Talk:The Beach Boys

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Musicians (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Pop music (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Rock music (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject California / Los Angeles (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Los Angeles task force (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article is a selected article on the California Portal.

Semi Protecting The Beach Boys Page[edit]

Many unregistered users have been vandalizing this page with abusive language and rather annoying reverts. I think it's about time we semi-protect this page. Any thoughts? SgtPetsounds (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Subject-verb agreement[edit]

In American English, band names that are plural in form take a plural verb. Please refer to the following resources for verification and further explanation and examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Piriczki (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Formative years" and "Influence of Murry Wilson" sections[edit]

Does anybody else think that these two sections deal with the Wilsons' (especially Brian's) childhood in too much detail? Remember that this article is about The Beach Boys, not the individual members of the group (who have their own articles). If nobody objects, I will begin pruning these two sections into a more-concise 3-4 paragraph "Formation and early years" section, like that in The Beatles article.—indopug (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Genre[edit]

The Beach Boys are obviously a 'surf rock' band without question. But, arguably they can also be classified as 'sunshine pop' due to their earlier harmonious sound coupled with close vocal harmonies. Later on, 'psychedelic pop' was incorporated into their albums. --Complex Wisdom (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should try to keep the genre section general, just like on The Beatles page. Rock/Pop would cover every genre and would hopefully stop genre wars. --Hattiethecat1234 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. Then all bands would have this general (and useless) category, and no one would be able to differentiate among bands the sound and true genre. Complex Wisdom (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the status quo—"Rock, pop, surf rock, psychedelic rock"—is fine, a happy compromise between both your viewpoints.—indopug (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Template:Infobox musical artist#Genre instructs "aim for generality" so adding more subgenres would be counterproductive. Even psychedelic rock could be dispensed with as many groups of that era had a passing psychedelic phase but it doesn't necessarily define them. Piriczki (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. But I think "surf rock" should remain; it is The Beach Boys' defining genre.—indopug (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually they were much more into baroque pop than psychedelich rock, and if so, they were psychedelic pop, not rock. but really, baroque pop fits much better, they're much more like penny lane than strawberry Fields forever and I am the Walrus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.157.213 (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Like indopug, I'm fine with the status quo. Actually Baroque pop(Caroline No), Psychedelic rock(I Just Wasn't Made For These Times/Wind Chimes) and Psychedelic pop(Good Vibrations) all apply. The Beatles also had the same sort of pattern: Baroque pop(Eleanor Rigby), Psychedelic rock(Rain/I Am The Walrus), Psychedelic pop(Lovely Rita/Getting Better).SgtPetsounds (talk)14:31 26 Decemeber 2010 (UTC)
If you want to be most general than rock/pop would be best, but if you want to be more descriptive you have to consider all their genres. First was Surf Rock, then in the later 60s it was more Chamber Pop/Psychedelic Pop/Sunshine Pop. In the early 70s the band did more folk/country rock type stuff, and adopted that type of sound into their live show, but songs like Long Promised Road, Trader, Steamboat, and Feel Flows among other sound distinctly proggy to me in theme and style. Mid-70s Brian was really cutting edge, it's hard to describe but I'd pick Electronic Rock. Since the late-70s the band has been more of an easy listening/soft rock affair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
We're trying to strike a balance between general and specific, actually. Going too far down either approach isn't the best solution.—indopug (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not a balance at all. You're being general by saying just Rock/Pop but then your singling out two more specific genres as having primacy over the others. It's a misrepresentation of the BB's legacy to favor the two genres you seem to want to over all the others. I think you either need to keep it at "Rock/Pop" or give credence to the other eras of their career, i.e. the 1970's when the band's influences ranged from The Band to Wendy Carlos. I don't see what the big deal of adding another line of text for the genres is, if it paints a more accurate picture of the band. The way it is now just perpetuates popular misconceptions about the band's music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I also don't know why you would edit out things from the associated act section. The Flames are certainly an associated act, two members were full fledged official Beach Boys, they were on Brother Records and their album was produced by Carl Wilson and engineered by Steve Desper. It doesn't get more associated than that. There really doesn't seem to be any reason to edit that out, it is in no way incorrect or misleading to say the two groups are closely associated, I can't for the life of me figure out what harm it does to list it. I mean, why put The Honeys but not The Flames??? Why put the Honeys but not American Spring!??? I think the other bands I included have equal right to be called an "associated act" as the Honeys, so I don't really understand why there's resistance to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hard rock(Bluebirds over the mountain/All I want to do) makes more sense than Electronic rock. Can you imagine how big The Beatles info box would be if it listed every genre they attempted? SgtPetsounds(talk) 03:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
