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
fjn04---Sunflower is my favorite Beach Boys album these days. I can’t tell you how eagerly anticipated it was at the time of it’s release (1970), their first after moving from Capitol Records (who were STILL promoting them as "The No. 1 Surf Group in the World" as late as 1968. Duh.) to Reprise/Warner Brothers, THE "artist" label at the time.
Bdp,

"Gravity's Rainbow" is a great, great novel IMO, but be advised...

It's +/- 1200 pages long and can be a tough slog if you aren't familiar with Pynchon's MO.  It might be a bit akin to reading "Finnegan's Wake" as your first shot at James Joyce. 

I read the Pynchon novels more or less in chronological order, which is a good way to ease into his universe.  However, the two preceding novels. "V" and "Crying of Lot 49" are quite not in the same league.  "Lot 49" is short and great fun, tho, so I might start there, anyway.

Critics differ greatly on ranking the Pynchon novels (other than "Rainbow", which AFAIK is pretty much universally admired).  I really love "Against The Day" but it's another very long, very complex way to start that Pynchon journey.  You could also start with "Inherent Vice" (which was recently made into a movie by PT Anderson, where one of my favorite filmmakers meets my favorite novelist).  It's an easier read and, even if it never reaches the heights of Pynchon's best stuff, it wouldn't be a bad place to start.

Even if it is sometimes a bit drug addled, the Pynchon novels are definitely my absolute favorite fiction in the world, so - Enjoy the trip! (pardon the pun).
bdp24, you say that a significant percentage of history’s greatest composers, musicians, writers, and painters had severe mental and/or emotional problems, as well as drink and drug problems.

Well, yeah, that's because a significant percentage of the population has always had those issues.  Taking drugs to alter your mind and reality is a stupid dangerous thing to do, before you even add up all of the overdose deaths.  

Some here want to embrace the abuse of one's own body as long as they like the resulting "art".  What a sad statement of your own mindset.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was music industry executives that wanted their stars on drugs so the music might sell better.  Anything for a buck.
No one is embracing abuse.  
That is different entirely from embracing the art produced by a drug abuser.
This discussion has next to nothing to do with money.
Some folks here are more empathetic than scornful.