# Beatles versus Beach Boys



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Well time to stir up the pot 
After listening to Morton Feldman's String Quartet 2 it caused me to re-evaluate the nature of music.

So which band do you prefer?... Beatles or Beach Boys. I really enjoy both but I think that the Beach Boys were more innovative with their albums Pet Sounds and the Smile Sessions . Also I think that Brian Wilson was a very innovative composer... the Beatles, for example, depended on Phil Spector for production of their last album.

Okay, I think that I threw down the glove here. For me, Brian Wilson makes the Beach Boys win here .


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Wow! I love both groups equally. I grew up with both groups! So many of each group's songs take me back to those wonderful, sometimes painful, awkward days when I was young.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

The Beatles in a laugher. The Beach Boys did some very innovative stuff, but I think The Beatles had more great songs and albums. I don't penalize them for using Phil Specter (or George Martin, of course).

The Beatles also had the decency to break up near their peak.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The Beach Boys are still touring. Get out and see them! Drag yourself away from the computer!


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

I much prefer the band that Van **** Parks produced!

/ptr


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

hpowders said:


> The Beach Boys are still touring. Get out and see them! Drag yourself away from the computer!


Ouch  I'm still ripping my CD collection (and my stepdad's too) so computers is all I get to know for the next few months LOL ...

I agree that the Beatles have many wonderful songs... however, I still think that Brian Wilson was exploring with sounds that were unique during his Smile Sessions


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I never liked the Beach Boys back then and I have never been motivated to listen to them since. The Beatles were great back then and they are still good for a fun nostalgia trip today.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I like each about the same, which is not much. I will give the edge to the Beach Boys though for doing an album of hot rod songs--those are fun!


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I prefer the Beatles but the Beach Boys kept the bar equally high for a fair old while. Such a pity that Brian Wilson cracked up and was unable to complete 'Smile' at the time, but there were still one or two fine albums to come despite the overall inconsistency of their late 60s/early 70s output.

With respect to the OP, Phil Spector was primarily involved with Let It Be only because by then the group had largely washed their hands with the project and were on the point of splitting up anyway. Had George Martin been on board from the start then presumably an approved version of the album would have been hammered into shape even before their Abbey Road swansong. It's ironic that an album which featured some of the most basic and unadorned music that the group ever produced took so long to emerge.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

The Beatles would make my top100 pop/rock bands (though not top 10), the Beach Boys certainly not.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

The Beach Boys sang a lot of drivel, but did a fine job of it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2014)

I have all The Beatles' studio albums. I have one of the Beach Boys'. Does that answer the OP?

I grew up in a family for whom The Beatles were the number one (with the Rolling Stones a close second). Much as we liked _Good Vibrations_ and _God Only Knows_ - both wonderful songs - The Beach Boys didn't really figure much in our household listening.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2014)

Kivimees said:


> The Beach Boys sang a lot of drivel


Just the kind of excessively critical comment on which some members of TC seem to thrive. Unnecessary and untrue.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Just the kind of excessively critical comment on which some members of TC seem to thrive. Unnecessary and untrue.


I never saw anything special in their music. Is it just catchy pop or is it supposed to be clever? Genuine question. It probably doesn't help that people my age (late 30s) and younger never experienced this music in its original context, before it was a cliche. For us, it's something that pops up with irritating regularity on ad breaks and the music stations my parents listen to. It's certainly not easy to imagine a time when it was fresh and even subversive. If you want to be really subversive these days you have to listen to classical


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Just the kind of excessively critical comment on which some members of TC seem to thrive. Unnecessary and untrue.


But Kivimees qualified it noting that they "did a fine job of it." Overall, I took the post as complementary.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

When the Beatles were actually a band I didn't like them much. When they ceased to be a band and became a kind of song writing and recording collaboration incapable of actually performing their own material, I liked the music a good deal. The Beach Boys' music does not measure up to that produced by the Beatles after they ceased to be a band — not even close.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Figleaf said:


> I never saw anything special in their music. Is it just catchy pop or is it supposed to be clever?


Yeah, nothing special. Any old pop group can sing harmonies like the Beach Boys. But of course this stuff is easy to take for granted 50 years on after the music has been overplayed and trivialized in the corporate marketplace.

I'm glad I'll never have to hear the music of the Doors, or Frank Zappa used in commercials. Thanks to John Densmore and Gail Zappa for taking a stand.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

starthrower said:


> Yeah, nothing special. Any old pop group can sing harmonies like the Beach Boys. But of course this stuff is easy to take for granted 50 years on after the music has been overplayed and trivialized in the corporate marketplace.
> 
> I'm glad I'll never have to hear the music of the Doors, or Frank Zappa used in commercials. Thanks to John Densmore and Gail Zappa for taking a stand.


The harmonising is impressive, but if that was what sold pop records we'd all be raving about barbershop quartets. It's the quality of the Beach Boys' songwriting in particular that seems very ordinary indeed to me. Why do they have credibility, whereas Abba, who did the same sort of catchy pop a few years later, do not? I don't get it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2014)

Florestan said:


> But Kivimees qualified it noting that they "did a fine job of it." Overall, I took the post as complementary.


'Drivel' as 'complimentary'? I don't see it myself.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> The harmonising is impressive, but if that was what sold pop records we'd all be raving about barbershop quartets. It's the quality of the Beach Boys' songwriting in particular that seems very ordinary indeed to me. Why do they have credibility, whereas Abba, who did the same sort of catchy pop a few years later, do not? I don't get it.


First, they did it before Abba. By 1974, a lot of ground had been covered. Second, Abba do have credibility, as great writers of popular music (not as anything else though).


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Figleaf said:


> The harmonising is impressive, but if that was what sold pop records we'd all be raving about barbershop quartets. It's the quality of the Beach Boys' songwriting in particular that seems very ordinary indeed to me. Why do they have credibility, whereas Abba, who did the same sort of catchy pop a few years later, do not? I don't get it.


Who knows why certain artists are considered hip, and others square? A lot of this is fueled by the music writers. And people are influenced by this stuff. I would say jazz and classical fans are even more susceptible to this sort of thing, as most pop fans don't worry about reviews or critic assessment of their favored artists.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> The harmonising is impressive, but if that was what sold pop records we'd all be raving about barbershop quartets. It's the quality of the Beach Boys' songwriting in particular that seems very ordinary indeed to me. Why do they have credibility, whereas Abba, who did the same sort of catchy pop a few years later, do not? I don't get it.


Probably for the same reason The Mamas and the Papas get more recognition than Peter, Paul, and Mary.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> When the Beatles were actually a band I didn't like them much. When they ceased to be a band and became a kind of song writing and recording collaboration incapable of actually performing their own material, I liked the music a good deal. The Beach Boys' music does not measure up to that produced by the Beatles after they ceased to be a band - not even close.


I think that The Beach Boys have reunited as a band.


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

The fab four!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Pet Sounds is a better album that most of the Beatles' output, but the Beatles were so consistently great that they win easily.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

MacLeod said:


> 'Drivel' as 'complimentary'? I don't see it myself.


Marvellous Drivel ?

First Rate Drivel?

Superior Drivel?

Drivelissimo!

See? Anything is possible on Talk Classical!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Pre English-invasion, the Beach Boys were my favorite band. However, groups including the Beatles offered a different pop/rock sound that I much preferred. As time went on, I just think the Beach Boys just got stuck in their early 1960's sound which got rather old as the Vietnam War kept gaining momentum. The days of surfing and hot rods had ended.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Pre English-invasion, the Beach Boys were my favorite band. However, groups including the Beatles offered a different pop/rock sound that I much preferred. As time went on, I just think the Beach Boys just got stuck in their early *1960's sound which got rather old as the Vietnam War kept gaining momentum. The days of surfing and hot rods had ended.*


I think you nailed it. What a perfect explanation.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Figleaf said:


> The harmonising is impressive, but if that was what sold pop records we'd all be raving about barbershop quartets. It's the quality of the Beach Boys' songwriting in particular that seems very ordinary indeed to me.


Onestly I have a different opinion, I think that Brian Wilson was (at least in the world of pop music) one of the most sophisticated songwriters. I'm not a great fan of the lyrics, but in terms of harmony I consider him better than both McCartney and Lennon. I'm thinking of pieces like God only knows, Wouldn't it be nice, Good vibrations, In the back of my mind


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Didn't Brian Wilson get mixed up with Charles Manson? Whereas the Beatles got involved with some yogi or something like that. Anyway, these events would make for far more interesting discussion to continue the thread since the drivel part is pretty well hashed out and will never be agreed upon.. I will add that I have three Beatles albums and think they were very talented in writing music and songs, much like Dylan. I only have one Beach Boys album and that on cassette; it's the hot rod album and beyond that I am not very fond of the Beach Boys. While the Beatles are musically fantastic, I have much other music that I like better and don't have time to listen to. Now that you all got me thinking about the Beatles, I have to admit that I forgot in another thread about favorite pop song, that I could have (and still may) posted this which I think is one of the coolest pop songs ever written:


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

It was Dennis Wilson who befriended Manson, although later he regretted the friendship and distanced himself, even before the murders. He also introduced Manson to the owner of the home Sharon Tate would later be murdered in, indirectly linking him to the killings.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2014)

Florestan said:


> Didn't Brian Wilson get mixed up with Charles Manson? Whereas the Beatles got involved with some yogi or something like that.


One of The Beach Boys also travelled to India and met the same yogi!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beach_Boys#Friends.2C_20.2F20.2C_and_Sunflower


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Bulldog said:


> Pre English-invasion, the Beach Boys were my favorite band. However, groups including the Beatles offered a different pop/rock sound that I much preferred. As time went on, I just think the Beach Boys just got stuck in their early 1960's sound which got rather old as the Vietnam War kept gaining momentum. The days of surfing and hot rods had ended.


I've heard it was primarily Mike Love who, reportedly, held back the band from the Wilson brothers' more progressive ideas, in one instance he's quoted as arguing with Brian over Pet Sounds telling him not to 'f*** with the formula!'.

Perhaps he, in part, found issue with the lyrics in Pet Sounds, which are very 'deep' and introspective (though entirely un-pretentiously), tapping into feelings of alienation, loneliness and nostalgia with a great deal of sincerity and emotion.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

They are probably my two favorite groups of all time. Add the Everly brothers and the Doors to the mix and my life is fulfilled.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> They are probably my two favorite groups of all time. Add the Everly brothers and the Doors to the mix and my life is fulfilled.


Right. And I could not live without the Bee Gees! :lol:


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I will simply add another vote for the Beatles and now go listen to some Beach Boys instead for a change


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Florestan said:


> Right. And I could not live without the Bee Gees! :lol:


I like them too, but I don't consider them as vital.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

albertfallickwang said:


> Ouch  I'm still ripping my CD collection (and my stepdad's too) so computers is all I get to know for the next few months LOL ...
> 
> I agree that the Beatles have many wonderful songs... however, I still think that Brian Wilson was exploring with sounds that were unique during his Smile Sessions


Only someone under 40 could even think the two were equivalent.
I remember when I was a 20 year old Summer Camp Counselor in 1978. One of my 9 year old campers asked me "is it true that Paul McCartney was in another band before Wings?!" It was my first realization that I was on the road to becoming an alte-cocker.


----------



## BaronAlstromer (Apr 13, 2013)

The Beach Boys.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

The Beatles have a strong edge on innovation. I find there whole body of work more consistent.
I would count George Martin as one of the group. And I would dismiss Phil Spector as a post split irrelevance.

Good Vibrations is a brilliant song though


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

MagneticGhost said:


> The Beatles have a strong edge on innovation. I find there whole body of work more consistent.
> I would count George Martin as one of the group. And I would dismiss Phil Spector as a post split irrelevance.
> 
> Good Vibrations is a brilliant song though


I prefer the Let It Be...Naked version (terrible title, though) to the original album featuring Spector's syrupy embellishments.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

The Beatles. I like The Beachboys, but their sound seems a bit limited and un-versatile in comparison.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I own all the Beatles albums and one "best of" album of the Beach Boys. That's my response. I grew up listening to the Beatles. It's part of my DNA, I identify with their music. I came into this world in the mid sixties in London, not the west coast. I might live on the west coast of Canada now, but it's not where I started this journey. No contest, the Beatles.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

albertfallickwang said:


> I really enjoy both but I think that the Beach Boys were more innovative with their albums Pet Sounds and the Smile Sessions . Also I think that Brian Wilson was a very innovative composer... the Beatles, for example, depended on Phil Spector for production of their last album.


I don't really see your point. The Beatles wrote all of their songs (except for the occasional cover of an old rocker), and from Rubber Soul onwards they were heavily involved with the production of their own work. After 1965 at least, George Martin was almost certainly being directed by The Beatles, not the other way around like you seem to be implying.

