2. music
  3. 123214-2454

The Beach Boys

I'm a huge fan of classic rock, and music in general, listening to almost all genres from classical to jazz to rock to contemporary pop (very selectively). Don't care much for country and reggae. I've been reading in the latest issue of Stereophile about Acoustic Sounds reissuing The Beach Boys catalog, and the article compelled me to express my opinion on this forum. I'm simply completely, utterly, and overwhelmingly at a loss to understand the acclaim for this band. The fact that "Pet Sounds" is considered one of the greatest albums of all time leaves me speechless. I always considered their music a bit of a joke, good for background when you're in a beach bar in Southern California, in the same vein reggae or mariachi music are tolerable in Jamaica or Mexico, respectively, when one's on vacation. I then heard about them being compared to The Beatles and have been confused ever since. Perhaps a comparison to The Beatles early songs as they were evolving as musicians and songwriters would make sense, but comparing the genius of The Beatles to the "genius" of Brian Wilson is just preposterous, in my opinion.

I would like to hear from those who like or love The Beach Boys what it is about their music that they think warrants the acclaim and their presence in the upper echelon of music. I realize my post may generate quite a bit of controversy and angry responses, but I don't mean to offend or put down anyone's musical tastes. I'm posting as a music lover who is truly perplexed. 

    
actusreus

Showing 3 responses by minkwelder

minkwelder
255 posts
 
"The fact that "Pet Sounds" is considered one of the greatest albums of all time leaves me speechless. I always considered their music a bit of a joke, good for background when you're in a beach bar in Southern California..."

The above quote would indicate to me that the OP has never heard Pet Sounds. It certainly is NOT gimmicky "beach music". The album was lushly instrumented by the famous "Wrecking Crew", who were astonished at Brian Wilson's abilities as an arranger and producer, and considered it a monumental achievement.

minkwelder
255 posts
 
213runnin,

It seems that you have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand. Do you personally refuse to listen to music produced by anyone who used drugs, or only those who have a public reputation as a drug abuser? When it comes to the Beach Boys' music, you seem to be saying that one shouldn't listen to Pet Sounds or anything recorded subsequent to that album. How about the songs on which Brian had no input? 

You have indicated that your favorite Beach Boys tune is Sloop John B, which was released in 1966, yet Brian's LSD use began in 1965. Are you willing to accept that song because his drug problems hadn't, in your opinion, progressed to the point of "abuse"?

Do you reject the music of Louis Armstrong, Berlioz, Miles Davis, Chopin, or Judy Garland? If you include alcohol abuse in your "no-listen" list, you are rejecting an even greater number of very good musicians.

Personally, I listen to music I enjoy. I don't research the personal shortcomings of the musicians before I listen.   
minkwelder
255 posts
 
213runnin,

"Yes, you embrace abuse when you accept the fruit of the abuse".

How do you explain this, then?:

"Personally, I listen to music I enjoy, and don’t research artists for drug use".

How is it that you're not accepting the "fruit of the abuse", but "some" of us are?
 

"The line that I draw is to not revere the resulting chaos that LSD caused Brian Wilson and his music, as some of you seem to do".
 
I would like to request that you share with us how you concluded that some of us are merely listening to music we enjoy, but some of us "revere the resulting chaos" to musicians that drugs have caused.

 
More to discover