"your [sic] singling out two more specific genres as having primacy over the others"—yes, because the other genres mostly lasted for only an album or two, and are hardly as closely associated to the band as the surf and psychedelic rock. Also, the article's prose mention few, if any, of the genres you have added. And I notice, you haven't supplied any reliable sources to support your assertion that the band played "electronic rock".—indopug (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Then why not follow the example of that page and list only Rock/Pop? Why list Rock, Pop, AND surf and psychedelic??? There doesn't seem to be any reason for it, it just gives a bias towards the first 4 or 5 years of their career. It's not really a middle ground at all. There's a general tendency on wikipedia to combat over indulgence, and I can agree with that, there's not much reason in this case to list EVERY genre the band ever dabbled in, from Exotica to Disco and Bossa Nova. However there's no reason to fret over adding a single line of text if it allows for a more accurate, less biased depiction of the band. "surf rock/Psychdelic Rock" just doesn't work.
Beginning with Friends you can hear a definite country rock influence (in fact this influence is also present on Cabinessence and Heroes and Villains) on the various waltzes Brian was doing, you can hear it especially on C&TP, Holland, and In Concert where the band models themselves more on the big live performances of southern rock and country rock bands of that era. You could make a case for Blues Rock (think covers of Riot in Cell Block #4 or Slip On Through) or Hard Rock, or Folk Rock (those 20/20 songs you listed), but I think Country Rock is most appropriate, especially since it also captures a lot of Brian's '67 and '68 work, which Blues Rock or Hard Rock doesn't.
Beginning with the American Spring recordings you can hear a fondness for the Moog in Brian Wilson's productions, you can hear it on the song Funky Pretty, and on the albums 15 Big Ones, Love You especially. It's hard to say what genre that is, but shows the undeniable influence of Wendy Carlos' album Switched On Bach (he has mentioned it several times in interviews). I think "Electronic Rock" is a fair descriptor, they're a distinct part of the BB canon, they're albums that influenced Kraftwerk and other pioneering electronic groups, they're pretty unique, adventurous productions that shouldn't be lost in the shuffle in favor of the band's early surf rock years. I also don't know what "proof" you need to see that the band did electronic rock, the page for electronic rock defines it only as a "combination of electronic music with traditional rock music" and says that it started developing in the 1950s! Listen to 15 Big Ones or Love You, and you will hear EXTENSIVE use of synthesizers. Do I really have to find some article somewhere specifically describing the band as "electronic rock"? It's completely evident based on wiki's definition of "electronic Rock" and a quick survey of the recordings I've mentioned, The only information on Love You in this article is,
"For the remainder of 1976 to early 1977, Brian Wilson spent his time making sporadic public appearances and producing the band's next LP The Beach Boys Love You, a quirky collection of 14 songs mostly written by Brian alone, including more "fun" songs ("Honkin' Down the Highway"), a mature love song ("The Night Was So Young")—a mix ranging from infectious to touching to downright silly. Despite its flaws, Love You is one of the more popular offerings in The Beach Boys' later oeuvre. Many sources cited the album as a return to the group's roots."
It may not mention the character or production or the album, but that's because it's poorly written, not because the Beach Boys never did Electronic Rock.
And what about progressive rock? Frank Zappa has said Brian Wilson was one of the true pioneers of Progressive Rock. Going beyond that though look at Carl and Denny's productions from the early '70s. Trader, Long Promised Road, Feel Flows, Steamboat, all feature very forward looking production, very progressive synthesizer work, jazz flute work outs, etc. I don't know if progressive rock is truly the best label, but it's another very prominent aspect of their music.
Since the late '70s, MIU, LA, KTSA and beyond could be fairly described as adult contemporary or soft rock.
I think their career could be pretty accurately split up as "Surf Rock, Sunshine Pop, Country Rock, Electronic Rock, Soft Rock". As opposed to "Rock, Pop, Surf Rock, Psychedelic Rock" it has only one more genre!! I don't even think Psychedelic Rock describes the band, they didn't really sound anything like the San Fransisco groups I would generally call Psychedelic "Rock", "Chamber Pop", "Baroque Pop", or "Sunshine Pop" would all fit a little better probably. I picked Sunshine Pop because anyone clicking on that link will find information on Surf, Psychedelic pop, and Baroque Pop, so it seems like the best choice. Both Brian's work and Carl&Dennis' work of the early to mid '70s would fit under the 1970's section on the Electronic Rock page, so I suppose the progressive rock part isn't really needed.
Saying all that I don't know what the problem would be with being more fair and balanced when it came to depicting their career, I think this way is much more a balance between specific and general as it avoids the useless "Rock/Pop" tag.