I think it's also worth mentioning that Pet Sounds was a response to the innovations of Rubber Soul, Revolver was a response to the innovations of Pet Sounds, SMiLE was a response to Revolver, etc.

Personally, I would rank The Beatles quite a bit higher than The Beach Boys (I'm only really taking Brian Wilson's work on Pet Sounds/SMiLE into consideration here though. Without that, they'd be nowhere near). Compositionally, I think Lennon-McCartney and Harrison were superior songwriters to Wilson. Wilson probably had a slight edge in terms of production (though I personally prefer the production of The Beatles' albums). They're both of the highest rank, in my opinion.



albertfallickwang said:


> the Beatles, for example, depended on Phil Spector for production of their last album.


That's not entirely true.

The story of Let It Be is complicated. Despite the album being released last, the music was recorded before Abbey Road for an aborted album called "Get Back", but was shelved and not reconsidered for an album until after the band had broken up and the companion film "Let It Be" was being released. Apple sent the tapes off to Phil Spector to realize something in time for the film's release.

The Beatles (except Lennon, who became friends with Spector) denounced Phil Spector's additions to the album, and even went as far as releasing a version of the album which has all of Spector's contributions removed.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Both bands wrote some very good music. I think the Beatles are better, if nothing else for having far superior lyrical content. I don't enjoy listening to either band anymore. The Doors on the other hand - while I acknowledge they were a little 'rougher around the edges' musically - I still find their music quite enjoyable and fascinating. I'm also quite fond of the improvisatory elements in The Doors music that isn't found in The Beatles or Beach Boys.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Beatles easily. The Beach Boys have one great album. The Beatles have like 5.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

neoshredder said:


> Beatles easily. The Beach Boys have one great album. The Beatles have like 5.


The Beach Boys have at least 3 great albums... Smile, Pet Sounds, and Sunflower.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Add this beautiful song by the Beach Boys too!


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

albertfallickwang said:


> The Beach Boys have at least 3 great albums... Smile, Pet Sounds, and Sunflower.


I'm going to go out on a limb here concerning great albums:

Beatles - 8
Beach Boys - 0


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Early Beach Boys, and Late Beatles, howz dat?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Right now I'm listening to The Beach Boys' Smile Sessions on LP with my stepdad. Just pure magic.


----------



## JJAA (Jan 14, 2015)

The Beatles all the way!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

MagneticGhost said:


> The Beatles have a strong edge on innovation. I find there whole body of work more consistent.
> I would count George Martin as one of the group. And I would dismiss Phil Spector as a post split irrelevance.
> 
> Good Vibrations is a brilliant song though


Yes 'tis! I can listen to it over and over and never tire of it. And I don't believe the Beatles had an edge on innovation. Brian Wilson was an absolutely brilliant composer, arranger and producer, and he was just a kid. The Beatles had an edge because they had three great songwriters, and the Beach Boys only had one.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Figleaf said:


> It's the quality of the Beach Boys' songwriting in particular that seems very ordinary indeed to me. Why do they have credibility, whereas Abba, who did the same sort of catchy pop a few years later, do not? I don't get it.


Things are not always what they seem. That's the genius of Brian Wilson. There is nothing ordinary about many Beach Boys tunes. They have very sophisticated arrangements, interesting chord progressions, and beautiful melodies. Abba is not in the same league.


----------



## Mahlerite555 (Aug 27, 2016)

starthrower said:


> Things are not always what they seem. That's the genius of Brian Wilson. There is nothing ordinary about many Beach Boys tunes. They have very sophisticated arrangements, interesting chord progressions, and beautiful melodies. Abba is not in the same league.


Too tonal for my taste. Brian Wilson should learn from a real pro:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Beatles versus Beach Boys is like Apples v. Oranges--it sort of distorts or sullies by unnecessary comparison two wonderful groups, each of whom were so very good at what they did. Popular music is privileged to have had both--my musical life is better for having had access to both. I love a crisp, chilled, tart apple just as much as a tangy, succulent, sweet orange. Now, let's talk about the Bee Gees.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> Now, let's talk about the Bee Gees.


How about the Kinks instead?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Choose, choose, choose, we seems to be doing a lot .


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

I vote Beach Boys (arrest me?)


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

JJAA said:


> The Beatles all the way!


I like this post, just one, on: Jan-14-2015, 17:30 and never made another.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Pugg said:


> I like this post, just one, on: Jan-14-2015, 17:30 and never made another.


You could of course follow the example :tiphat:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I have chosen (to not choose).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Unlike the Beach Boys, The Beatles didn't rip off tunes by Charles Manson, so that is a point in their favor.


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2016)

But when Terry Jacks approached the Beach Boys about recording "Seasons in the Sun" they turned it down. Now, you have to give credit when it's due.


----------



## Hampshire Hog (Jul 10, 2016)

starthrower said:


> Things are not always what they seem. That's the genius of Brian Wilson. There is nothing ordinary about many Beach Boys tunes. They have very sophisticated arrangements, interesting chord progressions, and beautiful melodies. Abba is not in the same league.


i bet that Brian Wilson would love to have written " The Day before you Came".


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

... or SOS, or The winner takes it all ...


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I am definitely going for the Beach Boys because they made a bunch of hot rod songs!

This stuff really gets me excited: "My four-speed, dual-quad, posi-traction 4-0-9"

Did the Beatles ever write a hot rod song?

If it weren't for the hot rod songs, I would have to favor the Beatles.


----------



## zachybinx (Sep 13, 2016)

the Beatles are so complicated... in general I can rely more on the Beach boys to make me happy. but honestly, they are two totally different bands. Brian Wilson might have been plagued by his genius being overshadowed by the Beatles, but he was just one dude with a crazy vision. The Beatles were really 5 guys with input/vision, so for that reason alone, I think Wilson is a more glaring genius.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Both were bland but would chose the Beatles just and there was no Wrecking Crew involved just Paul taking over everything


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Florestan said:


> Did the Beatles ever write a hot rod song?


_Beep-beep, beep-beep no..._


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

elgars ghost said:


> _Beep-beep, beep-beep no..._


But what kind of car was that? A European sporty car or an American muscle car? I am looking for the latter. And "Beep-beep, beep-beep no..." does not speak muscle like the Beach Boys songs or Deep Purples Highway Star does.


----------



## Potiphera (Mar 24, 2011)

Why not Pink Floyd versus the Beatles? 

I would choose Pink Floyd any day.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Florestan said:


> But what kind of car was that? A European sporty car or an American muscle car? I am looking for the latter. And "Beep-beep, beep-beep no..." does not speak muscle like the Beach Boys songs or Deep Purples Highway Star does.


A psychedelic Austin 7 of course


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Hampshire Hog said:


> i bet that Brian Wilson would love to have written " The Day before you Came".


Beach Boys have many many songs that are actually mediocre and overrated, while ABBA's almost every song is brilliant, structurally way more complex and to sum it- much better. Beach Boys are musically more shallow and even more shallow lyrically. Surfing and girls? I mean, ok.
Sure, Beach Boys have a few great songs, but that's it.
I guess that some people like to repeat generally accepted opinions that are most of the time complete nonsense.

Considering the question, The Beatles are much better than Beach Boys. I think it's not even comparable.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

nikola said:


> Considering the question, The Beatles are much better than Beach Boys. I think it's not even comparable.


I think the Beatles are better than the Beach Boys, too, but on one of those rare summer days here when the weather is "hot" and I'm going to grill our supper, the Beach Boys earn their rightful place in the sun.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2019)

Thought I would resurrect this thread, as I've been listening to a lot of Beach Boys lately (and coming from the perspective of someone who loves the Beatles and has all their studio albums).

I don't have all the Beach Boys' catalog - Little Deuce Coupe, All Summer Long, Today!, Summer Days, Pet Sounds, Smile Sessions, Smiley Smile, Surf's Up. 

First, in terms of vocals and harmonies, it is the Beach Boys, and it isn't close. The Beach Boys use the voice as at least 4 additional instruments in their arsenal, and that isn't when they are overdubbing their voices on top of themselves. At their height, the Beatles could never harmonize like this. John never liked the sound of his voice. Ringo - well, we like the songs more than the voice. Good Lord - go listen to just the vocal backing track from Wouldn't It Be Nice. 

The criticism that the Beach Boys were just a band that sang about cars and surfing is a bit unfair - that's like saying the Beatles were just a band that sang about girls. True, a lot of their early stuff was cars and surfing. But beginning with Today!, they really started branching out. Do You Wanna Dance from that album is brilliant. And they experimented a lot - breaks in the music, changing tempos, numerous key changes that blend seamlessly. 

Who is better? I don't think it is a question needing to be answered. They viewed each other as competitors and rivals. They respected each other. I like both. By and large, I tend to find the inventiveness of the Beatles more interesting.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Never was a fan of either group. Rubber Soul was a good album. Really like the Beach Boys hot rod songs.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I primarily view the Beach Boys (as I view the Rolling Stones and the Grateful Dead and many other groups) as a "band", while I tend to think of the Beatles moreso in the vein of "songwriters". And, sure, they were also a great band, those Beatles. But it will be the songs of the Beatles (aka Lennon and McCartney) that will endure. Bands become dated; they are products of their time. But songs remain immortal, and the Beatles will live on because of that strength.

Sure, I count "Good Vibrations" as one of the great pop songs of all time. It's artful, creative, and fun to listen to. But it's also nearly only "a Beach Boys classic"; one doesn't hear many "covers" of this particular piece. It's one of the most perfect song recordings in existence. As a work of art it exists in its perfection as a Beach Boys recording. I'm not certain we can say this of Beatles' songs such as "Yesterday" or "Something" or "Eleanor Rigby" or "If I Fell" or "Nowhere Man" or …. so many. Though the Beatles own version is great, many of the covers (pop, jazz, orchestral) take the song and say much new with it, in the way that a great song has a life of its own. I think "She Loves You" and, say, "Help", among others, remain great Beatles songs as performance art pieces and don't necessarily translate well as covers, in that same way that "Good Vibrations" works for the Beach Boys; and if the Beatles had never gone beyond "She Loves You" they would be remembered as a good band with a good song but not as they are remembered today. The Beatles song catalog, vast and stunning, will live a long time, well past the rock sound of the '60's. I doubt the Beach Boys have such a claim, or nearly anybody else in modern pop music, aside from maybe Bob Dylan and Bacharach and David.

If my prejudice comes through in this post, let it be.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

The Beach Boys' song structures took the American glee club model and adapted it to the Southern California beach scene. The Beatles had British educations and a British back-perspective on American music which led them to sound less original. In that sense the BBs were more innovative, more homespun, and less in need of a foreign audience than the Beatles.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2019)

SONNET CLV said:


> I primarily view the Beach Boys (as I view the Rolling Stones and the Grateful Dead and many other groups) as a "band", while I tend to think of the Beatles moreso in the vein of "songwriters". And, sure, they were also a great band, those Beatles. But it will be the songs of the Beatles (aka Lennon and McCartney) that will endure. Bands become dated; they are products of their time. But songs remain immortal, and the Beatles will live on because of that strength.
> 
> Sure, I count "Good Vibrations" as one of the great pop songs of all time. It's artful, creative, and fun to listen to. But it's also nearly only "a Beach Boys classic"; one doesn't hear many "covers" of this particular piece. It's one of the most perfect song recordings in existence. As a work of art it exists in its perfection as a Beach Boys recording. I'm not certain we can say this of Beatles' songs such as "Yesterday" or "Something" or "Eleanor Rigby" or "If I Fell" or "Nowhere Man" or …. so many. Though the Beatles own version is great, many of the covers (pop, jazz, orchestral) take the song and say much new with it, in the way that a great song has a life of its own. I think "She Loves You" and, say, "Help", among others, remain great Beatles songs as performance art pieces and don't necessarily translate well as covers, in that same way that "Good Vibrations" works for the Beach Boys; and if the Beatles had never gone beyond "She Loves You" they would be remembered as a good band with a good song but not as they are remembered today. The Beatles song catalog, vast and stunning, will live a long time, well past the rock sound of the '60's. I doubt the Beach Boys have such a claim, or nearly anybody else in modern pop music, aside from maybe Bob Dylan and Bacharach and David.
> 
> If my prejudice comes through in this post, let it be.


I'm not sure this is entirely true. So much of the work of both of these groups still is remembered in the original form - and we are now 50+ years gone from the Beatles and the truly memorable era of the Beach Boys. How long gone do we have to be to finally agree that these are memorable, timeless works? Surfin' USA? California Girls? Wouldn't It Be Nice? Good Vibrations? Help Me Rhonda? Wendy? God Only Knows? I Know There's an Answer? Will they be around 100 or 200 years from now? I don't know. But surely still being widely recognized half a century later is a bar few really achieve with one or two songs.

