Beatles were a rock band, the Beach Boys were a pop band with a musical genius at the helm. Even on their arty-est album (Sgt. Pepper), the title cut rocked harder than anything the Beach Boys ever did. Their Beach Boys (and Chuck Berry) spoof/tribute song - "Back in the USSR" - rocked harder than any Beach Boys song.
@@aquamarine99911 If you want to look at the Beatles rock credentials then yes they look OK next to the Beach Boys (who were as you say not a rock band) but the Beatles were basically a boy band in their early days and a bit of a novelty act (mostly) in the late 60s. Listen to two songs - first the awful "Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep" by Middle of the road. a shite pop song. Now Meatloaf Dead Ringer for Love. A great rock song you will hopefully agree. Now if the Beatles are great then the will be up there with Meatloaf? Fair enogh? OK put this to the test. Pop on Revolution - Off it goes with a wild electric guitar intro, if it were meatloaf he would come in and blast us away. But what happens this blasting guitar stops and off goes Lennon with the dullest and weakest vocal imaginable. It sounds just like Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep! It just plods along and keeps just plodding along. OK near the end he starts over-stretching and trying to put a bit of power into it but it just shows up what a weak voice and limited vocals Lennon has (none of the beatles are great vocalists). So where are the great Beatles rock songs? I cannot think of one that is a patch on Meatloaf or say Graham Bonnet vocals.
Until "The Beatles" showed them that there was a world outside white upper class California "The Beach Boys" were exploiting the well-trod car culture explored by Chuck Berry during the 1950s. They were safe -- "teen" "rebellion" about cars. There was something about "The Beatles" that was "dangerous".
I was lucky enough to see the Beach Boys live in 1975 at the Elton John Wembley concert. On a hot summers day they played all their great hits and stole the show ......everyone in the crowd was singing along . Unforgettable.
Why would anybody hate Beach Boys music? Might be not your cup of tea, but it certainly has charm. Not to mention quite a lot of their songs are impeccably crafted. I don’t think I would play their albums out of the blue, but I always pay attention when I hear them on the radio.
I was on a cargo boat sailing out of Liverpool in 1963, we called into many ports on the W/Coast of America and did so throughout 1964, so I experienced the whole of Beatlemania. I thought the Beach Boys were great and 'Fun Fun Fun' was perhaps my favourite record. I'm surprised they thought it was lacking. Anyway I had some fun on that coast-it was a magic moment and both bands remain favourites of mine. Thought provoking interview.
I think there was always this friendly rivalry between Paul & Brian, given that they were born only two days apart. To this day, Paul still gushes over "God Only Knows", his favorite by them.
As an 11 year old in Redlands California in 1964 I was an avid listener to radio station KMEN 129 - with Huckleberry Chuck Clemens as morning DJ .. and of course the Beach Boys were huge in Southern California at that time, and when the Beatles arrived Huckleberry Chuck would run contests he called "Beach Boy/Beatle Battles" where he would play one song from each and then listeners would call in to vote for their favorite to see who won the "Battle", and as I recall the Beach Boys held their own in those contests with the win percentage around 50% or better .. but they did have a home field advantage!
meanwhile in the los angeles area , we were listening to bob Eubanks on krla who mortgaged his home to bring the Beatles to the west coast for their performance in 1964 at the Hollywood bowel ua-cam.com/video/tIcYV-5Duz0/v-deo.html
I don't how Al could listen to I Wanna Hold Your Hand for the first time and not be aware of what that meant. The first time I heard it, everything changed. Nothing was the same in music for me after that. They didn't just open a door; it was the floodgates.
Funny they didn´t notice the gap in style. The Beatles wore Pierre Cardin suits while the Beach Boys picked their striped shirts off a Sears bargain bin.
They were good for each other. Revolver - Pet Sounds - Sgt. Pepper, even White Album (e.g., backing vocals on Back in the USSR). George Martin and Brian Wilson had a long distance bromance going.
Coming back from Wallach's Music City in the early 60s in Covina, CA with my mom on the 10 Fwy and "I Want to Hold Your Hand' came on the radio. It was like nothing that I had ever heard before. It was completely new. I had the same feeling many years later when I first heard the Clash's "My Shoronoa", and I thought this would be something completely new, but I guess it was just the unique drum rhythm.
@@RobbieCalifornia69 Get the Knack, right? Now I remember. And the album cover even mimicked (intentionally or not) "Meet the Beatles", which set the idea in me for sure.
@@thewalrus-f6z That's one of my favorite songs from the Beach Boys too! The instrumentals are good to listen as well and lyrics kind of teaches not to lie even though you're having a good time.
Buddy Holly was a big influence on John. The name Crickets was the origin of Beatles. I'm from the West coast, so I have always listened to The Beach Boys. cool story
I don't think coming from California has any bearing on your musical taste. I'm from South London in England & I've always LOVED The Beach Boys (from around 1980 when I turned 16 years old) & the Beatles equally. The Beatles are were hardly local too me as they were from the other end of the country. 1960's music was a great era for music 🇬🇧🇺🇸
@@Gerard_2024 Didn't they stop singing about surfing before 1964? I know they were popular primarily in California during this period, I think that as they're music changed their audience grew around the States then around the world. Fabulous sound of the West Coast.
THATS A FRANK AND HONEST RECALL, AND ASSESSMENT. THERE 'S NO QUESTION THAT 'THE BEACH BOYS ' WERE A COMBINATION OF ALL THINGS PROFFESSIONAL, AND A CONTINUATION OF WHAT WAS POPULAR IN THE EARLY 1960'S; WHICH TOOK OVER FROM THE ROCK 'N' ROLL ERA OF THE MID TO LATE 1950'S--BUT ! THE YOUNGER RECORD BUYING PUBLIC WERE NOW READY, FOR ANOTHER CHANGE IN MUSIC, AND THE SLIGHTLY EDGY GUTSY MUSIC OF THE BEATLES, WAS JUST WHAT THEY NEEDED. ADD ALL THE OTHER CHANGES, FOREIGN, THEIR ACCENTS, HAIRSTYLE, CLOTHES, HUMOUR, SLIGHT--IRREVERENCE, BUT HAPPY TO BE INTERVIEWED OVER AND OVER, CREATED THE PERFECT MODEL FOR CHANGE.AND UN PARALELLED SUCCESS.
I can't imagine living through an era where these two bands were active and regulary releasing music - just an amazing time. And still no one has topped the Beatles or the Beach boys Good man Al 👍
Just as The Beatles were about to go into the studio to record what would become "Sgt. Pepper", The Beach Boys released "Good Vibrations". That had to put The Beatles on alert and on their their toes. In fact, listening to the opening Mellotron notes of "Strawberry Fields Forever", it sort of echoes the staccato organ beginning of "Good Vibrations" slowed way down.
There's a video of "The Beatles" in a hotel room on their first visit in New York. In it John is playing an instrument with the first few notes of "Strawberry Fields Forever". So, no, the effort to class "The Beach Boys" with "The Beatles" still doesn't work.
Nobody ever put The Beatles on alert. I remember an interview with The Beech Boys where one of them said, “We had just released Pet Sounds and feeling pretty good about ourselves. Then we heard Sgt Peppers and felt really humbled.” That album shook the music world.