Also The Moon should be under associated acts, it's David Marks late '60s band, come to think of it David and The Marksmen should probably be listed too.

Do you have any sources backing up your statements?Psychedelic rock/pop dose apply through the use of theremin, harpsichords, organs and psychedelic lyrics used in albums Pet Sounds and Smile. Baroque pop can also be significant as it was a major part of the Pet Sounds album through the use of experimental and unique instruments such as English horns. The only country rock song that comes to mind is cotton fields. Please Name me some soft rock and electronic rock beach boy songs?

Turn On Your Mind: Four Decades of Great Psychedelic Rock,ISBN 0634055488

The Rock Canon: Canonical Values In The Reception Of Rock Albums,ISBN 0754662446

Sonic cool: the Life & Death of Rock 'n' Roll (Hal Leonard Corporation, 2003), p. 191.

SgtPetsounds(talk) 03:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what is in those books, is there a quote in them that specifically says "The Beach Boys NEVER did Country Rock", I mean, what is your point in listing them?
I have listed MANY examples, I encourage you to read what I wrote as I gave you several examples, I know it's long, but, really, don't ask for examples if you aren't going to read what I wrote. Here is a bunch of stuff I have alraedy said again, please read it and listen to the albums and songs I mention. You don't seem to have paid much attention to the albums Surf's Up, Carl and The Passions, Holland, 15 Big Ones, or Love You among others, this material was just as important to the band's legacy as the '60s stuff. Listen to the song "Big Sur" on Holland, there's no way you can listen to that and then still act like the band never did Country Rock. It's right there clear as crystal.
Electronic Rock: All the songs on The Love You LP and the 15 Big Ones LP. Moog synths are all over these albums! Listen to Just Once In My Life or Let's Go On This Way. Do a google search for "beach Boys" + "electonic" + "love you" and you will find plenty of websites like this, http://therisingstorm.net/the-beach-boys-love-you/ that prominently mention the synths on this album. The moog synthesizer is absolutely unmistakable if you actually listen to any of those albums. The electronic rock article also says that in the 70s Pink Floyd, Yes, ELO and others were electronic rock. Listen to the songs "Trader", "Steamboat", "Long Promised Road", "Feel Flows" for examples of this type of progressive/electronic influence(this is actually the third time I have listed these songs!!). The Moog synth is central on many of the bands songs on Surf's Up, C&TP, and Holland.
As for Country Rock, listen to the track Friends, the waltz time and the harmonica. Listen to the banjo on Cabinessence or the unmistakable country western sections of Heroes and Villains. 20/20 had things like cottonfields you're right. Listen to In Concert 1973 to hear the bands live show and compare that to Allman Brothers Band, Grateful Dead or other country rock/blues rock/or hard rock bands from the early 70s. The band's was heavily influenced by The Band especially during this period, listen to Hold On Dear Brother or Here She Comes. You could make arguments for Hard Rock, Country Rock, or Blues Rock, I think those genres are all closely linked, but the band did a ton of material in that vein between '68 and '73.
As for Psychedelic Rock vs Psychedelic Pop, I think both apply, but Psych Rock is more associated with the San Fransisco bands rather than the LA bands like BB or Byrds. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the use of the theremin (an example of electronic rock that you yourself brought up!!!) makes it more rock than pop, there doesn't seem like there's much reason behind that. In the end I think "Sunshine Pop" is the best choice, it better describes the material on Friends and Sunflower and if you actually go to the Sunshine Pop article there are subsections for Psych Pop, and Baroque Pop that both mention the BB. So I think Sunshine Pop is the best one to use obviously as it INCLUDES psychedelic pop and baroque pop. I don't know why you are hung up on psych rock vs psych pop as the beach boys are mentioned prominently in the articles for BOTH genres, and the point is moot as I ultimately think "Sunshine Pop" is a much better choice than either of those two.
As for Soft Rock. Please please listen to the albums LA (Light Album), MIU Album, Keepin' The Summer Alive, or any of the other albums the band has done since 1977. I mean, what would you call Kokomo? Soft Rock is a very fair description.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  • These kind of discussions get counterproductive fast so I will strongly urge, per Indopug at the start, that we keep the status quo: "Rock, pop, surf rock, psychedelic rock", which covers the main types of music the band played/plays. Thanks. Jusdafax 06:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
So is that how wikipedia works? When someone brings a new viewpoint to an article you just call the discussion counter productive and keep things as they were. I have given example after example of the genres I've added, what's the hang up??? There are two ways to settle this, change the genres to "Rock, Pop" or leave it the way I've edited it. The way it is is unacceptable as I've mentioned several times due to the fact that it gives primacy to the bands work between '62 and '67 over what they did in the '70s and '80s. The way I've edited it is way more fair and I've provided many examples showing that they are totally accurate descriptors. If you want to avoid more argument keep it general at "Rock, Pop" or accept all the arguments I made that nobody has really responded to as of yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No I said Theremin is a instrument used in psychedelic rock/pop not electronic rock. The Byrds are Psychedelic rock, ever heard of eight miles high? . Your source is not reliable and the facts you are stating are truly opinion and not backed up with reliable sources .FIND EFFICIENT BOOK AND WEB SOURCES INSTEAD OF WHAT YOU THINK!!!!!!. I would call Kokomo tropical music and pop.SgtPetsounds(talk) 03:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Why can't it be used in both? Why do you think that genres are so set in stone that only things that use the therimin are psychedelic and not anything else? Electronic Rock is defined by wikipedia as the combination of "Traditional Rock Music" with "Electronic Music" in addition Wiki defines "Electronic Music" as "Electronic music is music that employs electronic musical instruments and electronic music technology in its production." now look at the official liner notes for the 15BO/LY twofer: http://www.albumlinernotes.com/15_Big_Ones_Love_You.html and you can see all the songs with synths on them. All the songs I've mentioned again and again and again fit very very very squarely into wikipedias own definition of electronic rock. Do I really need to find a book that specifically says that the beach boys were "electronic rock"? is that the only way to satisfy you? Tell me how the music I've mentioned four times now ISN'T electronic rock, how it DOESN'T fit the definition of "Electronic Rock" given by wikipedia! You haven't yet. It doesn't seem like you've actually listened to the albums and songs I'm specifically talking about, before arguing more please listen to them. I've given you the liner notes for those two albums, and they clearly show that the album fits wiki's defintion of electronic rock. Until you've shown that they don't fit, I think we should keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
ALSO, why do you continually edit out The Moon from associated acts? what is your reasoning???????? Here: http://www.themoonalbums.com/ the Moon is another David Marks band, they did two albums, it's right there.
I have again and again and again given you examples, but it doesn't appear to me that you've ever listened to the albums I've mentioned. You certainly haven't yet told me how any of my examples were incorrect. If you want to compromise and settle this change it to "Rock, Pop" and drop the "surf rock, psychedelic rock" part, if you want to keep those parts please please please explain to me why "psychedelic rock" is better than "sunshine pop"! "sunshine pop" better describes the material on 1968's Friends and 1970's Sunflower. It also includes Psychedelic Pop (you still haven't explained why psychedelic rock is better than psychedelic pop, when Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations are listed on the pages for BOTH genres), Baroque Pop and Surf Rock, and the page itself for Sunshine Pop meantions the Beach Boys under ALL of those headings. Why don't you want to use this genre? please give a reason! You haven't yet given a single one besides "have you heard 8 Miles High?" (seriously dude?)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes you do need to find a source stating that the beach boys have made electronic rock songs and going into depth about it because you have nothing that actually backs up what you are saying. And again I'm not saying therimin is only used in psychedelic music. For instance harpsichords appear in both baroque and psychedelic songs. If you find a reliable source that explains what you believe in depth ,me and others may take it into account. but for now please stick to the status quo and only change the infobox if the main users such as indopug come to an agreement. I will look into The moon for you. You claimed the Byrds not being Psychedelic so I answered "have you heard of eight miles high" plus I haven't stated that one genre is more important than the other. The reason why we agreed with the status quo was stop these types of arguments, so maybe rock/pop alone might be the answer to stop the bickering.