The same can be said of the Beatles. I'm not sure how much other people covering your music is truly a measure of greatness. If your primary role is as a songwriter, then yes. I think it is hard to argue that either of these bands were striving to write music that they ultimately wanted others to play. The complexity of the music (particularly for the recording technology of the time) would argue even more strongly against. This isn't classical music, where it was dependent on others to perform the music. Popular music does not operate under the same paradigm. I think the main measurers are popularity at the time of release and longevity. Both of these bands achieved both.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I think the Beatles were a world-wide phenomenon, whereas the Beach Boys were probably far bigger in the USA then elsewhere.

Looking at the Dutch hit charts (1965 onward), the Beach Boys scored only 8 Top10 hits, of which one made the #1 position.

To put this in perspective: the Beatles scored 21 top10 hits of which 15 made the #1 position. Even a contemporary group like the Hollies outperformed the Beach Boys (13 top 10 hits including one #1).


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2019)

SONNET CLV said:


> If my prejudice comes through in this post, let it be.


Saw waht you did there, hoho.



philoctetes said:


> The Beatles had British educations and a British back-perspective on American music which led them to sound less original. In that sense the BBs were more innovative, more homespun, and less in need of a foreign audience than the Beatles.


I don't follow this at all. "In need" of a foreign audience? Not at all, though they obviously wanted to break into the USA.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2019)

Art Rock said:


> I think the Beatles were a world-wide phenomenon, whereas the Beach Boys were probably far bigger in the USA then elsewhere.
> 
> Looking at the Dutch hit charts (1965 onward), the Beach Boys scored only 8 Top10 hits, of which one made the #1 position.
> 
> To put this in perspective: the Beatles scored 21 top10 hits of which 15 made the #1 position. Even a contemporary group like the Hollies outperformed the Beach Boys (13 top 10 hits including one #1).


With all due respect to the Dutch, I'm not sure that is anybody's measure of true success. But the Beach Boys had 11 albums that made it into the top 10 in the U.S., and 8 which were top 10 albums in the UK.

The Beatles are trickier, since they didn't release the same albums in the U.S. and the UK. But they released 17 albums in the U.S. that made it into the top 10. They release 12 top 10 albums in the UK. In that sense, the Beatles have the edge.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I was a young teenager when the Beach Boys were in their prime and loved their music. However, the music of the British Invasion soon made the Beach Boys also-rans in my estimation.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2019)

From an American viewpoint, I would guess that there wasn't all much in it between the Beatles and the Beach Boys, with perhaps the Beatles being slightly more popular. 

From a British perspective, the position is a lot clearer in favour of the Beatles. With the Beach Boys, their "sound" seemed rather more "samey", and they produced nothing like so many hits in the UK market. With The Beatles there was a great deal of variety in style of song, showing great versatility. Not only that, but the fact that each of the 4 members was capable of taking the lead vocals helped provide further variety. As is well known, each of the members (with the exception of Ringo) was a "star" in his own right in terms of later career. Ringo was an extremely good drummer but lacked the singing skills and charisma that each of the others had to make a separate career. On the whole, the Beatles must stand as one of the biggest musical legends of all time.

In the UK, the main competition to the Beatles was the Rolling Stones. Some folk liked both groups but it was not uncommon to find people taking sides in strong preference for one or other. There were several other British groups in the 60's that took precedence over the Beach Boys. The 60's was definitely a "golden age" for pop/rock.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2019)

I think that is mostly thanks to the recording technology that was becoming available to them at this point in time. Unfortunately, it also turned these guys from touring to being almost exclusively studio bands. The Beatles quit performing love because there was no way to recreate live what they were engineering in the studio. I have read the Beatles food a lot of compressing of sounds - recording on for tracks, and then re-recording those four tracks into a single track. The Beach Boys would overdub their own voices.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

There are fundamental differences, which makes a comparison approach absurdity, for me, at least.

The Beach boys have very little black music influence, except via Phil Spector, who Brian Wilson tried to emulate. The Four Freshmen, a big influence, are like a young version of The Mills Brothers; which makes the Beach Boys an outgrowth of that "tin pan alley" tradition of America. Their "rock" influence seems limited to Chuck Berry.

The Beatles had more R&B influence, but more importantly, a folk influence (Rubber Soul) and the English folk tradition, plus a more original "rock" feel, as in Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, etc.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

With the Beach Boys you have one musical genius. With The Beatles you have five.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> I think the Beatles were a world-wide phenomenon, whereas the Beach Boys were probably far bigger in the USA then elsewhere.
> 
> Looking at the Dutch hit charts (1965 onward), the Beach Boys scored only 8 Top10 hits, of which one made the #1 position.
> 
> To put this in perspective: the Beatles scored 21 top10 hits of which 15 made the #1 position. Even a contemporary group like the Hollies outperformed the Beach Boys (13 top 10 hits including one #1).


to put it in perspective, I think that Justin Bieber and Katy Perry are way more famous than the vast majority of great classical composers.
And to put it in perspective, success in pop music is due often to a lot of things that have nothing to do with the quality of the music (payola, the look of the musicians, to be in the right place at the right moment, being able to promote yourself...).
In terms of songwriting abilities, I think that Brian Wilson was better than Paul McCartney and John Lennon.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

DrMike said:


> With all due respect to the Dutch, I'm not sure that is anybody's measure of true success.


I just picked the Dutch chart as an example. If you would go through the French, German, Italian charts and so on, I'd expect similar results.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

The Beach Boys music was less diverse overall and their albums had more filler in my opinion. My last album I bought of the Beach Boys was Friends/20/20. Some great songs, but over half was filler.


----------



## Hiawatha (Mar 13, 2013)

Interesting to read the comments. I would choose the Beatles in any "which were the best - The Beatles or......" question. They are top of any pop/rock list of mine. This is not to say I am fanatical about them. My interests are too broad to be singular about anyone. It would also be a bit "obvious". But it is hard to think of a greater pop cultural "phenomenon" and their songwriting at its best was second to none. 

There are some biases here. I am British. That makes a nostalgia for them easier. There are also some odd inter-linkages time wise with me. Their first hit, "Love Me Do", hit the top 20 in the UK in the week I was born. (Bob Dylan played in London for the first time in that week too on exactly my day of birth). 

The final single, "Let It Be", was completed in the first week of 1970 just ahead of them breaking up. That coincides with the time when at seven I started to follow the singles chart in considerable detail. In contrast, the period 1966-1969 had obviously been one of more random and sketchy listening. When I look at it now, I think I must have been a bit weird to have been so attuned when barely out of my pram. 

Anyhow:

I see the Beach Boys as a group rather than a band. I agree with the comments about the influence of the Four Freshmen etc. My view of the Rolling Stones who are generally the either/or question with the Beatles is that they were and are a band. And it seems to me that the Beatles were both a group and a band. These distinctions could be disputed but I do feel that the Stones were more rock than the Beatles and the Beatles more rock that the Beach Boys. Few would ask "the Beach Boys or the Rolling Stones?"

Certainly it is right to say about black influence on the Beatles. That Lennon mentioned on more than one occasion that he admired Motown and felt that the early Beatles were in competition with that label says a lot. That wasn't the black rock blues in any way. It was lighter so the comparison makes sense to me.

I will come back with a few other observations in a second post.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Brian Wilson's vocal writing was very much influenced by the Four Freshmen who had fantastic arrangments done by people like Nelsen Riddle, who wrote for people like Frank Sinatra, though of course in another style. They did it all with extremely complex and tight four-part vocal writing and are considered by many as one of the greatest vocal groups of all time. I still marvel at their sophisticated vocal harmonies.






I've heard this album more times than I can remember.


----------



## Hiawatha (Mar 13, 2013)

Larkenfield said:


> Brian Wilson's vocal writing was very much influenced by the Four Freshmen who had fantastic arrangments done by people like Nelsen Riddle. They did it all with extremely complex and tight four-part vocal writing and are considered by many as one of the greatest vocal groups of all time:


Yes absolutely. Don't get me wrong. I think that Brian Wilson's songwriting is outstanding. I love the Beach Boys too. In the early 2000s, I went to see him doing the reworked "Smile" live. Actually, I took my father as he had never really been to gigs and I thought he might like it as well as seeing what it was I was enjoying on a weekly basis. "Before he passes" I thought. He was 70-something and is now 88.

To approach it all in other ways, I think the question hovers around that period in the mid/late 1960s when it was effectively Pet Sounds versus Sgt Pepper and the competition/pressures that ensued. For all of George Martin's brilliance as an arranger, I think the Beach Boys were ahead on innovative engineering techniques. That having been said, I could draw a line between Joe Meek and "Good Vibrations" when the more expected thing would have been for Meek to have been rather more influential on the Beatles.

As for the two albums. I don't think that it can ever really be questioned when they are placed in lists above everything else they both did. Both are not only strong. They represent an attitude, an axis, a place and a time. But I have to say that neither is my favourite. "Abbey Road", "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver". "Surf's Up", "Sunflower" and the original "Smiley Smile". These are among my favourites.

It is also important, I think, to consider the longer term influence and the "what happened nexts". The Beatles win easily on each of these. On the first, skip the 1970s decade for the most part and look at the 1980s/1990s and beyond. The mainly British melodic indie guitar rock thing is full of the Beatles, whether it is the airy sounds of The Smiths and the La's or the more robust way of Oasis. They along with the Byrds defined that genre via the underrated Big Star and possibly the Raspberries in different ways.

In contrast, after the 1960s, you might find a hint of the Beach Boys in the Ramones and a bit of early Green Day but it isn't especially far reaching. Furthermore, it is turned on its head by being fuzzed up. Otherwise, there are a couple of fringe moments when there are some wonderful but isolated attempts at copyism. Chris Rainbow, late 1970s. The High Llamas, mid 1990s. Arguably the Wondermints, late 1990s, who became Brian's backing band for "Smile". Those are to the Beach Boys as ELO were to the Beatles.


----------



## Hiawatha (Mar 13, 2013)

On the second - the "what happened nexts" - I refer here to what the members did in the rest of their careers. McCartney with or without Wings was very strong for at least a dozen years, although Stevie Wonder was more innovative, and arguably 20-25 years. Harrison's 1970s, the decade when he came out of a shadow, was of considerable interest, if sporadic. Lennon was wayward but still managed between 1970 and 1975 to produce some of his most memorable recordings and the comeback in 1980 was also good enough, a decent testament as it turned out. Even Starr threw out hits, albeit of dubious quality.

The Beach Boys, on the other hand......well, it is somewhat difficult to recall.......but the ongoing feuds and divisions were often like some tragic, bizarre junction where Fleetwood Mac meets the Jacksons. That dysfunctional. It meant that it all tailed off significantly for the Beach Boys as we knew them, Lady Lynda or whatever aside. Then Brian goes AWOL. Lost in his own world, post sandpit. Of all the figures here, Beatles and Beach Boys, he was by far the most troubled and possibly the one who could most accurately be called a genius. The ultimate supposed rescuing by the questionable doctor and producer Mr Landy. 

Actually when you look at the solo records from around the 1980s/1990s, they are greater in number and better in quality than anyone might think. If you don't know them, they are definitely worth exploring. But it really took until the 2000s for the thing he had to settle down. When it happened, the recovery was miraculous and after a further two decades it is so sad to hear he isn't well again. But that was and is Brian. I'm not sure I'd think the others have done much of worth but would be happy to be proven wrong.

Where will the Beatles and the Beach Boys "be" in 20,30 or 50 years time? It is almost impossible to say but unlike 20 years ago when their legacy seemed eternal, the fear now must be that they will seem less and less meaningful as most pop music has already become. Surf, sun, cars and girls....back in the day, life at least had the appearance of being much more simple. A 1950s style pre Vietnam. Different positive versions of the American dream appeared. Images of freedom when driving on Ventura Highway. Remnants of the wholesome, if also tainted, in 1980s/1990s bubblegum pop. Now wackiness prevails.

The Beatles were never a part of any British dream. There wasn't one. They emerged with less than wonderful teeth from smoke filled clubs with a lust for American pop rock n roll and an early 20th Century music hall sensibility. The sorts of places where no one had the money to buy any jewellery they could rattle so they just laughed at jokes that would now be banned today as told by cockney cross dressers. That idiosyncrasy has long gone. So too the hope that came with it. Those men had at least suggested that life would improve at a time when national service and food rationing had just ended. But before 1970, the British felt downtrodden again and they have done ever since. That much won't ever change.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Hiawatha said:


> As for the two albums. I don't think that it can ever really be questioned when they are placed in lists above everything else they both did. Both are not only strong. They represent an attitude, an axis, a place and a time. But I have to say that neither is my favourite. "Abbey Road", "Rubber Soul" and "Revolver". "Surf's Up", "Sunflower" and the original "Smiley Smile". These are among my favourites.


To me, Pet Sounds stands out for its musical refinement, also thanks to the Wrecking Crew, the incredible studio musicians that changed the musical ideas of Brian Wilson into brilliant music. Pet Sounds is to me (one of) the best pop albums of all time.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Wait, wait! Beatles versus Beach Boys????????!!!!!!