The Beach Boys sound, following the very early years as the harmonies and songs became more complex musically and Brian got more involved in production, was beautiful and amazing and many of the songs still sound amazing today. Their sound is so identified with Southern California to me. Which is what attracted me to it as a 15 year old fan back in 1963, although I never lived in SoCal till my late twenties. But … let’s not kid ourselves, the Beatles truly are in a class by themselves and I’m sure their music will be playing a couple hundred years from now. I was sitting in the lobby of a fancy hotel the other day where a harpist was playing heavenly music that sounded vaguely familiar, yet from another time long past. As I began to hum along I realized she was playing an ethereally beautiful rendition of And I Love Her. Beatles music crops up everywhere, all the time.
I wish people wouldn't compare the two. I don't worry about which one is the rock band and which is the pop one. I take music for what it is: either something I like or something I don't. Both bands were capable of making masterpieces and rubbish. But the Beach Boys should never be underestimated. Pet Sounds truly scared Paul McCartney. He said the Beatles listened to it and they said, "This is the album of the ages. How are we going to top this?"
Beachboys-- saw live at Civic Opera House in Chicago in '67( Good Vibrations tour)/ harmonies were perfect -- songs from " Pet Sounds " done to perfection. But the Beatles were my favorite band of all time with the Who and Zeppelin close behind.
The Beach Boys playing Pet Sounds songs live, in 67. It's quuite a feat. Look I love the Beatles but there was not a whole lot after early 66 they could play on stage. The Beach Boys played "Good Vibrations" live. Damn impressive!!!
I can honestly say that I love the Beach Boys and Beatles equally - and have since I was a little kid (they are from my parents' generation, and they always played their music). These two groups are totally different from each other, with totally different styles / sounds / etc.... and they take me to different places - but both are equally magical to me. HOWEVER, as far as singing goes the Beach Boys win hands down... whereas the Beatles' impact are with their instruments.
I greatly prefer the Beach Boys, but the truth is that the Beatles had stage charisma that the Beach Boys and most other groups didn't have. As a musician myself, I often think of that old expression, "The first thing the audience hears is what it sees." The Beatles were a rolling party. The Beach Boys, no matter how hard Mike tried, were a concert group. The Beatles' Shea concert is a perfect example. They were laughing so hard, so ecstatic, that they almost fell over. It was contagious. Reminds me of the Springsteen Effect.
As Tim below says there were two different standards at play. But it’s harsh to compare like tha as at their Best both were equal for me. The Beatles had 3 song writers for the music and the lyrics but the BBs only really had Brian. The Beatles were more consistent as in never really making a single bad song which is remarkable. But the BBs were kind of caught in a bubble and when they burst out Brian had his breakdown. For me The Beatles were the greatest group of all time. But The Beach Boys were on that pedestal with many others just below them. I love both equally
Fascinating to learn they were here in little old New Zealand where they first became aware of The Beatles. The Beatles had been a hit here since Feb/March 1963 with 'Please Please Me'.
Exactly, how long were they in Australia & New Zealand? for the Beatles to have a hit song in America, & that they never heard of it before? It’s very rare for a song to becomes a tremendous nationwide hit, in one week’s time.
The Beach Boys where not a self contained band like The Beatles were, they didn’t need outside session musicians or outside lyricists, Brian Wilson was the one acknowledged genius in band but The Beatles had two plus growing songwriter George Harrison and indispensable producer George Martin
@@stormhawk3319 The Beatles also had a good and kind manager in Brian Epstein, who didn't care much about money and said money isn't always the number one step in the music/show business.
The Beatles had 3 song writers snd the Beach Boys had one , and its interesting to note that in 1966 the Beatles were number one in the states , while the Beach Boys were number one in the UK
Though not a fan of him personality wise, Mike Love contributed lyrically to a lot of the songs...Good Vibrations. I Get Around. Just to mention a few. This said Brian was the genius behind the group
@@stevenbaggett6549 Love's lyrics for "Good Vibrations" were great, and contributed to its majesty, but yeah, he wasn't exactly a lovable guy. I think Al wrote a song or two.
@@blacbraun "Weren't significant?" George had two (of the best) songs on Rubber Soul, three songs on Revolver, including the classic opener. The most streamed Beatles song on Spotify continues to be "Here Comes the Sun". By the time the Beatles broke up in 1969, George was in retrospect the strongest Beatle songwriter, and his first solo album proved it. How does George not factor in here? He was unquestionably part of what made the Beatles great, better than the Beach Boys.
@@stevenbaggett6549 True , l was talking almost All of the Music was written by Brian, but its also true ,like you said , that Mike did add alot lyrically
@@jx14aby *Fun, Fun, Fun* was released on February 3rd 1964 but it was number five on the charts. *I Want To Hold Your Hand* was number one on the charts in February 1st 1964 and it stayed there for seven weeks, it was released in America back on December 26th 1963.
@@lisettegarcia7013 when the Beatles arrived in America, they occupied the top 5 positions on the Top 10. In one of the old documentaries, the commentary said, “When they stepped off the plane, they were the country’s number 1 band”
I thought the same thing when a close friend of mine mentioned them. When he told me they were from Liverpool. I said, "Isn't that the armpit of England?" I was only fifteen years old when this happened.
Having been there many times, armpit is being kind Michael 😉. It's not uncommon if you look back over history to find that people with great drive and determination come from very grim and uninspiring towns or cities. The Beatles certainly prove that theory!
Around the time of the name change, mid to later 1960 the Beatnik culture was in full swing and John and Stuart Sutcliffe were both living at 3 Gamber Terrace Liverpool. A newspaper article at the time featuring a photo of their student apartment and a Silver Beetles poster and a painting by Stuart featured in the room, the Beatnik tag obviously played a part for Beetles morphing into Beatles as John along with Stuart and future wife Cynthia played around with the spelling continually as they prepared to go to Hamburg for the first time. Al got it right that there always more to The Beatles than the music. As far as rivals the British never considered that notion. The Beatles were way ahead of the rest and even though there was a friendly rivalry between them and The Stones, the Stones didn’t really step up their pace to be near shoulder to shoulder until the late 60s
Actually, it was Pete's idea to drop the "Silver" and become just "The Beatles". The group discussion was held en route to Hamburg in mid-August of '62. Many options were considered and John, Paul, Stu and George went round and round on the matter but all ultimately sided with Pete's suggestion. John made it official when they arrived at their first German club, The Indra, on the morning of August 17th, as he crossed out out the "Silver" and changed the spelling to from "Beetles" to "Beatles", on the poster outside the club.
@@dogsbod They did and the occasional keyboard player, but played their own instruments as well. The Beachboys used the Wrecking Crew an awful lot. Denis rarely played drums on the records..
@ The Beachboys used the WRECKING CREW on a lot of records. Hal Blaine plays drums much more than Denis Wilson. The Beatles did use orchestration, but on the whole played their own instruments, much more than The Beachboys did.
Buddy Holly and the Crickets were a major inspiration for the boys from Liverpool. They took a similar type name for their group. But, instead of calling themselves "Beetles" they emphasized that they supplied a musical BEAT. Thus, they called themselves the "Beatles."
Popular songs are not always popular because they're great, musically. Sometimes they're great because of the timing in history, and the memories they are associated with. Certainly the Beatles got much better as time went on. The biggest innovation in that time period was in the technology that allowed all the isolated music styles to become available to influence others. I didn't care much for early Beatles, but their songs became more interesting as they matured. Same with the Beach Boys.
Of course, this is very true. But I think Steve is saying something like: 90% of great records are made by lots of people working together. Within the remaining 10% there are of course a few very small number of examples. Todd Rungren, Boston, McCartney, Springsteen etc all made great records alone or with a small team. But as someone who had recorded in both studios and my bedroom, the second you step into a real studio you are being supported by a team - even if just includes the runner and/or receptionist.
