|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 5, 2021 16:51:11 GMT
And, you know what's funny. I wonder who the art department would've called and what reaction they would've gotten. Brian would probably say he never heard of it. And if they called back, he'd say it was his favorite album. And neither time would he answer the question.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jan 5, 2021 22:34:32 GMT
And then there's self-titled albums. On the 85 album, should it say "The Beach Boys" twice - once for the artist, and once for the title? Okay, I am admitting my OCD here in a public forum. One interesting thing about these album ratings - here and elsewhere - that surprised me is that people actually like the pre-PS albums quite a lot. Keep in mind that I was becoming a Beach Boys fan in the 80's, and the consensus in the various books I was reading seemed to be that, if you liked the early stuff, a copy of Endless Summer and Spirit of America would suffice. So, apart from the comps, I started my collection with the late 60's albums - although those were not getting rave reviews, either; but it was said that you really needed to experience those albums as albums. I watched some guy on youtube recently doing one of those tier list things of BB's albums, and he was giving every album a high rating - until he got to the late 70's. It seems to be generally agreed now that's when the group lost the plot - although some people love Love You, some love LA, there's even some that love MIU. So that's an excellent career, IMO. I'm convinced that if the Beatles had stayed together, they would have churned out a few substandards albums, too.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 5, 2021 22:46:00 GMT
Same experience, though starting in the late 90s, for me: it was really all (or mostly) about Pet Sounds and Smile, and the early stuff was kind of, meh, take the hits ... maybe. If you have to.
And re the Beatles, I TOTALLY agree. I do happen to think their albums were more consistently good than the Beach Boys' even through the '60s, but I have no doubt the quality would have dropped here and there. Their solo output was VERY spotty in my opinion. And yes, there would have been a difference had they been able to pool the best of the solo work, added input to one another's music, etc. But they also (probably) would have done just what the Beach Boys did, or even what they themselves were doing later in their pre-breakup career, which is going their own separate ways musically, working alone or with limited interaction on some things, etc. And it almost certainly would have gotten worse. There's no way it would have been 10 after 10 through the 70s.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jan 5, 2021 23:05:19 GMT
It really depends on what lonelysummer means by "substandard". Less than the Beatles '60s standard? Sure. But, a substandard album, generally? That probably wouldn't have happened until the '90s or later, if at all (assuming John had lived; otherwise, the '80s or later). As Kapitan pointed out, the pooling together of their best songs, and the inevitable stockpile of good-to-great songs caused by such an effort would have sustained them for a VERY long time.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 5, 2021 23:08:50 GMT
The impossible-to-guess question is, of course, would they have produced material even worse than their solo material because they were so uninspired or disheartened or whatever-impossible-to-guess situation they found themselves in? Or would it have been much better because of the collaboration?
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jan 5, 2021 23:56:28 GMT
The impossible-to-guess question is, of course, would they have produced material even worse than their solo material because they were so uninspired or disheartened or whatever-impossible-to-guess situation they found themselves in? Or would it have been much better because of the collaboration? I'd guess it would've been somewhere in between, but leaning strongly toward better. They still had it. And, they were prideful. They were also healthier than the Beach Boys (to bring this back to that comparison). They had more in the tank. Edit: Just consider their voices. The Beatles' held up much better throughout the '70s and, really, into the '90s. That alone would have given them a huge advantage over the Beach Boys, in terms of avoiding a similar downfall (commercially and critically).