We haven't even finished arguing Beatles versus Rolling Stones yet.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Brian Wilson's instrument was the piano, not the guitar, which matters greatly.

The piano represents Western diatonic harmony, and has been used for years in pop songwriting; the guitar has connections to folk music and blues, and rock music.

The Beach Boys are more "pop" than the Beatles. The Beatles are more "rock" than the Beach Boys.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Art Rock said:


> The Beatles would make my top100 pop/rock bands (though not top 10), the Beach Boys certainly not.


Interesting.

I never thought o consider who my favorite bands were.

I took the time to put together a top 100 album list but never though of doing the same for bands...

Who are your top 10 bands?

Just off the top of my head I am thinking The Band, Jefferson Starship/Airplane, Grateful Dead, Led Zeppelin, Who, Rolling Stones

next tier

Talking Heads, Jimi Hendrix, Nirvana, Beatles, Cream....


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

eljr said:


> Who are your top 10 bands?
> 
> .


I prepared a top100 probably a decade ago for a thread in another board.

Limiting it to bands (not artists or duos), my current top 10 would be something like this (alphabetical order):

Dire Straits
Eagles
Genesis
Japan
Kayak
Pink Floyd
Porcupine Tree
Queen
Talk Talk
Yes


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

The whole idea behind the concept of "popular song" is the appeal to the masses. Modern composers can hide in academia and not have to live off the sales of their music or concert receipts. "Popular song" musicians on the other hand NEED popular acclaim to succeed. It's either that or they are selling insurance.

So to me, the "greatness" of a pop songwriter is not how innovative they are, although innovation may sell songs. You can be Nick Drake all you want, but the toppermost of the poppermost is what sells and gets remembered.

As I inferred above, I believe that Brian Wilson is a genius and I love his music. But there were three songwriters in the Beatles, each of which had more success than he did in songwriting as a Beatle and as a solo act.

The Beach Boys rode the "surf sound" to success just as the Beatles road Beatlemania to success. And in both cases, the phenomenon does not exist without the songs first. The difference between the two is that "do you love me surfer girl" is harder to relate to in Minsk, Oslo and Prague, than "I want to hold your hand."


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Hiawatha said:


> Otherwise, there are a couple of fringe moments when there are some wonderful but isolated attempts at copyism. Chris Rainbow, late 1970s. The High Llamas, mid 1990s. Arguably the Wondermints, late 1990s, who became Brian's backing band for "Smile". Those are to the Beach Boys as ELO were to the Beatles.


hey, it's great to see Chris Rainbow mentioned here! I love his albums, I don't consider him just a imitation. Deeply influenced by Brian Wilson for sure, but his music has definitely a different sound.
There are also other examples in any case (since you're from England, there's Lewis Taylor, especially on his Lost album).
I think a lot of japanese pop (I'm not an expert but I can think of the city pop genre).
Some baroque pop of the sixties and seventies, like the Free design.
Mark Eric, another guy who did stuff like this:






There are also unexpected influences like on the electronic music of musicians like Fennesz (like his Endless summer album), and a piece like All I wanna do has been mentioned many times as a inspiration for dream pop, shoegaze, vaporwave etc. 
I'm sure there are many other things I'm forgetting (I remember very long lists of musicians that I didn't even know inspired by the BB)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Room2201974 said:


> The whole idea behind the concept of "popular song" is the appeal to the masses. Modern composers can hide in academia and not have to live off the sales of their music or concert receipts. "Popular song" musicians on the other hand NEED popular acclaim to succeed. It's either that or they are selling insurance.
> 
> So to me, the "greatness" of a pop songwriter is not how innovative they are, although innovation may sell songs. You can be Nick Drake all you want, but the toppermost of the poppermost is what sells and gets remembered.
> 
> As I inferred above, I believe that Brian Wilson is a genius and I love his music. But there were three songwriters in the Beatles, each of which had more success than he did in songwriting as a Beatle and as a solo act.


but sales and success are just that, we already know that the Beatles are commercially more successful.


----------



## Hiawatha (Mar 13, 2013)

norman bates said:


> hey, it's great to see Chris Rainbow mentioned here! I love his albums, I don't consider him just a imitation. Deeply influenced by Brian Wilson for sure, but his music has definitely a different sound.
> There are also other examples in any case (since you're from England, there's Lewis Taylor, especially on his Lost album).
> I think a lot of japanese pop (I'm not an expert but I can think of the city pop genre).
> Some baroque pop of the sixties and seventies, like the Free design.
> ...


Excellent, interesting, post - thank you.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

I was watching a t.v. show onetime (acted out) about the Beach Boys and they blamed their producer(?) because they thought the producer held them back to the "beach sound" instead of moving them forward to what the new styles of music was. 

The thing I remember regarding this, for myself, was that I waited on the next Beatles album in anticipation of what it would sound like because I knew it would be so different than the last one. This was after the first 2 or 3 albums in the U.S. 

As a side note: Not long ago I was browsing YouTube and ran across a thread debating who was better, The Beatles or the Dave Clark Five! The DCF were decent but some of these people thought they were the best band that's ever been in rock. Wow!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

If one wishes to continue on with placing the Beach Boys within a pop continuum, you could pick a starting point in Doo-*** with things like _Life is But a Dream, Earth Angel, In Paradise_, etc. (there are numberless examples) where we have BB-type yearning expressed mostly with but sometimes without close harmony singing. The BBs perfected White Boy Doo-***, then passed it along to a host of contemporaries and successors including the Rascals, the Fifth Dimension, the Association, ELO, CS&N, and Disco. In some ways, the BBs were an even more rich fertilizer for others' musics than were the Beatles, as the Beatles became so variegated in their sound that their "style" became too diffuse to be copied as a general impetus. There were of course always specific instances where the Beatles provided a near-direct template such as for the Left Banke's _Pretty Ballerina_ following _Eleanor Rigby_.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Art Rock said:


> *I think the Beatles were a world-wide phenomenon, whereas the Beach Boys were probably far bigger in the USA then elsewhere.*
> 
> Looking at the Dutch hit charts (1965 onward), the Beach Boys scored only 8 Top10 hits, of which one made the #1 position.
> 
> To put this in perspective: the Beatles scored 21 top10 hits of which 15 made the #1 position. Even a contemporary group like the Hollies outperformed the Beach Boys (13 top 10 hits including one #1).


I think that's what it boils down to - and I note that nearly all those coming out for the Beach Boys are based in America.

How many Europeans, Russians, Asians would put the Beach Boys above the Beatles?

Apart from the big hits I dont know the beach boys too well - but will listen to some more to see if they could produce anything other than a surfin usa type sound.

Th Beatles aren't only better than the beach boys - they're better than any band ever - that's the whole point.

NB One of the Beach Boys - cant recall who - said when they heard the Sgt Pepper album for the first time they were like - WOW


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Just had a quick listen to Good Vibrations as people seem to be saying that is one of the BBs greatest songs.

I agree it is a good song with a very original sounding chorus but it doesnt do anything for me - all this high pitched singing cant stand it - dont like the bee gees either.

The Beatles sound is better - full - harmonious - doesnt matter that Paul and John didnt have the best voices as a group they sound 100%. The range of stuff they did is also phenomenal - from one song to another they sound so different - hey jude revolution come together etc etc.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Keith Moon was a big Beach Boys fan - his favourite ever single was _Don't Worry Baby_. He spent a lot of time schmoozing with Bruce Johnston when the BBs were in London in 1966, and if the story is to be believed Moon wanted to leave The Who and play with the Beach Boys instead. Bearing in mind what kind of drummer Moon was and his chosen lifestyle it doesn't bear thinking about.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I think all around The Beatles were the better band, but The Beatles weakness to me is they could never really escape coming across like pure pop music. They are so catchy and sometimes too much so for my tastes. They don't stretch out into vistas of sound that creates a mood closer to some classical music. Bands like Pink Floyd were better at attaining this, and I think The Beach Boys come closer to it on the album 'Pet Sounds'. I think I prefer the latter album to anything by The Beatles to be honest.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I agree that the Beatles were the most variegated pop band ever; most other pop bands kept within more tightly defined musical or lyrical boundaries, One short-lived exception was Arthur Lee's _Love_ in its heyday. Lee & Company experimented with an array of pop sounds over their brief career and left a legacy of songs that compare well with those of the Fab Four; songs that sometimes had a hint of deeper sadness just under the surface.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

tdc said:


> I think all around The Beatles were the better band, but The Beatles weakness to me is they could never really escape coming across like pure pop music. They are so catchy and sometimes too much so for my tastes. They don't stretch out into vistas of sound that creates a mood closer to some classical music.* Bands like Pink Floyd were better at attaining this,* and I think The Beach Boys come closer to it on the album 'Pet Sounds'. I think I prefer the latter album to anything by The Beatles to be honest.


Yes and I would choose the floyd over any other band for listening. Had the beatles stayed together - maybe they would have gone in the same direction - though maybe not - since harrison lennon and mcartner post beatles showed no signs of it.
You cant write off the beatles as pure pop teenie love song singers - look at some of the ground they covered 67-70. they seemed to be going places as a group - but when they split up they thought - sod it - we'll just do tracks - thus we have Imagine, Mull of Kintyre etc etc


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I was thinking that if the Beatles stayed together for another year we might just have had an album containing _Maybe I'm Amazed_, _Working Class Hero_,_ I Found Out_, _Art of Dying_, _Wah-Wah_ etc. I know that these songs were recorded after the Beatles had called it a day as a collective and even if they had recorded these songs as the Beatles they may well have sounded different but for me at least it's a tantalising proposition.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

stomanek said:


> Just had a quick listen to Good Vibrations as people seem to be saying that is one of the BBs greatest songs.
> 
> I agree it is a good song with a very original sounding chorus but it doesnt do anything for me - all this high pitched singing cant stand it - dont like the bee gees either.
> 
> The Beatles sound is better - full - harmonious - doesnt matter that Paul and John didnt have the best voices as a group they sound 100%. The range of stuff they did is also phenomenal - from one song to another they sound so different - hey jude revolution come together etc etc.


I am European and prefer the Beach Boys over the Beatles.

I would skip the surfin' music of Good Vibrations. You might want to listen to 'Pet Sounds', there is much more there than in any other BB record.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> I am European and prefer the Beach Boys over the Beatles.
> 
> I would skip the surfin' music of Good Vibrations. You might want to listen to 'Pet Sounds', there is much more there than in any other BB record.


thanks will check it out


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

NLAdriaan said:


> I am European and prefer the Beach Boys over the Beatles.
> 
> I would skip the surfin' music of Good Vibrations. You might want to listen to 'Pet Sounds', there is much more there than in any other BB record.


I listen to a few tracks from Pet Sounds. Yeah more variety - and there is a track there "wouldnt it be nice to .." that I am familiar with but didnt know it was the beach boys - I think Persil used it to advertise washing powder. Still doesnt do anything for me though. I guess Im just not into the beach boys.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2019)

Which is the greatest? _God Only Knows_!
:tiphat:


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Which is the greatest? _God Only Knows_!
> :tiphat:


Yep, my favourite Beach Boys song also - if I had to make a favourite 20 singles list it would be right up there.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Which is the greatest? _God Only Knows_!
> :tiphat:


It's been covered by many many people and groups. The 'magic' of the song is explained here - 9:10 minutes in.

Wilson bent some rules ...and I guess that's one description of a musical genius.


----------



## Hiawatha (Mar 13, 2013)

Luchesi said:


> It's been covered by many many people and groups. The 'magic' of the song is explained here - 9:10 minutes in.
> 
> Wilson bent some rules ...and I guess that's one description of a musical genius.


That is absolutely brilliant. I can sit easily with having the Carpenters very weirdly almost next to the Clash in the pop/rock section of my collection. It totally supports them. And of course the Beach Boys win the day. But when is he going to tear to shreds what is happening now as implied? I'd love to hear that. Actually, better still, get him to take over the record industry immediately. He knows what he is on about!


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> If one wishes to continue on with placing the Beach Boys within a pop continuum, you could pick a starting point in Doo-*** with things like _Life is But a Dream, Earth Angel, In Paradise_, etc. (there are numberless examples) where we have BB-type yearning expressed mostly with but sometimes without close harmony singing. The BBs perfected White Boy Doo-***, then passed it along to a host of contemporaries and successors including the Rascals, the Fifth Dimension, the Association, ELO, CS&N, and Disco. *In some ways, the BBs were an even more rich fertilizer for others' musics than were the Beatles, as the Beatles became so variegated in their sound that their "style" became too diffuse to be copied as a general impetus. *There were of course always specific instances where the Beatles provided a near-direct template such as for the Left Banke's _Pretty Ballerina_ following _Eleanor Rigby_.