You do not have to "look into it" just look on this page: http://www.beachboys.com/davidmarks.html I mean honestly you are just being obstinate for the sake of it at this point. I also gave you an electronic rock source. here it is again: http://www.albumlinernotes.com/15_Big_Ones_Love_You.html those are the official liner notes for those two albums, right there in black and white. That to me is an "efficient" source, please please please please please tell me how it isn't if you disagree. The liner notes list the moog synth on several tracks, and if you actually took the time to read this source (which you of course didn't!!!!!) you'd see it's exactly what you want!!!! It talks extensively about the albums and about the use of synths on them!!!!!!!!!! Again, Electronic Rock is definied by wikipedia as a combination of "traditional rock music" and "electronic music", furthermore "electronic music" is defined by wikipedia as "Electronic music is music that employs electronic musical instruments and electronic music technology in its production." According to the album's own OFFICIAL liner notes that I've linked you to, the beach boys are electronic rock, the two albums (among others) make extensive use or arp synths and moogs and you can read about it in the official liner notes! arp synths and moogs are "electronic musical instruments", it fits very very very very very very very very clearly into what wiki itself defines as electronic rock! I've given you the official liner notes with a bunch of mentions of synths and moogs and you haven't bothered to read it! before continuing to argue I implore you to actually read what I'm writing in this paragraph and actually respond to it and tell me where my logic isn't working for you!

