Necromancer

Who would you pick as the best band musically, not the most popular? The Beatles, or The Beach Boys,

Stinkfist

No contest. The Beatles ofcourse.

While I do like some of the BB's work it really doesn't stand up as consistantly on an album to album basis, great harmonies though.

__________________
You've claimed all this time that you would die for me.

Why then are you so suprised to hear your own Eulogy?

telepicker

Yeah...

This is the ultimate no-brainer: Beatles, hands-down.

Sure, the Beach Boys had some good singles (and some good vibrations - sorry; couldn't resist) and even a couple really awesome LPs...but they can't touch the Beatles.

From a musical standpoint alone - I mean, Sgt. Pepper made Brian Wilson have a nervous breakdown...

He held steady in the bubblegum days, but when the sh*t got deep, Bri-Bri went to his sand box. And the Beach Boys were kaput.

The Beatles on the other hand, had John Lennon going completely off the deep end in the late 60's, but were able to hold it together, because there were two other amazing writers in the band.

The Beach Boys hired Van **** Parks to wrote lyrics for them and had session cats on every single record from day one.

The Beatles were four multi-instrumentalists who wrote amazing songs and played almost every single instrument on almost every record themselves (notable exceptions being Andy White's drumming on the first take of Love Me Do, and the orchestra on Elenor Rigby.)

so...
I can't believe it's even a question in your mind.

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.

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.

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.

jazzpig

I think this post sums it up best for me.
Personally, I can't and don't try to compare the two bands, very different bands, different music. Even when I heard the earlier BB stuff as a kid, it sounded very unique and I don't mean the surf sound.
What I do know is what I respond to emotionally, and as much as I love the Beatles, I respond to the Beach Boys on a higher emotional level.

Here is a quote from Anthony DeCurtis (Rolling Stone) re: early BBs that sums it up:
"When you first heard it, you just didn't realize how much work and how complex that sound is. It's very easy to be complex and to show off or to have people think 'Wow, that's complex'. What's difficult is to be complex and have every single thing you do have an emotional impact and have the hearer not even be aware of it, just hear it as a pop song, hear it the first time and get it. That's hard and that's what Brian Wilson can do."
Pet Sounds and Smile is on another level.

neardeathexperience

[QUOTE=telepicker;864622]Yeah...

This is the ultimate no-brainer: Beatles, hands-down.

Sure, the Beach Boys had some good singles (and some good vibrations - sorry; couldn't resist) and even a couple really awesome LPs...but they can't touch the Beatles.

From a musical standpoint alone - I mean, Sgt. Pepper made Brian Wilson have a nervous breakdown...

He held steady in the bubblegum days, but when the sh*t got deep, Bri-Bri went to his sand box. And the Beach Boys were kaput.

I would put forth exhibit A Holland and B Surf's Up as two albums the Beatles could never have made. They are masterpieces in every sense of the word. Pepper is the only album that could come close for the progression from one point to another that the band represented there. If one takes "Let's Go Surfin" and then fast forwards to the song "Surfs Up " the proof is there!

myles

To be fair, it was the Wall of Sound and the genius of phil Spector that drove Wilson to a breakdown.
The answer is The Beatles, although The Beach Boys come in a close second. Hell, even Kokomo is very musically gratifying.