The way I'd put is that the BBs had a much more singular, identifiable sound from which some future artists took a lot of direct inspiration; while The Beatles innovated a variety of different sounds/styles from which most future bands took at least a little (in)direct inspiration. EG, where would prog have been without the "concept album" of Sgt. Pepper, or the Abbey Road suite, or the experimentation with other "arty" genres? How many metal/punk bands heard Helter Skelter and She's So Heavy and thought, yeah, THAT was the future of rock? Pretty much all the power pop bands of the early 70s were an attempt to steer music back towards The Beatles before it got too grandiose.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

The Beatles were the better band, but The Beach Boys at their best were just as good. TBB have at least a handful of songs that I listen to with sheer amazement that music that perfect and beautiful is possible; but The Beatles have have a handful of such songs as well, plus an entire catalog of songs that are just as incredible in completely different ways.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2019)

I think a lot of the criticism of the Beach Boys seems to think they stopped writing music after California Girls. Wilson continued to be a great writer and producer well past Pet Sounds, even. He experimented with all kinds of styles, techniques, you name it, even when he was mentally unhinged and strung out on drugs. While they never reached that same level of commercial success as their earlier efforts, albums like Wild Honey, Surf's Up, Sunflower, and Holland were amazing. They diversified their sound and got very experimental, and tried a lot of things nobody else was doing. In the immediate aftermath of Pet Sounds and the failed Smile sessions, they even used a lo-fi sound that worked really well on the next three albums. Everybody, rightly, talks about how brilliant Pet Sounds was, and compared it to Sgt. Pepper - but remember, Wilson wrote Pet Sounds in response to Rubber Soul, before Revolver or Sgt. Pepper. Who you like comes down to personal preference, but remember both of these bands respected each other and each other's musicianship, and the attempts by each to one up the other probably helped immensely to improve both of them.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The way I'd put is that the BBs had a much more singular, identifiable sound from which some future artists took a lot of direct inspiration; while The Beatles innovated a variety of different sounds/styles from which most future bands took at least a little (in)direct inspiration. EG, *where would prog have been without the "concept album" of Sgt. Pepper,* or the Abbey Road suite, or the experimentation with other "arty" genres? How many metal/punk bands heard Helter Skelter and She's So Heavy and thought, yeah, THAT was the future of rock? Pretty much all the power pop bands of the early 70s were an attempt to steer music back towards The Beatles before it got too grandiose.


I have examined Sgt. Pepper under powerful electron microscopes and was never able to detect the underlying concept of the album. Arthur Brown's _Crazy World of Arthur Brown_ album's Fire side (1968) harbors one of the most successful and potent concepts in rock history. Does the "concept" concept really start there?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

As far as rock institutions are concerned I prefer the Grateful Dead. Between the Beatles and Beach Boys, the former were much more consistent.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The way I'd put is that the BBs had a much more singular, identifiable sound from which some future artists took a lot of direct inspiration; while The Beatles innovated a variety of different sounds/styles from which most future bands took at least a little (in)direct inspiration. EG, where would prog have been without the "concept album" of Sgt. Pepper, or the Abbey Road suite, or the experimentation with other "arty" genres? How many metal/punk bands heard Helter Skelter and She's So Heavy and thought, yeah, THAT was the future of rock? Pretty much all the power pop bands of the early 70s were an attempt to steer music back towards The Beatles before it got too grandiose.


Yeah, Sgt. Pepper's concept broke down after the second track. The reprise at the end does nothing to tie it all together. As for influence on metal/punk, the case for metal may be harder, but punk was heavily influenced by the Beach Boys. The Ramones clearly are heavily influenced by them. Other bands like Bad Religion as well, and then you can see their influence all over bands like REM, the Pixies, and several other post punk bands. The Beatles got to grandiose pretty quickly, whereas the Beach Boys continued to tour.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DrMike said:


> Yeah, Sgt. Pepper's concept broke down after the second track. The reprise at the end does nothing to tie it all together. As for influence on metal/punk, the case for metal may be harder, but punk was heavily influenced by the Beach Boys. The Ramones clearly are heavily influenced by them. Other bands like Bad Religion as well, and then you can see their influence all over bands like REM, the Pixies, and several other post punk bands. The Beatles got to grandiose pretty quickly, whereas the Beach Boys continued to tour.


See my next post RE Sgt. Pepper. I honestly don't hear much TBB in punk. Their emphasis on harmony and tonal beauty is a world away from the speed, aggression and rawness of punk. Yes, The Beatles' more grandiose offerings were as well, but they had a lot of straight-ahead garage rockers (even in their early days) that were very much in-line with punk aesthetics, more so than TBB. I still say Helter Skelter is THE prototypical punk and metal song.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> I have examined Sgt. Pepper under powerful electron microscopes and was never able to detect the underlying concept of the album...


There's a reason I put "concept album" in quotes because it was not the story-concept that albums like The Lamb Lies Down... or Tommy would be; yet the idea of a band being a fictional band and bookending an album with themes about that band almost certainly fired the imaginations of many of the concept-album bands that came after. Hence "a little (in)direct inspiration." The Beatles' music has tons of these little "germs" which would fully flower in a diverse range of later bands.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Pretty much all the power pop bands of the early 70s were an attempt to steer music back towards The Beatles before it got too grandiose.


I like the post overall, but not sure about this bit. My recollections of the early 70s was a general rejection of The Beatles, and I'm not sure that power pop bands could be seen as having any collective purpose, not even unconsciously. Can you give an example?



Strange Magic said:


> I have examined Sgt. Pepper under powerful electron microscopes and was never able to detect the underlying concept of the album.


Oh come on SM - the concept was simple - it didn't need close examination. Whoever first coined the term, it's unlikely they had in mind much more than the concept of a band adopting a persona.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> I like the post overall, but not sure about this bit. My recollections of the early 70s was a general rejection of The Beatles, and I'm not sure that power pop bands could be seen as having any collective purpose, not even unconsciously. Can you give an example?
> 
> Oh come on SM - the concept was simple - it didn't need close examination. Whoever first coined the term, it's unlikely they had in mind much more than the concept of a band adopting a persona.


Mac, I agree with your first thesis that the early 70s were, if not a rejection of the Beatles, a forgetting/ignoring of them.

To your second point: I thought then, as I continue to think now, that the Sgt. Pepper idea of "concept" or a concept, was incredibly thin gruel--the Mountain laboring to produce a mouse. With Arthur Brown and _Fire_ we actually got a concept, not a mere conceit.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> I like the post overall, but not sure about this bit. My recollections of the early 70s was a general rejection of The Beatles, and I'm not sure that power pop bands could be seen as having any collective purpose, not even unconsciously. Can you give an example?


Power pop was basically a combination of basic rock aesthetics with equally basic pop (melodic, harmonic) appeal, and that combination was one of the distinctive things about The Beatles. Now, one can argue that other bands of the time had a big hand in that as well, especially The Who and The Kinks. There was a lot of cross-influence among all of those artists (and others, including The Beach Boys... and Dylan, of course). It was The Kinks who first introduced the sitar into pop music, which influenced The Beatles; and it was The Who that inspired The Beatles' Helter Skelter.

As for an example, I'm not sure what you're looking for. I can easily hear The Beatles in these tracks:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

I'm really curious what making so many in this thread think that the (early) 70s were a rejection/forgetting of The Beatles. I don't even see how that's possible. They were the biggest, most influential band in the world. How many bands started in the 60s as a direct consequence of The Beatles? How many of those came to prominence in the 70s? What major 70s bands denied The Beatles as an influence? If by "rejection/forgetting" we simply mean that few bands were trying to directly copy The Beatles sound, then perhaps I can understand. I rather agreed with this in my first post when I talked about The Beatles' fragmentary influence.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> See my next post RE Sgt. Pepper. I honestly don't hear much TBB in punk. Their emphasis on harmony and tonal beauty is a world away from the speed, aggression and rawness of punk. Yes, The Beatles' more grandiose offerings were as well, but they had a lot of straight-ahead garage rockers (even in their early days) that were very much in-line with punk aesthetics, more so than TBB. I still say Helter Skelter is THE prototypical punk and metal song.


I guess a lot of it depends on asking the question "which punk?" Sure, they don't sound much like the angrier, more hardcore and political punk of the U.S. East coast, or England. But you really don't hear any Beach Boys influence in the Ramones? Even when they directly cover the Beach Boys? The love songs to girls? Or the harmonizing in a lot of West Coast punk, like Bad Religion, or the Descendents (who did a great cover of Wendy?)? In all honesty, I don't hear much of either band in their later years in punk rock, because at that point they were producing exactly what punk was a reaction to - the over-produced, overwrought, over complicated music that was dominating the mid to late 70s, the music too difficult to be played live, the big arena rock sounds. They stripped it back down to the basics. It was the successors to punk - the post-punk movement - that looked to the later works, when they wanted to expand beyond the musical cul-de-sac that is punk and keep the punk aesthetic while branching out. If you are pointing to Helter Skelter simply because that one song sounds kind of punkish, that isn't really the same as what we are talking about here. I think other bands, like the Velvet Underground and the New York Dolls and Television had a much bigger influence.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm really curious what making so many in this thread think that the (early) 70s were a rejection/forgetting of The Beatles. I don't even see how that's possible. They were the biggest, most influential band in the world. How many bands started in the 60s as a direct consequence of The Beatles? How many of those came to prominence in the 70s? What major 70s bands denied The Beatles as an influence? If by "rejection/forgetting" we simply mean that few bands were trying to directly copy The Beatles sound, then perhaps I can understand. I rather agreed with this in my first post when I talked about The Beatles' fragmentary influence.


My recollections were more to do with the critics and the media, rather than their influences on what followed. Of course, they influenced many bands; I wasn't denying that they were the biggest in the world. But over time, as the prospect of any reunion faded, pop and rock went on its way in a number of different directions. Some of the power pop bands you refer to had limited influence over here in the UK, where Bowie and glam was much more prominent.

My main point was to question the idea that any of these developments had any collective conscious. Some cross-fertilisation of ideas, yes - none of them existed in a cultural vacuum, but I doubt that they acted to "steer" anything anywhere...did they?



Strange Magic said:


> To your second point: I thought then, as I continue to think now, that the Sgt. Pepper idea of "concept" or a concept, was incredibly thin gruel--the Mountain laboring to produce a mouse.


Well even the most brief online research of what "concept" means shows that its definition is poor, but that if Woody Guthrie did it first, SPLHCB was one of the first in 60s pop.

And, as I said, it was a simple concept - thin gruel if you like - but you're more or less on your own if you think it so thin as to be non-existent.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

My impression was--and is--that if one heard the Sgt. Pepper album "cold"--as just the Beatles' latest album, and were not wired into the written buzz about the album, didn't read jacket notes, critics' analyses and dissections, one (me) would never say "Wow, What a Concept!!" It would be just another bunch of songs. There really is no "there" there, though many of the songs are fine songs.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I remember the monumental release of St. Pepper's - monumental because each new album seemed to be groundbreaking in its scope and depth - and it was significant because it represented an almost total transformation of their lives since they came out with their pop hits such as Love Me Do. Their lives had gone through a revolutionary change and these new songs were not simply 'I love you, you love me' songs but about friendship, a day in the life, patience and forbearance, etc. There was something deeper, more mystical and more playful going on that united the tracks in spirit and in harmony and good will. St Pepper's was like a summation of their lives up to then and a profound reflection of the changes going on in society. They seemed to be more united and integrated as people. I do not believe that this album can be viewed without seeing it within the context of the times and there was very much that led up to it and that came after it. I felt it was a great creative achievment, a landmark, and I still do.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> My impression was--and is--that if one heard the Sgt. Pepper album "cold"--as just the Beatles' latest album, and were not wired into the written buzz about the album, didn't read jacket notes, critics' analyses and dissections, one (me) would never say "Wow, What a Concept!!" It would be just another bunch of songs. There really is no "there" there, though many of the songs are fine songs.


Looking way back in time, the Sgt Pepper album was an attempt at "einheit" of the kind that classical composer always sought (but seldom achieved). It was only a partial success, maybe 30%. But it inspired others to try the same.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> My impression was--and is--that if one heard the Sgt. Pepper album "cold"--as just the Beatles' latest album, and were not wired into the written buzz about the album, didn't read jacket notes, critics' analyses and dissections, one (me) would never say "Wow, What a Concept!!" It would be just another bunch of songs. There really is no "there" there, though many of the songs are fine songs.


I'm not claiming "What a concept!" I've said twice that it was a simple 'concept', but it was clear enough to this 8 year old to get it. I wasn't wired into the written buzz, nor had I read critics' analyses and dissections, though I did look at the jacket.

Just to labour this for clarity, what I saw and heard was our family's favourite band adopting a distinct identity, presenting a set of songs as if by acts in a music hall show, by or about people who want to talk to us about their life, that goes off the rails in a surreal climax.