@@WithoutTheBeatles Naturally: because somebody is paying the team to be there, in most cases with a vested interest in the output. Some of the biggest successes came to those who work well with others and are good at picking a team (band members, lighting designers--Mark Knophler seemed to have lighting designed by a musician, not a show-off, for example). One doesn't always know what role a manager plays. Singing is one skill, music composition, lyrics, and performance for an audience is another. But when other professionals see your talent, they will seek you out. Singers who don't write songs but are exceptional get songwriters writing with them in mind. There are many variables. But musicians need to keep practicing and learning to have a long career. It's fun to see which performances and songs hold up with time.
And were promoted by the same record company: Capitol. Only The Beatles had more popularity because they were from the UK, had a different music style, and people in America needed something to be uplifted from their sorrow after JFK was assassinated. The Beach Boys didn't do that because they were in New Zealand.
I'd say Buddy and the Crickets were the first - wrote/played their own songs and even used production tricks, kind of like another band who picked their insect sounding name in homage. 😁
As soon as the Beach Boys were at New Zealand and found out they had competition after The Beatles came to America and performed on _The Ed Sullivan Show_ , Brian Wilson thought he could go up against the British Invasion.
Although the Beach Boys were my first 60s band I listened to first *(Thanks to the sitcom ALF)* , The Beatles were the first 60s band I enjoyed the most, and the first 60s band from the UK I love.
I think Al is not alone on his feelings and assessment of The Beatles when they first exploded onto the scene in USA...People were taken aback by ' WHOA, who are these guys call The Beatles '...And of course most of the artists probably thought The Beatles is gonna be a passing phase of a few hits here and there...And if The Beatles didn't evolved thru the months and years, they could've been right...Al seems like a cool guy tho..
As I listened to this, I was taken back to a memory of my very first concert, the beach Boys at the Philadelphia Civic Center. I was in 5th grade. They were late, due to weather, and I understood that because I had flown with my father. There was another band that kept us entertained until they arrived. When they came onstage, over 90 minutes late, there was a wall of applause unlike anything I have experienced since. Maybe it was the delayed gratification. I will never forget those first few measures of "Don't worry baby." Ever since then, I knew that I was hooked on harmony. Later in life, I was a young radio DY, and I sat around he hotel room with Al, and Bruce, and Denny. I should have told that story then, but it seemed too much like a fanboy story. Maybe I will tell them someday.
As i recall on a program back in the eighties called Breakfast with the Beatles, there was a conversation where someone asked where the name came from first it was the Silver Beatles and then they shortened it to just The Beatles but that wasn't the end of it and asked was it bugs, no it's from the sound "the beat" thus the name The Beatles. Kinda like how "The Band" got their name.
I wish The Beach Boys let Brian make more sophisticated music. I love Surf’s Up and ‘Til I Die. Those are the kind of songs that let your listenership grow up or old with you. The Beatles did that but The Beach Boys more or less stuck with teenage themes.
The Beach Boys was just high concept, combining the Four Freshman vocals with the Chuck Berry instrumentals. That’s it. And none of these guys did hardly anything. It was just Brian Wilson.
@@alanb287 The spelling, seen at the time or not, is irrelevant. If there was Buddy Holly and the Crickets, what's so unusual about a band called the Beatles or Beetles, if you will.
How long were they in Australia & New Zealand? for the Beatles to have a hit song in America, & that they never heard of it before? It’s very rare for a song to becomes a tremendous nationwide hit, in one week’s time.
I don't think the decade between 1967 and 1977 will ever be replicated as far as musical innovation is concerned. The age of musical innocence really ended in 1966, possibly due to the Vietnam War, but we went from catchy Pop tunes, through Revolver, Sgt Peppers, The Stones, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Bowie, Disco into Punk and the start of Electronica. It was quite a 10 year period, especially when you realise that Coldplay have been making the same Album for 25 years. Really they only major thing that has happened since that decade is Rap/Hip-Hop. Everything else is just a slight tweak of the music rules written around 1970.
I make it 1965-1974 (completing ten years) as the best ten year period in the last 70 years of rock music, only because the Beatles and Dylan brought out Rubber Soul, Revolver, Highway 61 revisited and Blonde on Blonde in the first couple of years of that period and 65/66 had a heap more amazing music alongside those two elites, Jimi Hendrix, Cream to name two, then 67-69 was to another level again . Not disagreeing too much with your take but in the mid 70s there was a bit of a lull in proceedings.
Fun, Fun, Fun was a great song. It was for me the ideal song to put on or hear when driving to the beach. In hindsight, I would think The Beatles were actually more punk rock friendly. As much as most who don't really know every song, they did rock rather hard or aggressively on some songs.
That must of been a "OH SH*T" moment coming back from AUSTRALIA and seeing BEATLEMANIA all over AMERICA.But what was it 71 MILLION people who tuned in to ED SULLIVAN SHOW for THE BEATLES first live performance in AMERICA
I'd read where Paul kind of put down the "Rivalry" between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. He said the "Real Rivalry" was between The Beatles and The Beach Boys...they respected Brian Wilson that much.
That's because The Beatles and The Rolling Stones weren't actually rivals, in real life they were friends before they made it big. The press made them rivals because Rolling Stones' manager Andrew Loog Oldham saw them as the opposite of The Beatles. *(The Rolling Stones came after The Beatles during the British Invasion but they were from London, not Liverpool. The Rolling Stones came to America in June 1964 while Beatlemania was still going around and had to start out from scratch because they didn't had a number 1 hit in America.)* Oldham had to put the Stones in a new appearance which is being the "bad boys" since The Beatles were seen as the "cool good boys". The Rolling Stones changed out of suits and grew their hair long and they became a rock band instead of a blues band performing in clubs, soon they got the nickname; "Anti-Beatles". Oldham used to work for The Beatles for six weeks so I guess that's how he got his managering experience, and he made Mick Jagger and Keith Richards as the second songwriting duo after John Lennon and Paul McCartney. John and Paul also gave The Rolling Stones one of their songs for them to have their first number one which was 'I Wanna Be Your Man' to change it to their style. John and Paul also sang backup vocals in songs from The Rolling Stones like _Dandelion_ and _We Love You_ , while Brian Jones played saxophone in the Fab Four's song _You Know My Name (Look Up The Number_ .
It's interesting that they questioned the name "Beatles" given that the name choice was influenced by Buddy Holly's backing band The Crickets who the Beach Boys would have been well aware of...I saw the Beatles in August '64 and the Beach Boys in November '64, loved their music and still do..."Catch a Wave and You're Sitting on Top of the World", British or American, rock or surf, they both were influenced by '50s rock 'n' roll...
Love the Beach Boys and the Beatles. They were both great bands in their own way. I still think the Beach Boys song "God Only Knows" is as good a song as anything the Beatles did.
WOW!!! Al Jardine of the Beach Boys!!! Very Cool!!! I REALLY DO like the Beach Boys, think they were GREAT, but sorry AL, I'm from The East Coast (Boston Area) and I'm more of a Beatles' fan at heart. Besides, Boston's closer to LIVERPOOL than it is to LA!!! LOL!!! Best Wishes Anyway!!!
Never heard this before so chances are nobody on that era would have heard of it. The word Beatle derived from Buddy Holly and also a combination with it of beat music, a term that was current.
To this day there are people who don’t realize that The Beatles with an A is a play on words referring to the beat of the music. John Lennon loved playing with words and the double meaning of words. For example Please Please Me and his book in his own write.
