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
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.


Yes, you embrace abuse when you accept the fruit of the abuse.  Look, I understand that this makes you uncomfortable, and you disagree with me.  That is fine, but I'd bet you a million bucks that Brian Wilson, if asked, would quickly admit that if he had the chance to do it all over again, he'd stay the hell away from drugs.  
I too am sure Brian would. Should we not listen to Smile because of that?! Do you fault McCartney for going to the Smile premiere in London a few years back? Was McCartney embracing abuse by doing so? Should no one ever again read, say, Alice in Wonderland?
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.