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 6, 2021 13:18:40 GMT
And then there's self-titled albums. On the 85 album, should it say "The Beach Boys" twice - once for the artist, and once for the title? Okay, I am admitting my OCD here in a public forum. One interesting thing about these album ratings - here and elsewhere - that surprised me is that people actually like the pre-PS albums quite a lot. Keep in mind that I was becoming a Beach Boys fan in the 80's, and the consensus in the various books I was reading seemed to be that, if you liked the early stuff, a copy of Endless Summer and Spirit of America would suffice. So, apart from the comps, I started my collection with the late 60's albums - although those were not getting rave reviews, either; but it was said that you really needed to experience those albums as albums. I watched some guy on youtube recently doing one of those tier list things of BB's albums, and he was giving every album a high rating - until he got to the late 70's. It seems to be generally agreed now that's when the group lost the plot - although some people love Love You, some love LA, there's even some that love MIU. So that's an excellent career, IMO. I'm convinced that if the Beatles had stayed together, they would have churned out a few substandards albums, too. Oh, there's no doubt that the quality of Beatles albums would've dropped as years went by. It would be impossible for any band to keep up that standard for an extended period of time. For evidence, listen to some of the solo albums once you get past the 1970s.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jan 7, 2021 6:45:41 GMT
And then there's self-titled albums. On the 85 album, should it say "The Beach Boys" twice - once for the artist, and once for the title? Okay, I am admitting my OCD here in a public forum. One interesting thing about these album ratings - here and elsewhere - that surprised me is that people actually like the pre-PS albums quite a lot. Keep in mind that I was becoming a Beach Boys fan in the 80's, and the consensus in the various books I was reading seemed to be that, if you liked the early stuff, a copy of Endless Summer and Spirit of America would suffice. So, apart from the comps, I started my collection with the late 60's albums - although those were not getting rave reviews, either; but it was said that you really needed to experience those albums as albums. I watched some guy on youtube recently doing one of those tier list things of BB's albums, and he was giving every album a high rating - until he got to the late 70's. It seems to be generally agreed now that's when the group lost the plot - although some people love Love You, some love LA, there's even some that love MIU. So that's an excellent career, IMO. I'm convinced that if the Beatles had stayed together, they would have churned out a few substandards albums, too. Oh, there's no doubt that the quality of Beatles albums would've dropped as years went by. It would be impossible for any band to keep up that standard for an extended period of time. For evidence, listen to some of the solo albums once you get past the 1970s. It's actually amazing how good they were as solo artists, at least through the first half of the 70's; very dominant on the charts. It wasn't unusual for 3 of them to be on the charts at the same time. There were even a few times when all four were in the top 40. IMO, All Things Must Pass, Imagine, Band on the Run and Venus and Mars rank up there with the best albums of the decade by ANYBODY. And yes, I would put Sunflower and Holland in the same category. And Surf's Up, if not for that stinky feet song!
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 7, 2021 13:24:55 GMT
Oh, there's no doubt that the quality of Beatles albums would've dropped as years went by. It would be impossible for any band to keep up that standard for an extended period of time. For evidence, listen to some of the solo albums once you get past the 1970s. It's actually amazing how good they were as solo artists, at least through the first half of the 70's; very dominant on the charts. It wasn't unusual for 3 of them to be on the charts at the same time. There were even a few times when all four were in the top 40. IMO, All Things Must Pass, Imagine, Band on the Run and Venus and Mars rank up there with the best albums of the decade by ANYBODY. And yes, I would put Sunflower and Holland in the same category. And Surf's Up, if not for that stinky feet song! The Beatles were still fairly young when they went solo. There also also some really solid releases in the 80s and part of the 90s, albeit not with the same consistency.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 11, 2021 13:03:38 GMT
First post updated to reflect "Surfin'" b/w "Luau." (5.8)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 18, 2021 12:36:54 GMT
Updated the first post to include Surfin' Safari b/w 409 (7.8).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 25, 2021 12:14:15 GMT
The first post has been updated to include "Ten Little Indians" b/w "County Fair" (3.9).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 1, 2021 12:26:57 GMT
Updated the first post in the thread to reflect Surfin USA/Shut Down (9.1).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 8, 2021 12:31:10 GMT
Updated the first post to include "Surfer Girl" b/w "Little Deuce Coupe" (9.0).
I was a little surprised to see it didn't top "Surfin USA", falling just 0.1 shy.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 15, 2021 12:27:17 GMT
The first post is updated to include the rating for "Be True to Your School" b/w "In My Room." (8.9)
|
|