The Beach Boys were never of the same standard as The Beatles. The press made a big deal of it, like they did with the Beatles vs Stones in the UK (or subsequently the Blur and Oasis thing. It's media hype) but The Beatles didn't become big because of the absence of the Beach Boys (as suggested here). They became big because they were better than any of their contemporaries. Beach Boys (Mike Love, there's an ironic name for a hater, particularly) were never in the same class.
Brian Wilson was as brilliant a creator and an absolute wizard in the studio. It is on the second point that none of the Beatles could touch him. But yes I agree the sum of the Beatles parts were greater than The Beach Boys. Also agree with you about ‘Love.’
@ Where do you think all the music that influenced the Beatles came from? Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly et al were not born in Stoke-On-Trent.
Not true in the least. Brain and the boys wrote some of the best, most interesting, and well written music ever. The early Beatles songs were kids stuff, pretty forgettable until they got to Rubber Soul when they really took off. Many bands are better than the Beatles in many ways, but not in reach and influence among unknowledgeable fans
The Beach Boys and The Beatles were both great bands with masterful songwriting. For anyone doubting their influence one only has to reference The Beatles’ tribute to The Beach Boys: it’s called BACK IN THE U.S.S.R!
It is interesting that they go away to the other side of the world for a couple of weeks and when they get back, everything changed. I can see them being resentful of the Beatles and the beatlemania that took hold. My question is: Were The Beach Boys recording with the Wrecking Crew from the get go? Or did that come later?
I think the early LPs were recorded by the Beach Boys themselves. As their music became more sophisticated, they needed needed more instruments and more professional musicians. And Brian wanted to become the next Phil Spector with his own "wall of sound". Maybe someone can provide more insight as to when that transition took place.
@@JackTheSkunk It started around the time of the "Surfer Girl" album in 1963, on songs such as "Our Car Club," and gradually increased. The boys were expected to begin recording a new album just a couple of days after getting home at the end of a tour. I think it was Dean Torrence of Jan & Dean who recommended the Wrecking Crew to Brian as a way of lessening the group's workload. Listen to the Beach Boys' albums chronologically, and you'll notice the instrumentation gradually sounding more sophisticated.
They played on their albums through 1964 (with occasional extra musicians such as horns). Change came after Brian stopped touring. The Beach Boys Today album was half Beach Boys, half Wrecking Crew. The next couple of albums were largely Wrecking Crew. However, even on those albums, if there wasn’t any extra instrumentation, The Beach Boys played. Examples:Girl Don’t Tell Me (which has Ticket to Ride Vibes), and That’s Not Me (Pet Sounds album).
Brian Wilson is only two days younger than Paul McCartney. Maybe Earth's magnetic field was forming musical genius brains in fetuses at around that time.
Except for 'Get It On'.... ('Bang a Gong' in USA).... It's a shame 'T.REX' never cracked the states...the way they did in the UK ---- Rip - Marc Bolan 1947-1977
For me The Beach Boys were my favourite group of the sixties ! The Beatles were a revolution but " beauty is in the eye of the beholder " I'm 77 now, and I still have loads of beach Boys stuff on CD, but I dont have one Beatles album. Today, even the beach boys pale into obscurity alongside Dire Straits, who's live album, Alchemy, is to me, the best live album ever. As for Mark Knoffler ? just a musical genius. The Beach Boys and The Beatles were of their time !
The Beach Boys and The Beatles were both wonderful. ☮️💟☮️💟
Absolutely. 👍
Beatles were a rock band, the Beach Boys were a pop band with a musical genius at the helm. Even on their arty-est album (Sgt. Pepper), the title cut rocked harder than anything the Beach Boys ever did. Their Beach Boys (and Chuck Berry) spoof/tribute song - "Back in the USSR" - rocked harder than any Beach Boys song.
So was my mother in law.
Amen.
@@aquamarine99911 If you want to look at the Beatles rock credentials then yes they look OK next to the Beach Boys (who were as you say not a rock band) but the Beatles were basically a boy band in their early days and a bit of a novelty act (mostly) in the late 60s.
Listen to two songs - first the awful "Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep" by Middle of the road. a shite pop song.
Now Meatloaf Dead Ringer for Love. A great rock song you will hopefully agree.
Now if the Beatles are great then the will be up there with Meatloaf? Fair enogh?
OK put this to the test. Pop on Revolution -
Off it goes with a wild electric guitar intro, if it were meatloaf he would come in and blast us away.
But what happens this blasting guitar stops and off goes Lennon with the dullest and weakest vocal imaginable. It sounds just like Chirpy Chirpy Cheep Cheep! It just plods along and keeps just plodding along.
OK near the end he starts over-stretching and trying to put a bit of power into it but it just shows up what a weak voice and limited vocals Lennon has (none of the beatles are great vocalists).
So where are the great Beatles rock songs? I cannot think of one that is a patch on Meatloaf or say Graham Bonnet vocals.
Beach Boys were really good. The Beatles were life altering.
Until "The Beatles" showed them that there was a world outside white upper class California "The Beach Boys" were exploiting the well-trod car culture explored by Chuck Berry during the 1950s. They were safe -- "teen" "rebellion" about cars.
There was something about "The Beatles" that was "dangerous".
Apples and Oranges. I too love them both for different reasons.
Thank God for the truly endless variety we have in music!
Absolutely. I love them both for different reasons too. No need to choose one over the other but i think the Beatles were more prolific.
My favourite bands for different reasons The Beach Boys and The Beatles.
✌️&❤
Berry. Buddy. Beach Boys. Beatles. Byrds. WHAT AN ENORMOUS TIME FOR MUSIC!!!
@@Tonetwisters B 🤔
I was lucky enough to see the Beach Boys live in 1975 at the Elton John Wembley concert.
On a hot summers day they played all their great hits and stole the show ......everyone in the crowd was singing along .
Unforgettable.
I was there. Hard for Elton to follow the Beach Boys but he was great too.
Probably the audience could sing better in pitch than the BB.
@@bubamaranovichok4901 Trust me. We couldn't.
Al Jardine, what a cool, articulate dude! I hope I'm like him in my 70s.
Yes, my thoughts too. This guy is cool!
yea here maybe, now early- mid 80's. don't know how's he doing though as many take a dive 80 +.
I think he was born September 1942. Yeah, he was always my favorite and perhaps underrated.
What a fantastic guy, love or hate his music. (I like it!) He's aged so well; it's a miracle.
Why would anybody hate Beach Boys music? Might be not your cup of tea, but it certainly has charm. Not to mention quite a lot of their songs are impeccably crafted. I don’t think I would play their albums out of the blue, but I always pay attention when I hear them on the radio.
i think the magic of the beatles were that they GREW as artists, and it helped other talented artists ( like the beach boys ) do the same.
Absolutely! Each new album was very different from the previous one.
And, man, did they GROW!!!
For me listening to the Beach Boys for the first time is like listening to the Beatles for the first time.. they're both magical
Correct answer!
Lol. A band that played barbershop quartet music , the same as The Beatles. Ok, buddy.
I was on a cargo boat sailing out of Liverpool in 1963, we called into many ports on the W/Coast of America and did so throughout 1964, so I experienced the whole of Beatlemania. I thought the Beach Boys were great and 'Fun Fun Fun' was perhaps my favourite record. I'm surprised they thought it was lacking. Anyway I had some fun on that coast-it was a magic moment and both bands remain favourites of mine. Thought provoking interview.
