The Beatles vs The Beach Boys

blastingas10 · 03-29-2012, 09:57 PM

There's nothing elaborate or experimental about that song when I hear it.

I think it's the bad, monotone vocals that really bore me.

**Janszoon** · 03-29-2012, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

There's nothing elaborate or experimental about that song when I hear it.

Really? So the theremin was pretty common instrument in pop music of the time in your opinion?

And, even if you don't like the song, I really don't see how you can deny that it's pretty elaborately put together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

I think it's the bad, monotone vocals that really bore me.

lolwut. Whether you like the Beach Boys or not, their vocals are about the furthest thing from monotone I can think of.

blastingas10 · 03-30-2012, 01:33 AM

I'm not talking about the harmonies. Carls voice is a bit on the monotone side if you ask me. It doesnt go up and down, it's just stays kind of flat. But that being said, I really like some songs he sings.

I guess what I meant was it doesn't sound that experimental. It's on the innovative side of things but is still accessible and listenable for me, which is what I like. And what I mean by that is, it doesn't sound really crazy like some captain beefheart songs for example. It's innovative but so much that it goes off the deep end.

I dont judge songs based on experimental or innovative value alone. I like elaborate, innovative and experimental music, but I also like simple and traditional music. Just because a song is more experimental than another doesn't mean I'm going to like the experimental song more than the simple song. The Beatles also had pretty innovative and experimental music. Revolution 9, for example. There weren't any "pop" songs with a sitar in them until the beatles came along. The kinks emulated a sitar with a guitar but still didn't use an actual sitar. And George could actually play it without having to bring In a session musician.

pulpcult · 04-01-2012, 11:28 AM

The Beatles...that is all

DiamonDArcy · 04-01-2012, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

That's just crazy. I'd say youd have to be old fashion and uptight to like that beach boys songs better. And possibly be wearing a chastity belt. But opinions are like *******s. How can anyone not be bored to death by "good vibrations"?

First, I gotta say BEATLES. Easy.

But 'Good Vibrations' was a musical achievement. Someone here called it a masterpiece. It is. Earlier I saw it compared to 'Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da'. Not the best comparison. 'A Day In The Life' would've been more appropriate, I think.
The harmonies are incredible (someone here called it monotonous - an April Fool's joke, perhaps?) It's dynamic. Awesome.

The Beach Boys are a great band, but nobody will come out on top versus The Beatles, except for The Beatles.

Surell · 04-01-2012, 12:30 PM

Good Vibrations touches my soul, especially the "Hum-Be-Num" section. Obladi blah blah blah is a good Beatles song, sort of classic yet edgy rock I think they do well. However, in comparison with Good Vibrations, I'd probably go with Happiness is a Warm Gun, since it can compare in the dynamics in shifts and buildups and whatnot. Good Vibrations is a little over produced to me though. The music itself is great, but I feel like it was recorded to be so deep it came out a little flat. But in composition and the instrumental performance, I love it.

**Janszoon** · 04-01-2012, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

I'm not talking about the harmonies. Carls voice is a bit on the monotone side if you ask me. It doesnt go up and down, it's just stays kind of flat. But that being said, I really like some songs he sings.

I'm honestly not sure at all times which of the five people singing during the song is Carl, but the vocals as a whole are quite beautiful to me and not at all monotone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastingas10

I guess what I meant was it doesn't sound that experimental. It's on the innovative side of things but is still accessible and listenable for me, which is what I like. And what I mean by that is, it doesn't sound really crazy like some captain beefheart songs for example. It's innovative but so much that it goes off the deep end.

I dont judge songs based on experimental or innovative value alone. I like elaborate, innovative and experimental music, but I also like simple and traditional music. Just because a song is more experimental than another doesn't mean I'm going to like the experimental song more than the simple song. The Beatles also had pretty innovative and experimental music. Revolution 9, for example. There weren't any "pop" songs with a sitar in them until the beatles came along. The kinks emulated a sitar with a guitar but still didn't use an actual sitar. And George could actually play it without having to bring In a session musician.