It bore no resemblance to any of the "albums" of songs that The Beatles had previously released which I had been listening to with my family since my Dad first took me with him to the shop to buy Please Please Me. Those were mere collections, though all albums come with some idea implied by their covers.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> I remember the monumental release of St. Pepper's - monumental because each new album seemed to be groundbreaking in its scope and depth - and it was significant because it represented an almost total transformation of their lives since they came out with their pop hits such as Love Me Do. Their lives had gone through a revolutionary change and these new songs were not simply 'I love you, you love me' songs but about friendship, a day in the life, patience and forbearance, etc. There was something deeper, more mystical and more playful going on that united the tracks in spirit and in harmony and good will. St Pepper's was like a summation of their lives up to then and a profound reflection of the changes going on in society. They seemed to be more united and integrated as people. I do not believe that this album can be viewed without seeing it within the context of the times and there was very much that led up to it and that came after it. I felt it was a great creative achievment, a landmark, and I still do.


While I appreciate and respect your enthusiasm for Sgt. Pepper, your above paean to the album is exactly the sort of extra-musical, "critical", literary, interpretive overlay that, I find, has little if any resonance in the album itself. The question arises: which affects you more--the album and its music, or the 'idea" of the album, the "concept" of the album?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> I'm not claiming "What a concept!" I've said twice that it was a simple 'concept', but it was clear enough to this 8 year old to get it. I wasn't wired into the written buzz, nor had I read critics' analyses and dissections, though I did look at the jacket.
> 
> Just to labour this for clarity, what I saw and heard was our family's favourite band adopting a distinct identity, presenting a set of songs as if by acts in a music hall show, by or about people who want to talk to us about their life, that goes off the rails in a surreal climax.
> 
> It bore no resemblance to any of the "albums" of songs that The Beatles had previously released which I had been listening to with my family since my Dad first took me with him to the shop to buy Please Please Me. Those were mere collections, though all albums come with some idea implied by their covers.


MacLeod, I give you great credit for your perceptiveness and intuition as an 8-year-old, to immediately sense the break in the _Zeitgeist_ that Sgt. Pepper represented. Alas, I was 27 when Pepper was released, and perhaps was too jaded (and still am) to equally recognize Pepper's novelty. I am being serious.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Looking way back in time, the Sgt Pepper album was an attempt at "einheit" of the kind that classical composer always sought (but seldom achieved). It was only a partial success, maybe 30%. But it inspired others to try the same.


Overt cherry-picking on my part from Wikipedia: here are Ringo and Lennon on Pepper and its concept----

"According to Womack, with Sgt. Pepper's opening song "the Beatles manufacture an artificial textual space in which to stage their art." The reprise of the title song appears on side two, just prior to the climactic "A Day in the Life", creating a framing device. In Starr's opinion, only the first two songs and the reprise are conceptually connected. Lennon agreed and in 1980 he commented: "Sgt. Pepper is called the first concept album, but it doesn't go anywhere ... it works because we said it worked.". He was especially adamant that his contributions to the LP had nothing to do with the Sgt. Pepper concept. Further, he suggested that most of the other songs were equally unconnected, stating: "Except for Sgt. Pepper introducing Billy Shears and the so-called reprise, every other song could have been on any other album"."


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> MacLeod, I give you great credit for your perceptiveness and intuition as an 8-year-old, to immediately sense the break in the _Zeitgeist_ that Sgt. Pepper represented. Alas, I was 27 when Pepper was released, and perhaps was too jaded (and still am) to equally recognize Pepper's novelty. I am being serious.


Yes. I was reflecting on my post, and how much I might have enhanced memories. I'm certainly not claiming to have been some kind of prodigy, but even if my recollections have been polished and shared with others in my family, as an adult, I believe I can justify my view of the 'concept'.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

What do you think the concept is? And more importantly don't you think any concept was actually accidental?

From what we read about ideas for the cover and the different approaches in each song by the two tunesmiths, who had quite different outlooks, beyond pop music. The two usually came together, but it was hit and miss until they did. My word for it is serendipity. Of course, for the listener none of this matters very much. They can see the concept from their own experience and perspective, because it's open-ended. Again, probably accidental..

The people producing the records behind the Beatles were obviously impressed with these young talents and their drive and commitment -- and so unexpected qualities came out from all involved. Accomplished team players with an idealist goal. It's too bad it's just pop songs..


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Paul has said something to the effect that they were done with the touring and they wanted to bring the whole world into their "lonely hearts club band" so that they could still be in people's living rooms (since they weren't touring anymore). And he said something about who Sgt. Pepper was.

They were just throwing ideas together, because putting out albums at a hectic pace (while they were still headliners) was how the most money was made with short-lived pop groups.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2019)

I think Paul wanted it to be a concept album, but as with so much of their later years, there was what Paul tried to make happen and what actually did happen. So much of the songs came from serendipitous sources. "She's Leaving Home" was based on a news story someone read - along with several of the verses in "A Day in the Life." "Mr. Kite" was based on a circus poster somebody saw. "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" came to John after seeing his child's drawing. Had there been some similar thing to the intro to "With a Little Help" before the other songs, then it might be a tighter concept. 

But does it need to be? Is it great because it was a "concept" album or because it is simply great, all meat, very little filler (still don't care for "Within You Without You" or the Reprise) that broke so much new ground, and exhibited a level of production that was cutting edge and so far ahead of most that had come before.

Incidentally, with as much as I like this album, I still prefer Revolver and Abbey Road. And I find myself listening to Pet Sounds at least as much as Sgt. Pepper's.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Lennon agreed and in 1980 he commented: "Sgt. Pepper is called the first concept album, but it doesn't go anywhere ... it works because we said it worked."


Wow, and all this time I thought for sure that John had heard of Frank Sinatra and The Ventures.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> Paul has said something to the effect that they were done with the touring and they wanted to bring the whole world into their "lonely hearts club band" so that they could still be in people's living rooms (since they weren't touring anymore). *And he said something about who Sgt. Pepper was.*
> 
> They were just throwing ideas together, because putting out albums at a hectic pace (while they were still headliners) was how the most money was made with short-lived pop groups.


I remember him saying that in the mid 60s there were a lot of bands with silly sounding names - and they thought of doing an album and making up a band with a silly name - that's how it started. Ringo said they intended every song to revolve around the sgt pepper theme - but after the billy shears song they just decided to "do tracks" ie. do what they were good at - writing super songs - which they did.

When I first heard Sgt Pepper I was in my mid 20s. I didnt know the Beatles that well - just the famous early songs. I listened to the LP - both sides - and didnt get up from the sofa until it had played through. There are not too many pop/rock LPs that could hold my attention like that but listening to sgt pepper for the first time in the mid 80s was like catching up with history being made. I knew the reputation - and it did not disappoint.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2019)

Luchesi said:


> What do you think the concept is? And more importantly don't you think any concept was actually accidental?


I thought I already explained what I thought the concept was - see my post #138. And no, I don't think it was accidental.

I haven't yet found who first came up with the term 'concept album', but as I already posted (and as others have also found), it's a very imprecise expression which has been applied to a number of albums by a number of artists from the earlier days of pop and rock. The fact that some rock journalists have found something in those albums to merit the application of the term does not mean that there is either unanimity or accuracy about any of this. What there does seem to be is some legitimacy to the idea that SPLHCB was not simply a collection of songs in the same way that their earlier albums were just collections. What the Fab Four say about since does not offer conclusive proof that no such plan was intended.

FWIW, in case anyone misreads me, I'm not claiming that the fact that it is a concept album (or often described as such) means that it is a great album. If it's a great album, it's because of the quality of the songs in the context of pop at the time and its subsequent cultural impact.

I still like the concept though .


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> I thought I already explained what I thought the concept was - see my post #138. And no, I don't think it was accidental.
> 
> I haven't yet found who first came up with the term 'concept album', but as I already posted (and as others have also found), it's a very imprecise expression which has been applied to a number of albums by a number of artists from the earlier days of pop and rock. The fact that some rock journalists have found something in those albums to merit the application of the term does not mean that there is either unanimity or accuracy about any of this. What there does seem to be is some legitimacy to the idea that SPLHCB was not simply a collection of songs in the same way that their earlier albums were just collections. What the Fab Four say about since does not offer conclusive proof that no such plan was intended.
> 
> ...


"..our family's favourite band adopting a distinct identity, presenting a set of songs as if by acts in a music hall show, by or about people who want to talk to us about their life, that goes off the rails in a surreal climax."

That's what you mean by a concept. OK, I've never thought of that.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Room2201974 said:


> Wow, and all this time I thought for sure that John had heard of Frank Sinatra and The Ventures.


Yes, I guess most albums had some 'concept' for marketing and usually an attractive or captivating cover done by a professional designer - completely apart from the musicians.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I prefer the Beach Boys' critically lambasted Still Cruisin' album to Sgt. Pepper.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

At that age I remember, Jethro Tull came out with their weird-looking, unattractive covers and I didn't care what their 'concepts' were. 'Never bought any. For me and my friends it had back-fired. We weren't that interested cover art to begin with. The White Album wrenched us the other way. To our rebellious minds and our competitive peer groups it wasn't Art and it wasn't relevant. It had the effect of advertising which was laughably out-of-touch.

"Don't trust anyone over 30!"


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> I prefer the Beach Boys' critically lambasted Still Cruisin' album to Sgt. Pepper.


Seriously? As much as I like the Beach Boys, Holland is the last album of theirs I really liked.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DrMike said:


> I guess a lot of it depends on asking the question "which punk?" Sure, they don't sound much like the angrier, more hardcore and political punk of the U.S. East coast, or England. But you really don't hear any Beach Boys influence in the Ramones? Even when they directly cover the Beach Boys? The love songs to girls? Or the harmonizing in a lot of West Coast punk, like Bad Religion, or the Descendents (who did a great cover of Wendy?)? In all honesty, I don't hear much of either band in their later years in punk rock, because at that point they were producing exactly what punk was a reaction to - the over-produced, overwrought, over complicated music that was dominating the mid to late 70s, the music too difficult to be played live, the big arena rock sounds. They stripped it back down to the basics. It was the successors to punk - the post-punk movement - that looked to the later works, when they wanted to expand beyond the musical cul-de-sac that is punk and keep the punk aesthetic while branching out. If you are pointing to Helter Skelter simply because that one song sounds kind of punkish, that isn't really the same as what we are talking about here. I think other bands, like the Velvet Underground and the New York Dolls and Television had a much bigger influence.


If I strain I might say that the Ramones sound like TBB if they had been dragged wet through the sand, thrown onto the pavement, and ran over with an 18-wheeler a few times. The other bands you mention strike me as similar; if it's TBB influence it's in a very rough form of it, perhaps because, despite appearances, TBB musicality/harmony was beyond the demands of most of those bands' meager technical abilities.

Yeah, I would agree that you hear very little of late-Beatles in punk, but the late Beatles is what sparked the psychedelic genre (which developed into prog). It's rather remarkable that you have the same band influencing two very different (some might even say diametrically opposed) strains of music in the next decade.

I'm pointing to Helter Skelter primarily because, yeah, I think it's one of their songs that could've easily inspired a lot of the future metal/punk bands. Absolutely The Velvet Underground, New York Dolls, Television (and Stooges) were the bands that constituted the first true wave of punk, but who inspired them? Here's John Cale: "(The Beatles) were a driving force in the velvets, and made us work harder and got us on our bikes. Rubber soul was where you were forced to deal with them as something other than a flash in the pan. It was rich in ideas and i loved the way george managed to find a way to include all those indian instruments. Lou and i had tried to work with the sarinda. We were only playing it just to get a noise but i realised you could play melody on the sitar as good as Norwegian wood. Norwegian woond had this atmosphere of being very acid. I don't think anybody has ever got that sound or that feeling as well at the Beatles."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> My recollections were more to do with the critics and the media, rather than their influences on what followed. Of course, they influenced many bands; I wasn't denying that they were the biggest in the world. But over time, as the prospect of any reunion faded, pop and rock went on its way in a number of different directions. Some of the power pop bands you refer to had limited influence over here in the UK, where Bowie and glam was much more prominent.
> 
> My main point was to question the idea that any of these developments had any collective conscious. Some cross-fertilisation of ideas, yes - none of them existed in a cultural vacuum, but I doubt that they acted to "steer" anything anywhere...did they?


Absolutely pop/rock eventually went their own way, but I'd say by then the influence had already seeped into most all of the bands playing, either directly or indirectly. See what I wrote above about The Velvet Underground, who was seminal in what became punk music.