Can't wait to hear this interview in full.
I think there was always this friendly rivalry between Paul & Brian, given that they were born only two days apart. To this day, Paul still gushes over "God Only Knows", his favorite by them.
Radio was amazing back then. Endless great music.
The stations were amazing, an the timing was great for our little transistor radios to come along.
Yes, radio in the 60s / early 70s had a real energy ! Miss it !!
By 1965, it was hit after hit 😊
As an 11 year old in Redlands California in 1964 I was an avid listener to radio station KMEN 129 - with Huckleberry Chuck Clemens as morning DJ .. and of course the Beach Boys were huge in Southern California at that time, and when the Beatles arrived Huckleberry Chuck would run contests he called "Beach Boy/Beatle Battles" where he would play one song from each and then listeners would call in to vote for their favorite to see who won the "Battle", and as I recall the Beach Boys held their own in those contests with the win percentage around 50% or better .. but they did have a home field advantage!
What great memories to have! It was such an incredible time to be young.
@@stevenrugge6707 🤣
meanwhile in the los angeles area , we were listening to bob Eubanks on krla who mortgaged his home to bring the Beatles to the west coast for their performance in 1964 at the Hollywood bowel ua-cam.com/video/tIcYV-5Duz0/v-deo.html
Great story 😊
I don't how Al could listen to I Wanna Hold Your Hand for the first time and not be aware of what that meant. The first time I heard it, everything changed. Nothing was the same in music for me after that. They didn't just open a door; it was the floodgates.
Nicest guy in the business
Always fascinated with Al Jardine,...Brian totally trusted him as he was involved with everything they did. And I assumed he sung the high harmonies..
Funny they didn´t notice the gap in style. The Beatles wore Pierre Cardin suits while the Beach Boys picked their striped shirts off a Sears bargain bin.
They were good for each other. Revolver - Pet Sounds - Sgt. Pepper, even White Album (e.g., backing vocals on Back in the USSR). George Martin and Brian Wilson had a long distance bromance going.
Both bands always gave me good vibrations .
Coming back from Wallach's Music City in the early 60s in Covina, CA with my mom on the 10 Fwy and "I Want to Hold Your Hand' came on the radio. It was like nothing that I had ever heard before. It was completely new. I had the same feeling many years later when I first heard the Clash's "My Shoronoa", and I thought this would be something completely new, but I guess it was just the unique drum rhythm.
That was The Knack … not the Clash. But I get your point … it was a catchy drum part.
@@RobbieCalifornia69 Get the Knack, right? Now I remember. And the album cover even mimicked (intentionally or not) "Meet the Beatles", which set the idea in me for sure.
I saw America open for The Beach Boys in 1973 at a small college venue in Colorado. Great show all around
"Fun Fun Fun", was my favorite Beach Boy tunes and is one of the few Beach Boys tunes that I still listen to.
@@thewalrus-f6z That's one of my favorite songs from the Beach Boys too! The instrumentals are good to listen as well and lyrics kind of teaches not to lie even though you're having a good time.
Buddy Holly was a big influence on John. The name Crickets was the origin of Beatles.
I'm from the West coast, so I have always listened to The Beach Boys.
cool story
I don't think coming from California has any bearing on your musical taste. I'm from South London in England & I've always LOVED The Beach Boys (from around 1980 when I turned 16 years old) & the Beatles equally. The Beatles are were hardly local too me as they were from the other end of the country.
1960's music was a great era for music 🇬🇧🇺🇸
@@GBURGE55 Songs about surfing maybe ?
@@Gerard_2024 Didn't they stop singing about surfing before 1964? I know they were popular primarily in California during this period, I think that as they're music changed their audience grew around the States then around the world. Fabulous sound of the West Coast.
THATS A FRANK AND HONEST RECALL, AND ASSESSMENT. THERE 'S NO QUESTION THAT 'THE BEACH BOYS ' WERE A COMBINATION OF ALL THINGS PROFFESSIONAL, AND A CONTINUATION OF WHAT WAS POPULAR IN THE EARLY 1960'S; WHICH TOOK OVER FROM THE ROCK 'N' ROLL ERA OF THE MID TO LATE 1950'S--BUT ! THE YOUNGER RECORD BUYING PUBLIC WERE NOW READY, FOR ANOTHER CHANGE IN MUSIC, AND THE SLIGHTLY EDGY GUTSY MUSIC OF THE BEATLES, WAS JUST WHAT THEY NEEDED. ADD ALL THE OTHER CHANGES, FOREIGN, THEIR ACCENTS, HAIRSTYLE, CLOTHES, HUMOUR, SLIGHT--IRREVERENCE, BUT HAPPY TO BE INTERVIEWED OVER AND OVER, CREATED THE PERFECT MODEL FOR CHANGE.AND UN PARALELLED SUCCESS.
Easier to read if you write in lower-case...
I can't imagine living through an era where these two bands were active and regulary releasing music - just an amazing time. And still no one has topped the Beatles or the Beach boys
Good man Al 👍
Correct answer!
Beach boys looked like golf caddies when the Beatles arrived.
Just as The Beatles were about to go into the studio to record what would become "Sgt. Pepper", The Beach Boys released "Good Vibrations". That had to put The Beatles on alert and on their their toes. In fact, listening to the opening Mellotron notes of "Strawberry Fields Forever", it sort of echoes the staccato organ beginning of "Good Vibrations" slowed way down.
There's a video of "The Beatles" in a hotel room on their first visit in New York. In it John is playing an instrument with the first few notes of "Strawberry Fields Forever". So, no, the effort to class "The Beach Boys" with "The Beatles" still doesn't work.
Nobody ever put The Beatles on alert.
I remember an interview with The Beech Boys where one of them said, “We had just released Pet Sounds and feeling pretty good about ourselves. Then we heard Sgt Peppers and felt really humbled.”
That album shook the music world.
The Beach Boys sound, following the very early years as the harmonies and songs became more complex musically and Brian got more involved in production, was beautiful and amazing and many of the songs still sound amazing today. Their sound is so identified with Southern California to me. Which is what attracted me to it as a 15 year old fan back in 1963, although I never lived in SoCal till my late twenties. But … let’s not kid ourselves, the Beatles truly are in a class by themselves and I’m sure their music will be playing a couple hundred years from now. I was sitting in the lobby of a fancy hotel the other day where a harpist was playing heavenly music that sounded vaguely familiar, yet from another time long past. As I began to hum along I realized she was playing an ethereally beautiful rendition of And I Love Her. Beatles music crops up everywhere, all the time.
@@pjmlegrande Absolutely - to every word of this.
I wish people wouldn't compare the two. I don't worry about which one is the rock band and which is the pop one. I take music for what it is: either something I like or something I don't. Both bands were capable of making masterpieces and rubbish. But the Beach Boys should never be underestimated. Pet Sounds truly scared Paul McCartney. He said the Beatles listened to it and they said, "This is the album of the ages. How are we going to top this?"
Beachboys-- saw live at Civic Opera House in Chicago in '67( Good Vibrations tour)/ harmonies were perfect -- songs from " Pet Sounds " done to perfection. But the Beatles were my favorite band of all time with the Who and Zeppelin close behind.
The Beach Boys playing Pet Sounds songs live, in 67. It's quuite a feat. Look I love the Beatles but there was not a whole lot after early 66 they could play on stage. The Beach Boys played "Good Vibrations" live. Damn impressive!!!