Also, The Byrds are psychedelic rock, country rock and folk rock! Not just Psychedelic rock. the wiki page for the byrds lists the genres as "Rock, pop, folk rock, psychedelic rock, raga rock, country rock" so I don't know what your issue is. I have given an air tight argument as to why the beach boys are electronic rock, and have given a source to back it up and you haven't bothered to write a single word against it other than to say I haven't given a source (which I have!!!). It seems to me you haven't actually listened very much to the albums I'm mentioning over and over and over and over and over in these posts. Have you heard any of this stuff? Please answer me on this point. Do you not hear all the moog synths on the Love You LP? What point is exactly holding you up?????? I'm begging you to give me something here. You also haven't said anything as to whether the band is psychedelic rock or sunshine pop. Why do you INSIST on psych rock? You haven't commented on your opinion here at all. The Beach Boys are unarguably sunshine pop and the wiki article mentions the BB many times as perhaps the prime example of sunshine pop. sunshine pop seems like it covers more of the music the band recorded than Psych Rock. I agree with you the Beach Boys are psych rock, but I'm also telling you they are Baroque Pop and Psychedelic Pop, they can very easily be all these genres so I'm really genuinely confused as to why you must have them be listed as psych rock. I think sunshine pop is more specific than "Pop" and more general than "Psych Rock" it covers more of the material the BB recorded while including psych rock and psych pop. It just seems to fit better to me, please write a response to this point before changing it again. Honestly I don't think we can agree on this because you honestly just don't seem to know much about the beach boys and your opinions here appear pretty obstinate and arbitrary and you haven't said anything refuting me yet. I think the genre should be changed to "rock, pop" and leave it at that. it's the only way to compromise.

Saying I don't know much about the bb is a silly thing to say as I research through use of books and reliable web sources. Im starting to agree with you that the genre should be changed to rock/pop because we can't carry on arguing about because it will get to our heads. The good sides to rock/pop which user hattiethecat1234 stated it stops genre wars and we are a good example of genre wars. Im going to bed so peace out my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SgtPetsounds (talkcontribs) 08:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC) I mean, at this point is seems like the only option. I've written a lot, given a lot of examples, given arguments and sources. You still haven't given a single word, not one word as to why my logic concerning "electronic rock" was insufficient. I think I gave a very sound argument and showed the album fit the defintion of the genre, but you didn't bother to listen to the songs I listed or respond to the content of my argument. I really don't understand. I begged and begged and begged that you actually respond to my argument, but you didn't. I mean, what exaclty is the deal? It doesn't feel like you've read anything I've written, looked at the links I've posted, or considered my arguments. It feels silly that you are really arguing that the band wasn't Country Rock or electronic rock. I've listed songs, I've asked you to listen to them, you haven't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What's the problem???????????????????????????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

