Would a 1967 release have done anything to 'dethrone'

lol no

>>71087243
not in the public eye no, but to people who cared more, maybe

>>71087415
are you seriously no joke trying to say that the beach boys weren't as popular in the 60s as the beatles?

>>71087433
are you going to tell me that the public in the 60's reacted to beach boys albums as works of art in the same way the beatles were regarded

>>71087448
pet sounds, yeah

if wild honey wasnt as praised as sgt pepper then maybe the beach boys should have made better albums

>>71087448
Critics praised Pet Sounds like a mother fucker dude. It was sales that failed. People were fucking plebs back then though, they weren't ready for baroque/chamber pop.

>>71087448
The Beatles were hitmakers just like the Beach Boys. The public of the 60s bought singles.

It would have changed EVERYTHING.

None of you were alive during this time. Find someone who was, and ask if the Beach Boys had anything whatsoever on the Beatles.
They'll tell you there was no semblance of a comparison to be made.

>>71088168
Exactly. Plebs. I can't not listen to an entire album man, I hate listening to singles. Maybe I'm autistic.

>>71088196
This is the thing. Beatlemania was certainly a thing, but that's because of their marketing more so than anything. Capitol Records started pushing the Beatles much harder than the Beach Boys, because they were "new and fresh". The Beach Boys PR and marketing couldn't keep up with The Beatles. Musically though? Brian Wilson was on the same level as Paul/John, maybe even better at times. The public isn't going to acknowledge that though because again, as I've stated, the general public is musically plebelicious.

>>71088212
It's more that the Beatles evolved much sooner and faster.

While the Beach Boys were writing a hundred songs about cars, surfing, and girls, the Beatles were exploring thematic depth and innovative sounds.

>>71088275
That may have been part of it, and that's why a lot of people here dislike Mike Love. "You've gotta stick to the formula!"

But seriously, I think The Beatles had far superior marketing. You could say the Beatles really wrote about love, platonic, familial, or otherwise mostly.

>>71088275
The Beatles started their evolution with Rubber Soul. Pet Sounds came out as a response to it, in the same year as Revolver. It wasn't that much sooner or faster.

>>71088275
>It's more that the Beatles evolved much sooner and faster.

No they didn't. Check your chronology.

>>71088308
The Beatles were writing songs like "Help", "I'm a Loser", and "Yesterday" before Rubber Soul.

>>71088351
And the Beach Boys put out "In My Room" in 1963, two years before the Beatles were writing about that kind of stuff.

>>71088351
And The Beach Boys released "In My Room" before all of those.

>>71087243
not a chance

File: born_in_1961_puzzle.jpg (21KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 225x225px

>>71088196
I was alive at the time. The Beach Boys were no where near as popular as the Beatles. And i saw The Beach Boys live in the 70's

>>71088388
>>71088397
And the Beatles recorded "Misery" before "In My Room."

>>71087243
Are you kidding?? the Beach Boys were viewed as wholesome boys you could take home to mother. The Beatles had a bad boy forbidden vibe similar to Elvis.It was "cool" to like the Beatles.

>>71088447
Only a few months before. Hardly counts as "sooner and faster". Misery isn't even that ground-breaking or different. It just feels like you're grasping at straws to avoid having to accept that you said something moronic.

>>71088525
"Misery" appeared on the Beatles' first album. "In My Room" appeared on the Beach Boys' third album. So yes, that is sooner and faster.

>>71088275
the pop evolutions of pet sounds have stood the test of time far better than the evolutions of revolver. revolver contains gimmicky bullshit in their evolutions (backwards tape / reversed guitars e.t.c) whilst pet sounds pushed pop music into an actual art form which still sounds avant garde today

>>71088562
But the thing is, Misery isn't even that crazy, I don't know why you're using it as this huge example for The Beatles innovating so quickly. In My Room is definitely more interesting and out there in comparison to Misery. All of Please, Please Me is pretty safe and tame. As I said, you're just frantically trying to cover your arse now that you've realised you said something fucking stupid. The Beach Boys and The Beatles were constantly influenced by each other and were pushing each other forward. It's why the comparison exists now - they started pushing forward at about the same time. We're talking about why The Beatles were heralded as more influenctial and got more attention than The Beach Boys and you're reasoning was that they evolved sooner, but they started around the same time, which is what is the most important aspect of it. Just because they had one maybe KIND OF out there track on their first album (which isn't even really out-there), and The Beach Boys didn't have one until their third album (both of which came out in the same year), no one really worried about that at the time. They cared about the time it came out, and it started happening pretty close to each other for both The Beatles and The Beach Boys. In fact, I'd argue the reason broke out better than The Beach Boys was because they were the newer band and their label decided to push them more. That's it.

pet sounds > smile > sgt pepper > friends > abbey road > revolver > sunflower > white album > surfs up > today > holland > love you > rubber soul > rest of both discographies

>>71088705
the beach boys are my favorite band, but the beatles' run from rubber soul to abbey road should be above every beach boys album that isn't pet sounds or smile

>>71087243
Dethrone? Debatable.
However if released on time and in the way Brian envisioned it or heard it in his head it would've given Sgt Pepper a good run for it's money.

>>71088847
No it wouldn't ...Again. the Beach Boys had a squeaky clean image. The Vietnam war was was in full swing. The Summer of Love and San Francisco protest scene was occurring. The Doors had released their first album. Smile would have flopped for the Beach Boys

>>71088956
Your argument is that flower power and Vietnam were gritty and raw while something like Smile was too "squeaky clean"? This is dumb logic. The album most certainly would have had an effect on popular music if it had released in 67.

>>71088977
And your argument is no better then mine. Unlike you though. I was alive in 1967. Just because "kids" of today like in way entails thats the kids in the 60's would have embraced it. They were worried about being drafted. or fleeing to Canada or supporting those that had to make those choices as regards the young women of the time.

>>71089042
in "no" way

>>71088977
Sgt. Peppers is quite flowery and child-like, in fact that was the point, and that exploded onto the scene in 1967. Smile had some more raw and unsettling tracks with Mrs O'Leary's Cow, Do You Like Worms?, and more down-trodden and mellow tracks like Surf's Up and Child is the Father of The Man. Not only is your argument flawed, but it out-right doesn't make sense.

>>71088956
I respectfully disagree.
In spite of their squeaky clean image The Beach Boys could hold their own with the best of the psychedelic bands of 1967. The song Good Vibrations was meant as a preview for an album that unfortunately would never be released on time. Many people who originally hated The beach Boys because of the squeaky clean image you mentioned actually took an interest in them once Good Vibrations was released as a single. Unfortunately because of the story we all know all too well we got Smiley Smile instead. I still argue that if Smile had been released as it was supposed to be it would've been equal to Sgt Pepper flower power and Viet Nam war notwithstanding. Good psychedelic music is good psychedelic music and Smile is a good psychedelic music album. (So is Smiley Smile but the latter is a bit of a let down once you've heard Smile or at least what was finally released as Smile three decades later.) Mind you this is just my opinion.

The Beach Boys at their peak popularity (63-64) weren't even close to the popularity that the Beatles held throughout their career. You could argue that they became creative rivals in the mid 60s for a year or two until Brian self destructive, but even then it was no competition in the eyes of the public