I would agree that none (or few) of those movements had any "collective conscious," but genres are often form because bands adopt similar sounds due to being influenced by similar artists. So when I say that, eg, power pop was trying to return music to the earlier work of The Beatles, Kinks, The Who, etc., it's not because I think there was any conscious goal, but because that's the music those bands were clearly drawing from, just as they were clearly rejecting, say, the psychedelic/prog and punk sounds that emerged after The Beatles.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

It's rather curious how this thread took the direction of discussing the "concept" of Sgt. Pepper. I didn't think the issue was all that controversial. No, it's not a "great concept," it's extremely "thin gruel." Indeed, all it is (really) is the opening tracks, the bookend reprise, and that's about it. I didn't think the greatness/coherence of the concept was that important; the issue was that it's almost indubitable that a ton of bands heard that album, liked the notion of tying an album together with SOME concept, and decided to make their concept albums completely conceptual/coherent. Again, what I find remarkable about The Beatles isn't that they invented everything as it would become, but that they seemed to provide all these diverse seeds that fully flowered in the later bands, some that developed entire genres out of what were (with The Beatles) rather small aspects of their music. It's not unlike how many of the Romantics heard Beethoven's 6th and and proceeded to make these elaborate programs far beyond anything Beethoven would've conceived of.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^I agree with the above, but the whole thesis of the origin of the "concept" album hangs by a gossamer thread: that the Beatles said, and/or their fanbase/cheering section said, it was a concept. 1967 was an atomic year for the release of countless great albums, so one might ask whether _Are You Experienced_ or any one of a dozen other albums were concepts equal to Pepper. I think it boils down to the fact that The Beatles were a phenomenon from a popularity/sales perspective; they were what was happening, and every mother's son and daughter wanted to be in the same league, to be cutting-edge. But it fell to later artists to fully realize the concept concept, and I again hearken back to _The Crazy World of Arthur Brown_ and Fire. Way back, we posted on the strong probability that Bowie got his impetus from attending an Arthur Brown concert.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

How does a concept album hang together by a "gossamer thread" when an entire album is built from scratch? They weren't thinking in terms of writing singles but an entire album. "McCartney suggested that the Beatles should release an entire album representing a performance by the fictional Sgt. Pepper band. This alter ego group would give them the freedom to experiment musically...

"In November '66, during his and Evans' return flight from Kenya, McCartney had an idea for a song that eventually formed the impetus of the Sgt. Pepper concept. His idea involved an Edwardian-era military band, for which Evans invented a name in the style of contemporary San Francisco-based groups such as Big Brother and the Holding Company and Quicksilver Messenger Service. In February 1967, _McCartney suggested that the Beatles should record an entire album that would represent a performance by the fictional band._ This alter ego group would give them the freedom to experiment musically by releasing them from their image as Beatles." Paul said, "Why don't we make the album as though the Pepper band really existed, as though Sergeant Pepper was making the record? We'll dub in effects and things." I loved the idea, and from that moment on it was as though Pepper had a life of its own."

It was created as a _ concept album_ around the unified idea of a fictious band. All this is part of the history of the Beatles as perhaps the most important and influential album they ever did as they did everything from scratch and left their old Beatle image in the past. It was revolutionary and it's worth reading how the entire album was produced with countless experiments in sound and editing. It was not a piecemeal, fragmented concept. If one appreciates _history_, the story is there and there's more than a "gossamer thread".


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^I agree with the above, but the whole thesis of the origin of the "concept" album hangs by a gossamer thread: that the Beatles said, and/or their fanbase/cheering section said, it was a concept. 1967 was an atomic year for the release of countless great albums, so one might ask whether _Are You Experienced_ or any one of a dozen other albums were concepts equal to Pepper. I think it boils down to the fact that The Beatles were a phenomenon from a popularity/sales perspective; they were what was happening, and every mother's son and daughter wanted to be in the same league, to be cutting-edge. But it fell to later artists to fully realize the concept concept, and I again hearken back to _The Crazy World of Arthur Brown_ and Fire. Way back, we posted on the strong probability that Bowie got his impetus from attending an Arthur Brown concert.


So? At what point did this become "Which is the first or best or most influential "concept" album?"

If it's true that Bowie took his inspiration from Arthur Brown, that doesn't detract from the possibility that SPLHCB influenced prog (a point advanced by Eva Yojimbo). And all I was doing was saying that I could spot something resembling a simple concept, in the face of your determinattion that none can be found despite microscopic examination.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Why don't we repeat what two of the Fab Four tell us about the "concept" of Pepper. I offer again the Wikipedia quote:

"According to Womack, with Sgt. Pepper's opening song "the Beatles manufacture an artificial textual space in which to stage their art." The reprise of the title song appears on side two, just prior to the climactic "A Day in the Life", creating a framing device. In Starr's opinion, only the first two songs and the reprise are conceptually connected. Lennon agreed and in 1980 he commented: "Sgt. Pepper is called the first concept album, but it doesn't go anywhere ... it works because we said it worked.". He was especially adamant that his contributions to the LP had nothing to do with the Sgt. Pepper concept. Further, he suggested that most of the other songs were equally unconnected, stating: "Except for Sgt. Pepper introducing Billy Shears and the so-called reprise, every other song could have been on any other album"."

This I will grant: that The Beatles, led by McCartney, had the "concept" of a fictional band, etc., etc. cutting an album. But, we are told on the highest authority by Ringo and John, that "every other song [except for Sgt. Pepper introducing, etc.] could have been on any other album". It seems to me that concepts should be made of sterner stuff than the feebly executed intention such as that which allegedly is the driving catalyst behind Pepper--the concept is of having a concept without actually delivering one. Hence my remarks about gossamer and thin gruel. How about "all hat and no cattle" as a metaphor instead?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

For those seeking the origins of Prog, here is Wikipedia on _Revolver_. With _Revolver_, we are nearer the beginnings of many new threads in popular music than we are with Pepper.

"Revolver has been recognised as having inspired new subgenres of music, anticipating electronica, punk rock, baroque rock and world music, among other styles. According to Rolling Stone, the album "signaled that in popular music, anything - any theme, any musical idea - could now be realized". As with Rubber Soul, Walter Everett credits the Beatles' "experimental timbres, rhythms, tonal structures, and poetic texts" as *the inspiration for many of the bands that formed the progressive rock genre in the early 1970s.* He also considers Revolver to be "an innovative example of electronic music" as much as it broke new ground in pop by being "fundamentally unlike any rock album that had preceded it". Rolling Stone attributes the development of the Los Angeles and San Francisco music scenes, including subsequent releases by the Beach Boys, Love and the Grateful Dead, to the influence of Revolver, particularly "She Said She Said". Steve Turner likens the Beatles' creative approach in 1966 to that of modern jazz musicians, and recognises their channelling of Indian and Western classical, Southern soul, and electronic musical styles into their work as unprecedented in popular music. He says that, through the band's efforts to faithfully translate their LSD-inspired vision into music, "Revolver opened the doors to psychedelic rock (or acid rock)", while the primitive means by which it was recorded (on four-track equipment) inspired the work that artists such as Pink Floyd, Genesis, Yes and the Electric Light Orchestra were able to achieve with advances in studio technology. Turner also highlights the pioneering sampling and tape manipulation employed on "Tomorrow Never Knows" as having "a profound effect on everyone from Jimi Hendrix to Jay Z".


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

It was the album's impact as a whole that made it revolutionary and not singles that could have fit on any other Beatle album:

In 1987, Anthony DeCurtis of Rolling Stone described Sgt. Pepper as the album that "revolutionized rock and roll". Rolling Stone's Andy Greene and Scott Plagenhoef of Pitchfork credit it with marking the beginning of the album era. For several years following its release, straightforward rock and roll was supplanted by a growing interest in extended form, and for the first time in the history of the music industry sales of albums outpaced sales of singles. In Gould's description, Sgt. Pepper was "the catalyst for an explosion of mass enthusiasm for album-formatted rock that would revolutionize both the aesthetics and the economics of the record business in ways that far out-stripped the earlier pop explosions triggered by the Elvis phenomenon of 1956 and the Beatlemania phenomenon of 1963".

In Sgt. Pepper's intricate aural tapestry is the sound of four men rebelling against musical convention and, in doing so, opening wide the door for the sonic experimentation that launched hard rock, punk, metal, new wave, grunge and every other form of popular music that followed. - Christopher Scapelliti, writing in Guitar World, June 2007

Moore says that "The beginnings of progressive rock are normally traced to [Sgt. Pepper]", a development he attributes to the album's self-conscious lyrics, its studio experimentation, and its efforts to expand the barriers of conventional three-minute tracks. MacFarlane writes that, despite concerns regarding its thematic unity, Sgt. Pepper "is widely regarded as the first true concept album in popular music". According to Riley, "Strictly speaking, the Mothers of Invention's Freak Out! has claims as the first 'concept album', but Sgt. Pepper was the record that made that idea convincing to most ears." Author Martina Elicker similarly writes that, despite earlier examples, it was Sgt. Pepper that familiarised critics and listeners with the notion of a "concept and unified structure underlying a pop album", thus originating the term "concept album".

Rolling Stone ranked it number one in its list of the "500 Greatest Albums of All Time". As of 2011, it has sold more than 32 million copies worldwide, making it one of the best-selling albums ever released. Professor Kevin Dettmar, writing in The Oxford Encyclopedia of British Literature, described it as "the most important and influential rock-and-roll album ever recorded".
---
I agree with the above views and I remember the impact that this album had… the album and not just singles because sometimes the whole album was broadcast... and it was a cultural phenomenon unlike any other album in the history of the recording industry. It was the album as a whole that did it regardless of its thematic unity or apparent lack of it. It was unified in spirit. It inspired numerous other album concepts by other groups.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgt._Pepper's_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Frankly, I have little interesting getting into whether Revolver or Sgt. Pepper is the more important/influential album. With them we're talking about two albums that could easily (and justifiably) top any "greatest rock albums ever" list. Trying to pick between them would really be splitting hairs. I personally prefer Pepper just because I think it's more vibrant and consistent, but Revolver is nearly as good and at the end of the day they're both among my 10/10s.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

I enjoyed reading this wiki info about the second song on the album. I had learned many years ago when I played the song more in get-togethers - that John and Paul wrote the notes so that they would be easier for Ringo to sing. I didn't know that Paul was also coaching him about 'how' to hit the one high note. In the key of Cmajor it's the C above middle C. (I don't know why this article says it's the last note. -- Added: Oh ok, it sounds different with the tonic chord under it instead of the relative minor. Same note I think.)

"Lennon and McCartney finished writing this song in mid-March 1967,[3] written specifically as Starr's track for the album. McCartney said: "It was pretty much co-written, John and I doing a work song for Ringo, a little craft job." In 1970 Lennon stated: "Paul had the line about 'a little help from my friends.' He had some kind of structure for it, and we wrote it pretty well fifty-fifty from his original idea.", but in 1980 Lennon said: "This is Paul, with a little help from me. 'What do you see when you turn out the light/ I can't tell you, but I know it's mine...' is mine."[4] It was briefly called "Bad Finger Boogie" (later the inspiration for the band name Badfinger),[5] supposedly because Lennon composed the melody on a piano using his middle finger after having hurt his forefinger.

The song begins with the applause from the end of "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band".

Lennon and McCartney deliberately wrote a tune with a limited range - except for the last note, which McCartney worked closely with Starr to achieve. Speaking in the Anthology, Starr explained that he insisted on changing the first line - which originally was "What would you think if I sang out of tune? Would you throw ripe tomatoes at me?" - so that fans would not throw tomatoes at him should he perform it live. (In the early days, after George Harrison made a passing comment that he liked jelly babies, the group was showered with them at all of their live performances.)[6]

The song's composition is unusually well documented, as Hunter Davies was present and described the writing process in the Beatles' official biography.

The song is partly in the form of a conversation in which George Harrison sings a question - e.g. "Would you believe in a love at first sight?" where Starr answers, "Yes, I'm certain that it happens all the time."