WP:3RR and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle then perhaps Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, if need be.Moxy (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is really some bs if I say so myself. You guys won't let edits through, you tell me to go to the talk page. I've been here on the talk page, I've written pages of commentary on this, but nobody has taken any time to actually respond to any of my points. This article is rated C-class right now, I think it could be improved a lot by balancing it more between the contributions of the different band members. Right now there are two whole sections and like 10 paragraphs alone on Pet Sounds, GV and Smile, essentially a span of only a year. By comparison the albums Wild Honey, Friends, 20/20, Sunflower, Surf's Up, C&TP and Holland (a period of 8 years) get only 7 paragraphs. There's a clear bias in this article towards the Brian Wilson myth, the myth that he was the man responsible for everything good the band did and that everything after 1966 was an unworthy mess. The whole thing comes off like a poorly informed review of the band's later day material by an elitist critic. The section outrageously calls Friends a "largely acoustic album". C&TP is given two totally asinine sentences, "The album Carl and the Passions – "So Tough" was an uncharacteristic mix that included several songs drawn from Fataar and Chaplin's previous group, Flame, which are nearly unrecognizable as Beach Boys songs." The bands huge live resurgence during the early 70s is given only a single sentence. This article is not fair, balanced, or unbiased. It's a load of crap. The way the genre list is right now, it gives credence to the Brian Wilson myth, it favors the surf rock years and the 1966 recordings for Pet Sounds and SMiLE above all the other work the band did. I don't know who the curators of this article are, but I don't think you guys who have been fighting me have done a good job with this article, and you haven't given me any reason thus far to think you've ever listened to albums like 15 Big Ones, Love You, Friends, C&TP. Too fight the Brian Wilson myth, to bring more depth and truth to the beach boys story it's important to acknowledge all the post-Pet Sounds work as being equally vital. If you guys have other opinions as to what genres you think those albums are, I'd be happy to consider them, but I think it's important that all of the beach boys periods post-'66 are represented equally in the info box. The way it is now gives primacy to the brian wilson myth. I thought electronic rock was a very good descriptor of many of the band's 70s projects. It's very simple when you look at it, all electronic rock is is "rock music with synths", but you guys have been fighting me tooth and nail on this, so I'm asking for the one millionth time, why???? Do you disagree with the definition of electronic rock? do you disagree with the assertion that the BB used synths on those 70s albums? What exaclty is the point you want to contest? We either need to keep it totally neutral and general at "rock, pop" so that no period is favored, or we need to do it my way and have genres listed to represent every period. I think my way is pretty reasonable, but you guys seem to have some big hang up over this. Why exactly is Psych Rock so freaking preferable to Sunshine Pop? In my mind Sunshine Pop is much better. Psych Rock and Psych Pop both describe the Beach Boys, as do Baroque Pop, Chamber Pop, Sunshine Pop etc. Sgtpetsounds seems to think that genres are set in stone and can be determined concretely by whether or not a therimin or harpsichord was used, but I think we all know that's bs. The article for Sunshine pop links to the articles for both Baroque Pop and Psych Pop, Sunshine Pop seems like the perfect genre to list there, it's much more specific than just "pop", and it's more general than, and includes psych. It seems like it's the ideal genre to list but you guys seem to disagree. So I ask for the billionth time, why MUST the beach boys be listed as psych rock, what is the neurosis that you guys have about this that you are so unwilling to entertain this idea??? Again, either generalize to only "rock, pop" or include a few more genres to give a broader picture. I honestly think my way brings a little more depth to the article than the way it is now. I'll leave the page the way it is now for a while, but if nobody is going to take the time to respond to all the crap I've written, I will start editing again as it seems like it's the only way to push this topic forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:TLDR. Anyway, what if we remove psychedelic rock (which, as you and others on this thread have said, was performed by the band for a very short whilewtf is this??? the band was surf rock for an equally short period of time as pysch rock) and leave it at just "Rock, pop, surf rock"? Those are two overarching genres that covers their entire output, and a third that is most iconic of The Beach Boysthis article should not blindly favor popular misconceptions about the band's output. If you take the time to read my post I give several examples of this article being terrible due to its favoring of the brian wilson myth. Every period of the band should be equally represented in this article and in this info box. either put ONLY "pop, rock" or include more genres..—indopug (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC) This is ridiculous!!!! I can't believe you just said basically "i don't care what you wrote, it was too boring so I didn't read it". That's absolute bs and shouldn't be how wiki works. It's so insulting that you guys are up in your ivory tower but you actually think you don't even have to read my arguments, that they're just wrong because you are too lazy to read the posts. Go back and read my post or let my edit through. If you aren't going to read and respond to my arguments you have no basis to dismiss them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can live with that, Indo. As for 24.177.208148's lengthy comments, I will merely observe that they are right about the fact that the article has been 'C' class for too long. However, I would urge '24', with good intent, to tone down the rhetoric a notch or two. It appears you are new to the encyclopedia, so allow me to extend a welcome and advise you to sign your posts with four of these: ~ ...the culture here can be a bit difficult, but as I have observed elsewhere, there is a right way, a wrong way, and a Wikipedia way. Jusdafax 17:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned above I agree with "Rock, pop, surf rock" as the