LA session musicians on their records?
Can you explain this situation to me?
Was it that the Beach Boys were so damn good that they didn't NEED to play?
Them Beatles, all show-offy...making their records sound good by playing their own instruments just 'cause they can or sumpin'...
Quote:
Originally Posted by VocalsBass
when compared to the musical talent of the Beach Boys, I will conclude that the Beatles had Mccartney & Lennon both on the same team which is the only real advantage the Beatles did have over the BBs.
|
what about George?
I thought you really respected your friend in Iowa's opinion?
I figured that a world-class lead guitarist would be a "real advantage"? Not to mention the fact that George wrote some really awesome songs in his own right.
Also, I would think having a drummer that could actually play and keep time (Ringo) would be better than having the musical liability that was Dennis Wilson.
The Beatles also had the advantage of having better SOUNDING records, fidelity-wise. Compare, say, "Fun, Fun, Fun" to "I Saw Her Standing There" - the Beatles song has a bigger, more full sound, as well as having better definition as far instrument fidelity.
The Beatles had George Martin, Geoff Emerick, and Abbey Road - which made their records simply sound better (another reason why the Beatles were the better band - they didn't have their dad's megalomanically running the control room, ruining their records like Murray Wilson did the Beach Boys'.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by VocalsBass
I would have to hear more detailed facts about the music & history of these two bands before I could state an honest opinion myself.
|
looks like it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VocalsBass
Realisticly...I would not be surprised if the Beatles are the most talented, Its just something I will have to find out for myself when the time permits itself for me to be able to review the subject.
|
you shouldn't be surprised...and that new Mono boxset of Beatles is well worth the investment
Quote:
Originally Posted by VocalsBass
Whos albums are listend to the most by the masses, who gets the most airtime & play,
|
the Beatles sell more, are played more, and more revered around the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VocalsBass
I suggest a 'Tie' between both bands, The Beatles cant win by Hands Down, or by the phrase- "I cant believe its even a question in your mind" -statement, What are some of the statictics, facts and of course personal opinions as always, All is open for debate
|
well, I can't believe it IS a question - the Beatles are realistically superior in almost every single category, especially the most important one: who played together the bes. - as a BAND?
It most certainly was not the dudes who took good pictures and had the best LA session musicians playing in their recird's that they hired outside writers to write the lyrics for.