Recording[edit]
The Beatles began recording the song on 29 March 1967, the day before they posed for the Sgt. Pepper album cover. They recorded 10 takes of the song, wrapping up sessions at 5:45 in the morning.[7] The backing track consisted of Starr on drums, McCartney playing piano, Harrison playing lead guitar and Lennon beating a cowbell. At dawn, Starr trudged up the stairs to head home - but the other Beatles cajoled him into doing his lead vocal then and there, standing around the microphone for moral support.[4] The following day they added tambourine, backing vocals, bass and more electric guitar.[7]"


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

(Part of) my point about Pepper is that, cold, without the blather of critics, there is no more to Pepper than there was to _Revolver_. I wasn't a reader of the Rock press or of the PR machinery of the record companies; I just listened to the music on the radio and bought the album. And it was a fine album, with many great and memorable songs, as were many of the pivotal albums of that musical _annus mirabilis_. Concept? Not so much. A dramatic (or any kind of) advancement over _Revolver_? Again, not so much. This is not to knock Pepper as an album--it is a wonderful album, right up there with its contemporaries. But I do not see it as the apotheosis of all that was hovering in that electrically charged atmosphere of 1967--everybody was feeling the vibe, it seems, and there was more than enough to go around.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Surely even listening to it "cold" you caught the fact that they were, at least at the start of the album, introducing themselves as a fictional band and, near the end of the album, reintroducing themselves as the same fictional band, and, in doing so, suggesting that you've just heard a "show" (the other songs) by said fictional band. There's nothing similar on Revolver. It wouldn't have taken much for impressionable young musicians to hear this and have the (brilliant!) idea of extending such a concept throughout every song on an album.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> (Part of) my point about Pepper is that, cold, without the blather of critics, there is no more to Pepper than there was to _Revolver_. I wasn't a reader of the Rock press or of the PR machinery of the record companies; I just listened to the music on the radio and bought the album. And it was a fine album, with many great and memorable songs, as were many of the pivotal albums of that musical _annus mirabilis_. Concept? Not so much. A dramatic (or any kind of) advancement over _Revolver_? Again, not so much. This is not to knock Pepper as an album--it is a wonderful album, right up there with its contemporaries. But I do not see it as the apotheosis of all that was hovering in that electrically charged atmosphere of 1967--everybody was feeling the vibe, it seems, and there was more than enough to go around.


Yes, without even mentioning Vietnam young folks were able to save up enough to boost album sales and thereby somewhat direct pop art.

Early in the 60s girls were finding out that they could put their emotions and desires on full display during the loud music happenings when everybody was looking at the performers (and not at them).

Why did rebellious boys from Liverpool and later the Punk generation appear as an inevitable universal outcome? We should look back at our hunter gatherer days and the role of very young men becoming heroes in their survival groups. What were their strengths and weaknesses? It explains a lot.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Surely even listening to it "cold" you caught the fact that they were, at least at the start of the album, introducing themselves as a fictional band and, near the end of the album, reintroducing themselves as the same fictional band, and, in doing so, suggesting that you've just heard a "show" (the other songs) by said fictional band. There's nothing similar on Revolver. It wouldn't have taken much for impressionable young musicians to hear this and have the (brilliant!) idea of extending such a concept throughout every song on an album.


I must have been (and still must be) be terribly blasé, fatigued with _ennui_, seen/heard it all, or maybe just too old at 27 to have been stunned by the revolution of the concept of Pepper. It's my only defense, other than the fact that Pepper was buried within a critical mass of other and equally compelling--nay, some more compelling--albums of 1967. Google "albums 1967" or something similar and feast your eyes and mind on that luxuriance. The Face of Sgt. Pepper becomes just another face in the crowd.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I must have been (and still must be) be terribly blasé, fatigued with _ennui_, seen/heard it all, or maybe just too old at 27 to have been stunned by the revolution of the concept of Pepper. It's my only defense, other than the fact that Pepper was buried within a critical mass of other and equally compelling--nay, some more compelling--albums of 1967. Google "albums 1967" or something similar and feast your eyes and mind on that luxuriance. The Face of Sgt. Pepper becomes just another face in the crowd.


It wasn't buried in 1967 and continues to stand tall. You must have some kind of bias that is coloring your perceptions.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Bulldog said:


> It wasn't buried in 1967 and continues to stand tall. You must have some kind of bias that is coloring your perceptions.


You have an opinion that differs from mine. Therefore you must be laboring under some kind of bias.

Pepper was a fine album among many fine 1967 albums. Go google that 1967 list as I suggested and your myopia may be thus ameliorated.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

It turns out that whatever tonal relationships and walls of sound that you become excited by at the age of 14 (13 for girls), that's the core excitation that will stay with you for decades. It's due to the maturation of the reward centers in the brain at that age. 

The only way to bury the old 'loves' is to listen to a lot of different music and learn about how they variously excite.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> I must have been (and still must be) be terribly blasé, fatigued with _ennui_, seen/heard it all, or maybe just too old at 27 to have been stunned by the revolution of the concept of Pepper. It's my only defense, other than the fact that Pepper was buried within a critical mass of other and equally compelling--nay, some more compelling--albums of 1967. Google "albums 1967" or something similar and feast your eyes and mind on that luxuriance. The Face of Sgt. Pepper becomes just another face in the crowd.


No argument from me that there were many great albums from '67, but what I see is a lot of striking, outstanding faces and not a faceless crowd. That's like saying that, say, The Rules of the Game was just a "face in the crowd" because 1939 was film's miracle year.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> It turns out that whatever tonal relationships and walls of sound that you become excited by at the age of 14 (13 for girls), that's the core excitation that will stay with you for decades. It's due to the maturation of the reward centers in the brain at that age.
> 
> The only way to bury the old 'loves' is to listen to a lot of different music and learn about how they variously excite.


I discovered an extremely broad range of excitations throughout my teens that have stuck with me, but just as many new ones afterwards.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> No argument from me that there were many great albums from '67, but what I see is a lot of striking, outstanding faces and not a faceless crowd. That's like saying that, say, The Rules of the Game was just a "face in the crowd" because 1939 was film's miracle year.


Perhaps we're attempting to see contrast within minutiae here. My point is that the Class of 1967 was not a "faceless" (your adjective, not mine) blur or crowd but actually its opposite--an unprecedented cornucopia of riches and delights of which Pepper was an integral part. Let's avoid creating divisions here where none really exist.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> You have an opinion that differs from mine. Therefore you must be laboring under some kind of bias.
> 
> Pepper was a fine album among many fine 1967 albums. Go google that 1967 list as I suggested and your myopia may be thus ameliorated.


Yes, I'm familiar with the 1967 offerings and agree it was a great year with 2 Beatles albums leading the way.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I discovered an extremely broad range of excitations throughout my teens that have stuck with me, but just as many new ones afterwards.


That's probably why you're an eclectic music lover today, but many people have a very different experience with the world of music (what little they know) and this study says that they fall back to the 'loves' of their 14 year old brain.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> That's probably why you're an eclectic music lover today, but many people have a very different experience with the world of music (what little they know) and this study says that they fall back to the 'loves' of their 14 year old brain.


Maybe TC posters are different. I, however, and maybe you and Yojimbo (and others) both "fall back to" (="still like") the loves of our 14 year old selves and groove on newer musics picked up along the way. What typifies many other TC posters here on the Non-Classical Forum is the degree to which so many say they outgrew this or that, evolved, matured, put behind them youthful enthusiasms. But I don't evolve, as I've posted previously; I instead expand, my musical interests.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Maybe TC posters are different. I, however, and maybe you and Yojimbo (and others) both "fall back to" (="still like") the loves of our 14 year old selves and groove on newer musics picked up along the way. What typifies many other TC posters here on the Non-Classical Forum is the degree to which so many say they outgrew this or that, evolved, matured, put behind them youthful enthusiasms. But I don't evolve, as I've posted previously; I instead expand, my musical interests.


Perhaps it's too simplistic, but I dug up the article;

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/opinion/sunday/favorite-songs.html


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2019)

Luchesi said:


> Perhaps it's too simplistic, but I dug up the article;
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/opinion/sunday/favorite-songs.html


So the research would explain, in my case, why I like Robert Wyatt and Brian Eno, but not why I like Joy Division, Radiohead and The Beatles.

Then again, it explains nothing at all about what I like, more about what was on in the background during a period of hormonal activity connected with discovering my sexuality. In other words, it's not so much that I _like _Robert Wyatt, more that, like Pavlov's dog, I am subconsciously conditioned to respond positively to it, as a result of adolescence.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Though I haven't read that particular article, I've read similar ones (perhaps on the same study?) and seen some YouTube videos that have mentioned something similar. However, even the author mentions near the end that there are exceptions, including himself, whose tastes develop beyond (or in opposition to) whatever is popular in their adolescence. 

Just for fun, I copied my top 30 favorite artists lists, put it in excel, and put an estimate of what age I first heard the music. I basically used a "13/15/18" and "22/25/28" modifier for my mid/early/late teens/20s, and then just "30" for music I've found in the past few years (I'm currently 33), and here's how it stacks up: 

22	Bob Dylan
13	Iron Maiden
18	Beatles, The
13	Led Zeppelin
28	Kinks, The 
18	Opeth
28	XTC
15	Jimi Hendrix
18	King Crimson
30	Mercyful Fate / King Diamond
30	Tom Waits
28	Bjork
15	Judas Priest
25	Prince
28	Talk Talk
25	Yes
13	AC/DC
15	Tool
22	Death
28	Steely Dan
18	Black Sabbath
18	Radiohead
22	Gathering, The
15	Dream Theater
28	Cocteau Twins
18	Rush
30	Scorpions
25	King's X
30	Kate Bush
30 Fates Warning

Of this top 30, there are 7 from my early/mid teens, 6 from my late teens, 4 from my early 20s, 3 from my mid 20s, 6 from my late 20s, and 4 from my early 30s. 

So while the largest number is indeed from my early/mid adolescence, the next largest is from my late teens and late 20s, and the total from my 20s (13) is the same as the total from my teens, and I'm currently on the same pace for my 30s. 

Now, there are some caveats I could write about this as well. For one, my listening habits have drastically changed from my teens until now. When I was a teenager, the only way to listen to music was to buy CDs and I was hardly rich, so I ended up listening the few bands/artists I liked a lot. In comparison, by my 20s most all music was available either for cheap or for free online and I built up a huge library of music, so I never run out of new stuff to hear. So I could say that I ended up loving a much higher percentage of music I heard in my early/mid teens, while today I listen to much more music but end up loving a much smaller percentage of it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Eva Yojimbo: "So I could say that I ended up loving a much higher percentage of music I heard in my early/mid teens, while today I listen to much more music but end up loving a much smaller percentage of it."


Question: does this result, today, in your loving and incorporating into your "favored music" archives a roughly fixed amount of music, say, per decade? A) Early: less music @ higher percentage. B) Today: more music @ lower percentage. Does A roughly equal B?

True in my case. I tend to add fewer and fewer new artists/groups but focus on the preferred newer ones as the years pass. Likely a protection mechanism in order to deal with the ever-increasing stream of new material that the New Stasis in the arts brings all of us. One can handle only so much new input.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> Question: does this result, today, in your loving and incorporating into your "favored music" archives a roughly fixed amount of music, say, per decade? A) Early: less music @ higher percentage. B) Today: more music @ lower percentage. Does A roughly equal B?
> 
> True in my case. I tend to add fewer and fewer new artists/groups but focus on the preferred newer ones as the years pass. Likely a protection mechanism in order to deal with the ever-increasing stream of new material that the New Stasis in the arts brings all of us. One can handle only so much new input.


At least according to the results above, yes, A and B totals out to a pretty even amount. Of that top 30, 13 from my teens, 13 from my 20s, and currently 4 from my 30s (which puts me on an 12-13 pace for this decade). I have my favorite artist list filled out to a top 100 (though as it gets towards the bottom I could easily swap many of them out for others), so I don't know how much the results would change if I kept going. I'm guessing that there would be even more from my 20s/30s on the list because I heard so much more music from those years.

Yeah, there's just so much out there that it's impossible to keep up. My basic method is to try to sample a few songs. If it sounds even a bit interesting, then I'll try an album; if I like the album, I'll usually try to make a run through their discography. Only my favorites end up getting multiple discography runs, and for most I end up paring it down to a few albums, or even a few songs that I'll revisit. My top bands/artists are all those whose discographies I've gone through multiple times.


----------



## Guest (Jul 15, 2019)

I don't think I fit in these models. I do still like some music that I enjoyed as a teenager, but less than I did at the time. Some bands have stuck with me - New Order, Joy Division, the Smiths, the Cure being the major examples. Most have fallen to the wayside, although if I hear them, I will stop and listen, but won't actively seek them out.

But the bands that I listen heavily to recently - CCR, the Beatles, the Beach Boys, Johnny Cash, die Ärzte - are bands that, while I knew of them before, I didn't really start listening to them in earnest until the last few years (I am in my mid-40s). Most of the music I listen to now came out before I was born, and wasn't particularly popular in my teenage years.

The older I get, the more I want to branch out and explore other music - hence my attention to classical music, which really only began in earnest in my late 30s.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> So the research would explain, in my case, why I like Robert Wyatt and Brian Eno, but not why I like Joy Division, Radiohead and The Beatles.
> 
> Then again, it explains nothing at all about what I like, more about what was on in the background during a period of hormonal activity connected with discovering my sexuality. In other words, it's not so much that I _like _Robert Wyatt, more that, like Pavlov's dog, I am subconsciously conditioned to respond positively to it, as a result of adolescence.


It has to do with brain chemistry so I assume that whatever interests you have after 14 will interact, interfere, reinforce or even push out the effects. For example if you hear a lot of music or do a lot of music participation it will probably make you less of a helpful test subject. If you do very little with music and you don't really get interested in music that's new to you, your excitation level will remain at the earlier stage?


----------