G.A. De Forest

"The Beatles were multi-instrumentalists who played almost every instrument themselves?" Get a grip on some facts. John Lennon was still playing banjo chords well into their recording career. George Martin and Brian Epstein seriously considered replacing the Beatles as instrumentalists for their recordings at the time Beatle George and Paul were knifing Pete Best in the back. Right till the end of the Sixties, GEORGE MARTIN composed whole missing passages of songs, made the song 'A Day in the Life' out of two messes of songs by John & Paul; made their first big hit 'Please Please Me' -- all the Beatles had to do was follow the template. George Harrison almost mastered sitar. But just compare drummer for drummer: Dennis Wilson was the multi-instrumentalist and brilliant composer; Ringo almost talentless in every other department, as he shows trying to sing and write songs to this day. Yes, the moptops were great for merchandising Beatle toys, just like Capitol had done with Bozo the Clown before them. Brian Wilson used some session musicians to fill in while the group was out touring -- something the Beatles did once every summer, I think, and only the lucrative markets around the world: stuff their home town, Liverpool. Even London -- that was just a place they puttered around most of the year, rubbing shoulders with other fashion plates and politicians. Then they would go in to the studio with fragments of songs roughed out -- none could write music let alone arrange it -- for Martin to fix up. They lived cosseting themselves in palatial estates, adopted by the upper crust as pets and media favourites.

Neapolitan

Ok they didn't play orchestral instruments on song like Yesterday, but The Beatles did more than play one instrument. John played guitar, harmonica and melodica, Paul played bass guitar piano and drums, George played electric guitar, sitar and classical guitar and even had a master class with Andrés Segovia, and Ringo besides playing drums played the plucky comic relief guy.

Wes Montgomery before he started playing guitar at 20, played on a four course tenor guitar which btw so happens to be tuned like a tenor banjo. Roger McGuinn also played banjo before he played the electric 12 string Ric. They took what he knew about chord shapes and technique and applied it to guitar. When they did it, they were hailed as a geniuses.

Oh yeah, well look at Yes, what the Beatles did pales in comparison. And besides there's no rule in Rock that says at some point in its band history they must stick to that one line-up. Even the Beach Boys had line-up changes.

John, Paul and George were mates from early on even before they had a Rock band or needed a drummer. Pete came in later on, and there were instances where Paul played drums. Stu was part of the group too, he opt out to pursue art. Martin might had his doubts about the whole band in the beginning but that was because it would a way to insure a hit, I don't that thought lasted long. And anyway the Beach Boys actually did what Martin and Epstein only thaought about doing. They admit they could had handled it better, but it was done after's George Martin's suggestion who wanted a better than Best. They met up with Ringo playing the circuit and were chums with him more so than Pete.

That only proves one thing: George Martin - the fifth Beatle.

Give the man a break he had a tough choldhood, he suffered from pleurisy, peritonitis, and tonsilitis as a child. Ringo isn't a complete failure that didn't leave his mark on society as you might want people to think. When The Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show, h sold more drums then anyone at the time. They was such an increase in drum sales and Zildjian cymbols were on back order for a year at that time.

I don't think everyone knows who Bozo the Clown is.



The other band members weren't too happy at the time to be relegated to just singingwhile the studio played for the recordings, they want to play as well. And there weren't "some session musicians" some of those musicians were famous in their own right. Like Hal Blaine for instance he played for everyone from the Mumus and the Papas, the Monkeys, 5th Dimension, Simon and Golfuncle and Neil Diamond.

John Lennon never felt that way, he felt like some in English high society "crust" (as you put it) didn't like him because he was a Northerner.

__________________

Cinnamonics

Ok, you're going into lala-land by now. George Martin did not "make" their first big hit "Please Please Me", recording aside. He disliked the initial arrangement and suggested the boys speed it up, but the rest was up the Beatles themselves, and they radically altered it to the point where it was believed it could be a hit. As for "A Day in the Life", yes that was two seperate songs initially. I don't how good Paul's part could've been on its own, but in my mind John's part would've been great in any case, though together they become something special. Anyway, it was McCartney's idea to join the two pieces via an orchestra. George Martin supported that idea by writing a loose score, but it was not his idea. In general, George Martin was known to suggest a thing here or there, and implement small pieces of music, but to say he was the pop genius behind The Beatles' success is ridiculous. As a producer he was very, very important, but NOT as a writer, c'mon. Your whole attitude towards the band is very telling with your inclusion of "knifing Pete Best in the back", so I shouldn't really take your post seriously, but dammit, good band on good forum needs some defending from silly people. :p