I can honestly say that I love the Beach Boys and Beatles equally - and have since I was a little kid (they are from my parents' generation, and they always played their music). These two groups are totally different from each other, with totally different styles / sounds / etc.... and they take me to different places - but both are equally magical to me. HOWEVER, as far as singing goes the Beach Boys win hands down... whereas the Beatles' impact are with their instruments.
I greatly prefer the Beach Boys, but the truth is that the Beatles had stage charisma that the Beach Boys and most other groups didn't have. As a musician myself, I often think of that old expression, "The first thing the audience hears is what it sees." The Beatles were a rolling party. The Beach Boys, no matter how hard Mike tried, were a concert group. The Beatles' Shea concert is a perfect example. They were laughing so hard, so ecstatic, that they almost fell over. It was contagious. Reminds me of the Springsteen Effect.
So great for a band member to have the same surname as you.
As Tim below says there were two different standards at play. But it’s harsh to compare like tha as at their Best both were equal for me. The Beatles had 3 song writers for the music and the lyrics but the BBs only really had Brian.
The Beatles were more consistent as in never really making a single bad song which is remarkable. But the BBs were kind of caught in a bubble and when they burst out Brian had his breakdown.
For me The Beatles were the greatest group of all time. But The Beach Boys were on that pedestal with many others just below them. I love both equally
“It started with them, and just never stopped” 😊
With a unique drummer like ringo it was the perfect name beetles with A ringo is the only drummer instantly recognised he gave them their unique sound
I know the Beatles were impressed with the Beach Boys " God only Knows" song.
Yeah; throughout 1964, 65, 66 The Beach Boys and the Beatles had the friendly rivalry, pushing each other to higher levels.
Fascinating to learn they were here in little old New Zealand where they first became aware of The Beatles. The Beatles had been a hit here since Feb/March 1963 with 'Please Please Me'.
Exactly, how long were they in Australia & New Zealand? for the Beatles to have a hit song in America, & that they never heard of it before? It’s very rare for a song to becomes a tremendous nationwide hit, in one week’s time.
The Beach Boys where not a self contained band like The Beatles were, they didn’t need outside session musicians or outside lyricists, Brian Wilson was the one acknowledged genius in band but The Beatles had two plus growing songwriter George Harrison and indispensable producer George Martin
Brian used musicians while the band were off touring and the boys would then put vocals down fascinating method and ahead of its time
@@stormhawk3319 The Beatles also had a good and kind manager in Brian Epstein, who didn't care much about money and said money isn't always the number one step in the music/show business.
The beach boys first number one was just the beach boys !
The Beatles had 3 song writers snd the Beach Boys had one , and its interesting to note that in 1966 the Beatles were number one in the states , while the Beach Boys were number one in the UK
Though not a fan of him personality wise, Mike Love contributed lyrically to a lot of the songs...Good Vibrations. I Get Around. Just to mention a few. This said Brian was the genius behind the group
@@stevenbaggett6549 Love's lyrics for "Good Vibrations" were great, and contributed to its majesty, but yeah, he wasn't exactly a lovable guy. I think Al wrote a song or two.
Beatles had John and Paul. Who's 3? If you mean George, his songs weren't significan't until late in the game.
@@blacbraun "Weren't significant?" George had two (of the best) songs on Rubber Soul, three songs on Revolver, including the classic opener. The most streamed Beatles song on Spotify continues to be "Here Comes the Sun". By the time the Beatles broke up in 1969, George was in retrospect the strongest Beatle songwriter, and his first solo album proved it. How does George not factor in here? He was unquestionably part of what made the Beatles great, better than the Beach Boys.
@@stevenbaggett6549 True , l was talking almost All of the Music was written by Brian, but its also true ,like you said , that Mike did add alot lyrically
At age 69 the word "library" cannot enter my head without it being followed by "like she told her old man, now"
and yet, the word "yesterday" is never followed by "all my troubles seem so far away"
I love that … Good one.
This guy must be 80 at least, how does he look this good?
He's 82.
@@TheZodiacz And this interview was recently?
@@TheZodiacz Now that you've told us his age, why don't you answer the question ?
@@TheZodiacz I guess you’re on the hot seat now, haha…. we are all waiting for the answer😊
I never realized Fun Fun Fun was released just as the Beatles were arriving in the US in February 1964.
I was a kid then, but , yeah apparently "Fun Fun Fun' was released just a few days before The Beatles appeared on Ed Sullivan.
@@jx14aby *Fun, Fun, Fun* was released on February 3rd 1964 but it was number five on the charts. *I Want To Hold Your Hand* was number one on the charts in February 1st 1964 and it stayed there for seven weeks, it was released in America back on December 26th 1963.
@@lisettegarcia7013 The Beatles appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show on February 9, 1964.
@@jx14aby Eeyup! And they also performed at the Washington Coliseum on February 11th and at Carnegie Hall on February 12th.
@@lisettegarcia7013 when the Beatles arrived in America, they occupied the top 5 positions on the Top 10. In one of the old documentaries, the commentary said, “When they stepped off the plane, they were the country’s number 1 band”
I thought the same thing when a close friend of mine mentioned them. When he told me they were from Liverpool. I said, "Isn't that the armpit of England?" I was only fifteen years old when this happened.
Having been there many times, armpit is being kind Michael 😉. It's not uncommon if you look back over history to find that people with great drive and determination come from very grim and uninspiring towns or cities. The Beatles certainly prove that theory!
Around the time of the name change, mid to later 1960 the Beatnik culture was in full swing and John and Stuart Sutcliffe were both living at 3 Gamber Terrace Liverpool. A newspaper article at the time featuring a photo of their student apartment and a Silver Beetles poster and a painting by Stuart featured in the room, the Beatnik tag obviously played a part for Beetles morphing into Beatles as John along with Stuart and future wife Cynthia played around with the spelling continually as they prepared to go to Hamburg for the first time. Al got it right that there always more to The Beatles than the music. As far as rivals the British never considered that notion. The Beatles were way ahead of the rest and even though there was a friendly rivalry between them and The Stones, the Stones didn’t really step up their pace to be near shoulder to shoulder until the late 60s
Actually, it was Pete's idea to drop the "Silver" and become just "The Beatles". The group discussion was held en route to Hamburg in mid-August of '62. Many options were considered and John, Paul, Stu and George went round and round on the matter but all ultimately sided with Pete's suggestion. John made it official when they arrived at their first German club, The Indra, on the morning of August 17th, as he crossed out out the "Silver" and changed the spelling to from "Beetles" to "Beatles", on the poster outside the club.
The Beachboys often used session musicians on their records.
The Beatles backed themselves..
Are you sure about that ?
@@dogsbod FOR SURE they were using session musicians. It's been documented.
@@InSearchof8 and the beatles never used orchestras
@@dogsbod
They did and the occasional keyboard player, but played their own instruments as well.
The Beachboys used the Wrecking Crew an awful lot.
Denis rarely played drums on the records..
@
The Beachboys used the WRECKING CREW on a lot of records.
Hal Blaine plays drums much more than Denis Wilson.
The Beatles did use orchestration, but on the whole played their own instruments, much more than The Beachboys did.
Buddy Holly and the Crickets were a major inspiration for the boys from Liverpool. They took a similar type name for their group. But, instead of calling themselves "Beetles" they emphasized that they supplied a musical BEAT. Thus, they called themselves the "Beatles."
Well observed.
Popular songs are not always popular because they're great, musically. Sometimes they're great because of the timing in history, and the memories they are associated with. Certainly the Beatles got much better as time went on. The biggest innovation in that time period was in the technology that allowed all the isolated music styles to become available to influence others. I didn't care much for early Beatles, but their songs became more interesting as they matured. Same with the Beach Boys.