Huh? You said "youd have to be old fashion and uptight" to like "Good Vibrations" better than "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" and asked how anyone could not "be bored to death" by "Good Vibrations". I was responding by explaining why I like "Good Vibrations" and pointing out the ways in which it was actually the least "old fashioned" of the two songs being compared here. One of those ways was the more experimental instrumentation.

Howard the Duck · 04-02-2012, 01:20 AM

i'd prefer a "God Only Knows" vs "Strawberry Fields Forever" debate

cos there was mutual respect from both sides for those two

blastingas10 · 04-02-2012, 01:38 AM

When I said "you'd have to be old fashions and uptight", I was joking. But I still think one them (Carl I think) has a pretty flat and monotone voice, not the vocals as a whole. The harmonies definitely aren't flat.

And I was just saying that the beatles also had some innovative and experimental song. And then I went on a rant about simple music. What I meant to say was "rabble, rabble, rabble".

Noise Wall · 04-02-2012, 03:18 AM

There was a time when, if things had taken a different path, this would be a fair comparison. Both bands started off as crappy pop rock groups(Though I would definitely tip my hat to the Beatles in the early years). They both began to develop rapidly, but unfortunately the Beach Boys had only two great works post **** era, where as the Beatles had much more.

In my opinion Smile is the best album from the collective bunch, and maybe(large stress on this maybe) Pet sounds is in second place, but the next seven spots are Beatle works. Wilson, unfortunately, had no Paul or George to his Lennon, just a bunch of Ringos who only sought to bring him down.

03-30-2012, 01:33 AM	#373 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	I'm not talking about the harmonies. Carls voice is a bit on the monotone side if you ask me. It doesnt go up and down, it's just stays kind of flat. But that being said, I really like some songs he sings. I guess what I meant was it doesn't sound that experimental. It's on the innovative side of things but is still accessible and listenable for me, which is what I like. And what I mean by that is, it doesn't sound really crazy like some captain beefheart songs for example. It's innovative but so much that it goes off the deep end. I dont judge songs based on experimental or innovative value alone. I like elaborate, innovative and experimental music, but I also like simple and traditional music. Just because a song is more experimental than another doesn't mean I'm going to like the experimental song more than the simple song. The Beatles also had pretty innovative and experimental music. Revolution 9, for example. There weren't any "pop" songs with a sitar in them until the beatles came along. The kinks emulated a sitar with a guitar but still didn't use an actual sitar. And George could actually play it without having to bring In a session musician. Last edited by blastingas10; 03-30-2012 at 01:42 AM.

03-29-2012, 09:57 PM	#371 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	There's nothing elaborate or experimental about that song when I hear it. I think it's the bad, monotone vocals that really bore me.

04-01-2012, 11:28 AM	#374 (permalink)
pulpcult Groupie Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 13	The Beatles...that is all

04-02-2012, 01:38 AM	#379 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	When I said "you'd have to be old fashions and uptight", I was joking. But I still think one them (Carl I think) has a pretty flat and monotone voice, not the vocals as a whole. The harmonies definitely aren't flat. And I was just saying that the beatles also had some innovative and experimental song. And then I went on a rant about simple music. What I meant to say was "rabble, rabble, rabble".

04-02-2012, 03:18 AM	#380 (permalink)
Noise Wall Groupie Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Souvlaki Space Station Posts: 35	There was a time when, if things had taken a different path, this would be a fair comparison. Both bands started off as crappy pop rock groups(Though I would definitely tip my hat to the Beatles in the early years). They both began to develop rapidly, but unfortunately the Beach Boys had only two great works post **** era, where as the Beatles had much more. In my opinion Smile is the best album from the collective bunch, and maybe(large stress on this maybe) Pet sounds is in second place, but the next seven spots are Beatle works. Wilson, unfortunately, had no Paul or George to his Lennon, just a bunch of Ringos who only sought to bring him down.