You can look at it either way I suppose.

Both The Beatles and The Beach Boys started as unknowns I guess, though I feel there was more musical talent in The Beatles. But as I said earlier I don't think the debate matters much because they could both be very good. Now if it was comparing an average really overrated group to one of them I would be more up for comparing the merits of those involved.

Yes, I only said that because they were called overrated. I believe they were turned down by many labels in the beginning. They earned their position. I don't think they were overrated at all. The mark they left on music cannot be denied. Theyve passed the test of time. If they were just a trendy pop band, there's no way they would still be relevant today, about 50 years later.

It seems to me that anything of lasting fame in popular music gets some hype along the way. Some things deserve a lot more of the hype than others surely, but they all get hype.

I prefer the feel of the Beach Boys songs. I love the Beatles, they did some great songs, but the Beach Boys songs were more...'feel-good'.

What do you mean? I mean that not all pop bands are as influential and have the lasting power that the Beatles have. Will Justin Bieber be as influential and relevant as the Beatles are 50 years from now? Hell no. Katy Perry? No. They all will be replaced and forgotten. That can't be said for the Beatles.

Today it sounds generic. It may have influence but people have done what they did much better. Floyd have stood the test of time and still come out fresh and creative. The Beatles? Eh. The song i find best by them wasn't really even written by them: the lyrics from "Tomorrow Never Knows" were lifted from a Timothy Leary book. Their lyrics were pretty average, and whatever influenced their songs bleeds through pretty clearly, except slightly on the aforementioned song.

Can the same be said for the Beach Boys (Wilson eraa btw)? No. Their sound was unique, stood the test of time, and has gone on to influence the style of music beyond what the Beatles ever did.

And yeah, the Beatles were initially turned down for not sounding pop enough, but pop had a lot of restrictions back then, i'm sure it wasn't hard to get turned down. Everyone faces rejection in their career, the Beatles didn't have to overcome that much; they were just another pop act for awhile, albeit bigger. Marvin faced adversity for What's Going On, Brian Wilson has been mentioned, Sabbath had to replace Wicked World with Evil Woman on their debut.

The Beatles sound generic? Haha. That's funny. You're right about their lyrics not being that good. Except I think the lyrics to "Across the Universe" are pretty good. Not many bands have been as orignial as Floyd. I'd rank their creativity higher than that of The Beatles. The Beatles were still pretty creative, maybe not on their first few albums, but starting at Rubber Soul, I'd say they got pretty creative. Both Floyd and The Beatles were unique and have stood the test of time.

You say the Beach Boys were unique and have stood the test of time. The same applies for The Beatles. And The Beatles had a bigger impact on music than The Beach Boys in my opinion. As someone mentioned, Pet Sounds was inspired by Rubber Soul.

The lyrics of Tomorrow Never Knows may not have been that original, but they really did a good job of spreading the message. But the lyrics aren't the only greatness of that song. The song was very experimental for popular music at the time. It featured some never before heard used recording techniques such as automatic double tracking (ADT) to double John’s vocals (which were then sent through a Leslie rotating speaker to create a mystical effect), clever tape “loops” designed by Paul (for additional mystical effect), an Indian-inspired modal music structure created my Lennon, it is all held together by a noticeably irregular drum pattern by Ringo. And of course the backwards guitar solo. And if that weren’t enough, “Tomorrow Never Knows” is structurally restricted to just one chord.

This song breaks established convention regarding popular musical composition.

At the time, exactly. Just because the Beatles may have influenced most bands today doesn't mean they did it better; many bands are taking rock n roll/pop music in much more interesting directions than they ever did. I'm sure caveman art plays some pioneering role in today's art, but only in the most basic of ways.

Pet Sounds broke pop music conventions for a whole album. And yeah, i know about the recording techniques. They may have been "unheard of" for pop at the time but that's just pop/mainstream; it wasn't invented by the Beatles.

The Rubber Soul influence is majorly a stretch. The classical influences there are minute or background factors whereas Pet Sounds is based around Classical music on a pop platform.

Don't really understand this logic. You say they influenced most bands today but then somehow discredit that, like it's not a huge accomplishment. They deserve credit for what they did in their own time. Nobody can make music forever, therefore nobody can always keep up with the times. So, discrediting what they did because it was only in their time is flat out illogical and ignorant. The Beatles continue to sell albums, more albums than the Beach Boys I'm sure. They continue to inspire generation after generation. Their music is still more creative and better than most bands today, bands who had the advantage of coming after and learning from the revolutionary bands like The Beatles and The Beach Boys and Pink Floyd and so on. Sgt. Peppers isn't even my favorite album. I'd still like The Beatles more even if that album never existed. It's completely subjective.