Of course, this is very true. But I think Steve is saying something like: 90% of great records are made by lots of people working together. Within the remaining 10% there are of course a few very small number of examples. Todd Rungren, Boston, McCartney, Springsteen etc all made great records alone or with a small team. But as someone who had recorded in both studios and my bedroom, the second you step into a real studio you are being supported by a team - even if just includes the runner and/or receptionist.
@@WithoutTheBeatles Naturally: because somebody is paying the team to be there, in most cases with a vested interest in the output. Some of the biggest successes came to those who work well with others and are good at picking a team (band members, lighting designers--Mark Knophler seemed to have lighting designed by a musician, not a show-off, for example). One doesn't always know what role a manager plays. Singing is one skill, music composition, lyrics, and performance for an audience is another. But when other professionals see your talent, they will seek you out. Singers who don't write songs but are exceptional get songwriters writing with them in mind. There are many variables. But musicians need to keep practicing and learning to have a long career. It's fun to see which performances and songs hold up with time.
Beatles and Beachboys start with the same three letters ✌️
Which has always been very convenient when looking for both at the record store.
And were promoted by the same record company: Capitol.
Only The Beatles had more popularity because they were from the UK, had a different music style, and people in America needed something to be uplifted from their sorrow after JFK was assassinated.
The Beach Boys didn't do that because they were in New Zealand.
The Beatles were first in the modern rock era, the rest came under their influence.
I'd say Buddy and the Crickets were the first - wrote/played their own songs and even used production tricks, kind of like another band who picked their insect sounding name in homage. 😁
As soon as the Beach Boys were at New Zealand and found out they had competition after The Beatles came to America and performed on _The Ed Sullivan Show_ , Brian Wilson thought he could go up against the British Invasion.
😂
@@jimbojazza5539 well, you may be right, but, how many know about the Crickets, and how many know about the Beatles.
Although the Beach Boys were my first 60s band I listened to first *(Thanks to the sitcom ALF)* , The Beatles were the first 60s band I enjoyed the most, and the first 60s band from the UK I love.
The Beach Boys are a class act of it's own. They got more then simple "Surfer Sound". The Beatles were great! The Beach Boys, too!
I think Al is not alone on his feelings and assessment of The Beatles when they first exploded onto the scene in USA...People were taken aback by ' WHOA, who are these guys call The Beatles '...And of course most of the artists probably thought The Beatles is gonna be a passing phase of a few hits here and there...And if The Beatles didn't evolved thru the months and years, they could've been right...Al seems like a cool guy tho..
As I listened to this, I was taken back to a memory of my very first concert, the beach Boys at the Philadelphia Civic Center. I was in 5th grade. They were late, due to weather, and I understood that because I had flown with my father. There was another band that kept us entertained until they arrived. When they came onstage, over 90 minutes late, there was a wall of applause unlike anything I have experienced since. Maybe it was the delayed gratification. I will never forget those first few measures of "Don't worry baby." Ever since then, I knew that I was hooked on harmony. Later in life, I was a young radio DY, and I sat around he hotel room with Al, and Bruce, and Denny. I should have told that story then, but it seemed too much like a fanboy story. Maybe I will tell them someday.
@@arthouston7361 Nothing wrong with a good fanboy story. Bet Al was a great guy then too.
As i recall on a program back in the eighties called Breakfast with the Beatles, there was a conversation where someone asked where the name came from first it was the Silver Beatles and then they shortened it to just The Beatles but that wasn't the end of it and asked was it bugs, no it's from the sound "the beat" thus the name The Beatles. Kinda like how "The Band" got their name.
Did that Beatles band make it Al ? I'll bet you all thought it was beetles like the bugs.
I wish The Beach Boys let Brian make more sophisticated music. I love Surf’s Up and ‘Til I Die. Those are the kind of songs that let your listenership grow up or old with you. The Beatles did that but The Beach Boys more or less stuck with teenage themes.
The Beach Boys was just high concept, combining the Four Freshman vocals with the Chuck Berry instrumentals. That’s it. And none of these guys did hardly anything. It was just Brian Wilson.
Yeah, all they were was one of the most unique, accomplished, loved and respected vocal groups of all time.
complete BS
And Brian used a lyricist.
Very insightful - loved The Beach Boys but indeed, Beatlemania changed everything - I was 12 at the time - but so nice to hear Al Jardine-
There's a story about Capitol asking all the Beach Boys to write letters welcoming the Beatles to the label.
The Beach Boots were incredible, but The Beatles proved to be way more versatile. I love them both.
Two of my favorite bands. I think the Beatles got the inspiration for their name from Buddy Holly and the " Crickets".
Come on Al, the name Beatles was a variation of Crickets, then spelled differently to emphasize the beat music of the day.
Yanks aren't too bright.
Logic didn't make it across the pond.
Come on John, that was the first time he had heard the name and he hadn't even seen the spelling yet
@@alanb287
The spelling, seen at the time or not, is irrelevant. If there was Buddy Holly and the Crickets, what's so unusual about a band called the Beatles or Beetles, if you will.
Then we had the Monkees , The Turtles, there were lots of bands with names like that…
@094340 😂
How long were they in Australia & New Zealand? for the Beatles to have a hit song in America, & that they never heard of it before? It’s very rare for a song to becomes a tremendous nationwide hit, in one week’s time.
Now I need to know what Brian and Al would've changed in recording Fun, Fun, Fun. I've always liked that one, great in concert everyone would sing it.
@@soundshaper I should have asked!
Al's a good guy.
Thank Al honest opinion
I don't think the decade between 1967 and 1977 will ever be replicated as far as musical innovation is concerned.
The age of musical innocence really ended in 1966, possibly due to the Vietnam War, but we went from catchy Pop tunes, through Revolver, Sgt Peppers, The Stones, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Bowie, Disco into Punk and the start of Electronica. It was quite a 10 year period, especially when you realise that Coldplay have been making the same Album for 25 years.
Really they only major thing that has happened since that decade is Rap/Hip-Hop. Everything else is just a slight tweak of the music rules written around 1970.
I make it 1965-1974 (completing ten years) as the best ten year period in the last 70 years of rock music, only because the Beatles and Dylan brought out Rubber Soul, Revolver, Highway 61 revisited and Blonde on Blonde in the first couple of years of that period and 65/66 had a heap more amazing music alongside those two elites, Jimi Hendrix, Cream to name two, then 67-69 was to another level again . Not disagreeing too much with your take but in the mid 70s there was a bit of a lull in proceedings.
Fun, Fun, Fun was a great song. It was for me the ideal song to put on or hear when driving to the beach. In hindsight, I would think The Beatles were actually more punk rock friendly. As much as most who don't really know every song, they did rock rather hard or aggressively on some songs.
That must of been a "OH SH*T" moment coming back from AUSTRALIA and seeing BEATLEMANIA all over AMERICA.But what was it 71 MILLION people who tuned in to ED SULLIVAN SHOW for THE BEATLES first live performance in AMERICA
How can you not get it. Beatles, then you can't get the Bangles either.
I'd read where Paul kind of put down the "Rivalry" between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. He said the "Real Rivalry" was between The Beatles and The Beach Boys...they respected Brian Wilson that much.