intent of the infobox is to aim for generality. Most readers won't even know what some of these obscure subgenres are, so how these various musical styles pertain to the Beach Boys would be better explained in the body of the article. Unfortunatley, that would require someone to actually contribute a complete sentence, maybe even an entire paragraph, to the article. Piriczki (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I take it none of you have read a single word I've written. Why remove psych rock and leave surf rock? that's even WORSE! IT's WORSE!!!!! "rock, pop" covers all the genres the band did, it includes surf rock as well as psych rock! It's garbage that you guys want to tag on surf rock in addition to "rock, pop", doing that will exemplify surf rock above above all the other genres the band did. You act like because the average person coming to this article won't be familiar with the band's post-1966 output, that we shouldn't bother mentioning it at all. It's ridiculous and I'm actually astonished that after all i wrote your solution is "why not remove psych rock and leave surf rock", it's absolutely mind boggling that you think that's a good solution. The Beach Boys only did surf rock between '61 and '64, why do you think we should favor that period over all the others??? For the billionth time, we either need to put it at "rock, pop" and include no other genres on top of that, or we need to include a more comprehensive list of genres. Please please please please please please please please please please PLEASE read the last post I made. I can't tone down the rhetoric because you guys just don't seem to be reading what I write!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Sigh.—indopug (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
So..........are you going to read what I wrote, are you going to respond to it or what? I mean, just read it for gods sake and write a response instead of acting like actually having a discussion is too much strain on you. If you don't have the time to read and consider arguments and write responses to them, you shouldn't be editing this page. If you are really that lazy you should just walk away honestly as you shouldn't be in charge of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Having the genre list be "Rock, Pop, Surf Rock" is garbage. By doing that you are saying that surf rock was the band's most noteworthy genre, and I'm saying that's not true. This article is c-class because it favors a certain side of the beach boys story, I'm saying that to be fair we should either keep it strictly general with ONLY "rock, pop" or we should do it my way. You disagree with that, you think we should hold up surf rock as the most important genre the band did, why? Please explain why you think you are right and why you think we shouldn't bother mentioning the other genres the band did. Please write a response to this and describe your position instead of just saying "sigh", if you can't be bothered to write more than "sigh", you SHOULD NOT BE EDITING THIS ARTICLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to keep writing on this talk page, and editing the article until somebody actually does a proper response to me. You guys can either walk away or engage me in discussion, as long as you keep ignoring me and responding with bs posts like "sigh" I will keep going for however long it takes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
(double edit conflict) Regarding your assertion that we must "fight the Brian Wilson myth", please read WP:GREATWRONGS. If most mainstream reliable sources (such as music magazines, major websites, books about pop music and The Beach Boys; blogs/fan-sites don't count) exalt Brian Wilson's pre-Smile contributions in comparison to the Boys' later work, so must we. In fact, when I re-wrote the lead for this article a month ago, I kept this in mind. The same logic applies to the genre field.
That being said, obviously the rest of the article is far from finished, and needs extensive rewriting (and referencing) to come on par with Featured Articles like The Beatles or The Kinks.—indopug (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
OH! You mean like Rolling Stone magazine? Does that count? Here is the original review of the 1971 Surf's Up LP from RS: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/surfs-up-19711014
It ends with "this group has delivered plenty throughout its history. For that reason, they are perhaps still the most important and certainly the most "accomplished" of all American groups. You can come home, guys, all is forgiven." Or what about the original Rolling Stone review for the 1973 Holland LP: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/holland-19730301 which says things like Holland "is irresistible" and "is a special album". On the liner notes page I've linked to there are articles by REM, Tom Petty, and Elton John talking about albums like C&TP, Holland and Love You and exalting them. What about Robert Christgau's review of the 1967 Wild Honey LP, where he gives it an A+ and says "it does what it sets out to do almost without a bad second." These are the albums you think should be discounted from the band's legacy in favor of the surf years, but I've given you sources showing otherwise. You're simply unfamiliar with the BB legacy, I can find dozens of reviews and essays on the albums you've dismissed that show them great favor. Many serious reviewers and musicians have heaped accolades on this material, and in reality it did far better than misinformed articles like this one tend to portray. Wikipedia should be interested in being unbiased, and you are clearly biased towards Brian Wilson. If none of the info I've just posted is enough to convince you that the material in discussion is worth more consideration, then I don't know what will. You say if most mainstream sources exalt Brian Wilson's work above the BB later day work, so must we. While I provided sources showing that's not true, the popular conception of the BB legacy is a twisted mess with little basis in fact and we shouldn't blindly echo the misinformed sentiments of the average joe who knows next to nothing about the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh I never meant to imply The Beach Boys' post-1966 albums didn't receive their share of acclaim, or influence a number of musicians.