That's because The Beatles and The Rolling Stones weren't actually rivals, in real life they were friends before they made it big. The press made them rivals because Rolling Stones' manager Andrew Loog Oldham saw them as the opposite of The Beatles. *(The Rolling Stones came after The Beatles during the British Invasion but they were from London, not Liverpool. The Rolling Stones came to America in June 1964 while Beatlemania was still going around and had to start out from scratch because they didn't had a number 1 hit in America.)*
Oldham had to put the Stones in a new appearance which is being the "bad boys" since The Beatles were seen as the "cool good boys". The Rolling Stones changed out of suits and grew their hair long and they became a rock band instead of a blues band performing in clubs, soon they got the nickname; "Anti-Beatles". Oldham used to work for The Beatles for six weeks so I guess that's how he got his managering experience, and he made Mick Jagger and Keith Richards as the second songwriting duo after John Lennon and Paul McCartney.
John and Paul also gave The Rolling Stones one of their songs for them to have their first number one which was 'I Wanna Be Your Man' to change it to their style.
John and Paul also sang backup vocals in songs from The Rolling Stones like _Dandelion_ and _We Love You_ , while Brian Jones played saxophone in the Fab Four's song _You Know My Name (Look Up The Number_ .
It's interesting that they questioned the name "Beatles" given that the name choice was influenced by Buddy Holly's backing band The Crickets who the Beach Boys would have been well aware of...I saw the Beatles in August '64 and the Beach Boys in November '64, loved their music and still do..."Catch a Wave and You're Sitting on Top of the World", British or American, rock or surf, they both were influenced by '50s rock 'n' roll...
That was the very first time he heard the name and hadn't had time in those 2 seconds to process the whole Buddy Holly Crickets thing.
"What kind of name is that?" says Al Sardine. 😄
Love the Beach Boys and the Beatles. They were both great bands in their own way. I still think the Beach Boys song "God Only Knows" is as good a song as anything the Beatles did.
When you're stuck in the fifties, that's the conclusion you might reach.
WOW!!! Al Jardine of the Beach Boys!!! Very Cool!!! I REALLY DO like the Beach Boys, think they were GREAT, but sorry AL, I'm from The East Coast (Boston Area) and I'm more of a Beatles' fan at heart. Besides, Boston's closer to LIVERPOOL than it is to LA!!! LOL!!! Best Wishes Anyway!!!
The Beach Boys and The Loven' Spoonful were the only true American Rivals to The Beatles back then.
Fun fun fun was perfect!
@@gerrymcguire7521 Agreed!
Cool interview 😎 👌
What kind of name is that ? From "The Beach Boys" ?
The mersey beat was Liverpool so Beatles makes sense
Buddy Holly had Crickets, John Lennon wanted a bug like he had.
Beetles, when it turned into Beat music, Beetles turned into Beatles…
End of story.
It was actually Stu Sutcliffe who came up with the name, "The Beetles" as an homage to Buddy Holly...Lennon changed the spelling
But there's no beat in bea uls
Never heard this before so chances are nobody on that era would have heard of it. The word Beatle derived from Buddy Holly and also a combination with it of beat music, a term that was current.
What they wouldn't have known is that the Beatles were already the biggest band in the world, Americans were simply last to the party.
Al basically looks the same as he did in 1962.😆👍
I wondered if he realized they would be neighbors in the record store?
To this day there are people who don’t realize that The Beatles with an A is a play on words referring to the beat of the music. John Lennon loved playing with words and the double meaning of words. For example Please Please Me and his book in his own write.
A good name for adding "-mania".
Crickets? What kind of name is that?
The Beach Boys were never of the same standard as The Beatles. The press made a big deal of it, like they did with the Beatles vs Stones in the UK (or subsequently the Blur and Oasis thing. It's media hype) but The Beatles didn't become big because of the absence of the Beach Boys (as suggested here). They became big because they were better than any of their contemporaries. Beach Boys (Mike Love, there's an ironic name for a hater, particularly) were never in the same class.
Also, the Beatles were huge fans of The Beach Boys and helped to promote them
Paul even tried to talk them into playing at Monterey Pop
Brian Wilson was as brilliant a creator and an absolute wizard in the studio. It is on the second point that none of the Beatles could touch him. But yes I agree the sum of the Beatles parts were greater than The Beach Boys. Also agree with you about ‘Love.’
@@mmgreen31 The Beach Boys could never get to the standard of The Beatles because they were American .... let's face it ....
@ Where do you think all the music that influenced the Beatles came from? Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly et al were not born in Stoke-On-Trent.
Not true in the least. Brain and the boys wrote some of the best, most interesting, and well written music ever. The early Beatles songs were kids stuff, pretty forgettable until they got to Rubber Soul when they really took off. Many bands are better than the Beatles in many ways, but not in reach and influence among unknowledgeable fans
Hey thanks to the Beach Boys for showing us all that money matters more than lives to them.
A real interesting group.
The Beach Boys and The Beatles were both great bands with masterful songwriting.
For anyone doubting their influence one only has to reference The Beatles’ tribute to The Beach Boys: it’s called BACK IN THE U.S.S.R!
The song is a McCartney rewrite of "Back In The USA" by Chuck Berry.
It is interesting that they go away to the other side of the world for a couple of weeks and when they get back, everything changed. I can see them being resentful of the Beatles and the beatlemania that took hold.
My question is: Were The Beach Boys recording with the Wrecking Crew from the get go? Or did that come later?
I think the early LPs were recorded by the Beach Boys themselves. As their music became more sophisticated, they needed needed more instruments and more professional musicians. And Brian wanted to become the next Phil Spector with his own "wall of sound".
Maybe someone can provide more insight as to when that transition took place.
@@JackTheSkunk It started around the time of the "Surfer Girl" album in 1963, on songs such as "Our Car Club," and gradually increased. The boys were expected to begin recording a new album just a couple of days after getting home at the end of a tour. I think it was Dean Torrence of Jan & Dean who recommended the Wrecking Crew to Brian as a way of lessening the group's workload. Listen to the Beach Boys' albums chronologically, and you'll notice the instrumentation gradually sounding more sophisticated.
They played on their albums through 1964 (with occasional extra musicians such as horns). Change came after Brian stopped touring. The Beach Boys Today album was half Beach Boys, half Wrecking Crew. The next couple of albums were largely Wrecking Crew. However, even on those albums, if there wasn’t any extra instrumentation, The Beach Boys played. Examples:Girl Don’t Tell Me (which has Ticket to Ride Vibes), and That’s Not Me (Pet Sounds album).
The Beach Boys toured Australia in January 1964.
Does Al ever age?
Brian Wilson is only two days younger than Paul McCartney. Maybe Earth's magnetic field was forming musical genius brains in fetuses at around that time.
Except for 'Get It On'.... ('Bang a Gong' in USA).... It's a shame 'T.REX' never cracked the states...the way they did in the UK ---- Rip - Marc Bolan 1947-1977
I love both bands, but the Beatles play in their own liga. No other band can reach them. But its a question of the history time window too.
Yeh. And then, "She Loves You" broke and the world exploded.
For me The Beach Boys were my favourite group of the sixties ! The Beatles were a revolution but " beauty is in the eye of the beholder " I'm 77 now, and I still have loads of beach Boys stuff on CD, but I dont have one Beatles album. Today, even the beach boys pale into obscurity alongside Dire Straits, who's live album, Alchemy, is to me, the best live album ever. As for Mark Knoffler ? just a musical genius. The Beach Boys and The Beatles were of their time !
The Beach Boys were all about the past.
I never liked The Beach Boys as I found them too sugary and without depth. Of course, it's all personal, and I respect those that love them.