—indopug (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Then what's the hold up? Our argument is over what genres should be listed in the info box. You think that the only specific genre that should be listed is "surf rock", you seem to think this because among "reliable sources" that is the genre that is the important part of the band's legacy. I said that's not true and gave reliable sources, and you agreed that the band's post-pet sounds material "received their share of acclaim, and influenced a number of musicians." So where does our argument stand, do you still think surf rock is the only genre worth giving specific mention?????? You seem to agree that's not the case so I don't know how you can stick to that argument. So I ask once again, why are you against the inclusion of additional genres in the info box? It really seems to me that Sunshine Pop would be a perfect inclusion, if you go to that page you'll find sections for Psychedelic Pop, Baroque Pop, and Surf Rock. It seems to me that if we listed the genre as Sunshine Pop it would be the best way as that genre includes surf rock and psych pop, it's more general than either of those two genres and anyone clicking on the link to that article will find more information about the beach boys in relation to subgenres like surf rock and baroque pop. In addition I think other genres should be added to represent the band's early 1970's efforts in blues rock and country rock, Brian's electronic productions on Holland, 15BO, and LY, and the most recent 7 LPs of soft rock and adult contemporary music the band did. Listing the genres as "Sunshine Pop, County Rock (or Blues Rock maybe), Electronic Rock, Soft Rock" would be exactly the same number of genres as we currently have and give a much more accurate picture of the band's career. Again, you have yet to explain why you think "Surf Rock" should be mentioned in addition to "rock, pop", while the band's other genres don't deserve listing. I've given you many examples, sources, articles, reviews as to why equal treatment of the bands career 1966-1996 is desirable and you haven't really put up any fight, and if you aren't going to then you should walk away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Like I have said, my stance is the status quo. Although, the band incorporated a number of different styles into their music, none of those define the band the way surf rock does. To quote Rolling Stone, "The years 1963-1965 established the Beach Boys' legacy", which the band have flogged since 1975's Endless Summer to become "reduced to America's premier nostalgia act".
Further, going by the number of editors who have said "I am happy with the status quo" on this thread, I'd say we have a WP:CONSENSUS for "Rock, pop, surf rock, psychedelic rock". This is all I have to say on the matter. (Oh, and you might want to read the essay WP:GENREWARRIOR, I strongly recommend it).—indopug (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree with Indopug. Now look here, '24', your hostile manner is doing your cause a disservice. Telling people they "should walk away" isn't constructive, and you are fast wearing out your welcome. I left a message for you on your talk page, trying to give you a clue about how we tend to operate, but you either have not read it or have ignored it. Just so you know, if you keep it up at this level, you get warnings and then blocks. The article needs good contributors, no doubt, but you have to stop shooting yourself in the foot, OK? Jusdafax 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Why do we not do it like The Beatles page and list just "Rock, Pop"???? I strongly disagree with the contention that "surf rock" "DEFINES" the Beach Boys, it certainly does not. Also I have to ask why does the info box have to be so limited, what harm does it do to include other genres that the band did? Why are you guys so insistent that only the genre that "defines" the band be listed? Other genres could easily be included on top of that without doing any harm. I'm strongly in favor of doing it like The Beatles page and having only "rock, pop". The Rolling Stone Magazine artist bio for the beach boys is not the end all be all source of information about the band. Check out this article http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/the-1967-1971-beach-boys-long-promised-road.htm that mentions other genres like electronica. Obviously genre is really subjective but wouldn't "Rock, Pop, Sunshine Pop" be even better than "Rock, Pop, Surf Rock, Psychedelic Rock"???? Why not do that? Or why not keep it at just "rock, pop". there doesn't seem to be a good reason to favor specifically surf rock, there's enough room in the info box to include a sample of all the genres the band did. I mean honestly, to me it isn't about what genre the band had it's most success with, it's about what genres the band actually did. There's a section for genres, so why not include a balanced list of the genres the band did? Why do we limit ourselves to only what genres are listed in the rolling stone magazine website bio for the band? Again, Sunshine Pop includes surf rock, Psychedelic Pop, and Baroque Pop, it seems like above all that would be the best genre to use to describe the band's '60s music. What is the argument against this? What is the argument against throwing this whole argument out and leaving it at ONLY "Rock, Pop" either would be a step in the right direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Also will you guys stop posting little messages for me telling me what to do please. I've written several wiki articles in the past and taken them up from nothing. I really have no interest in joining the "wikipedia community" and putting little badges on my talk page and what not. I mean, there's a wiki rules page for "TL;DR", and somebody here actually linked to it. Really? When somebody writes too long a response according to wiki rules you can just ignore its content if you're too lazy to read it? If any of you had taken the same amount of time you have writing me pedantic rules reminders to actually comment on this discussion maybe we could actually make some progress!!! Again I demand that either all periods of the band are equally represented in the info box, or that the genre list be reduced to only "rock, pop". There is no reason the info box should favor only what is more popular or most well known, there's no reason for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • '24'... "Demand"s that you get your way won't get you far here. Out of curiosity, since you state firmly as a point in your favor that you have "written several wiki articles in the past", I'd be interested in knowing which ones, what name you edited under then, and why you changed to an IP number who refuses to sign posts. As for the "little messages", in my view talk page posts are an important part of growth as a Wikipedian. I'll be happy to stop my efforts, based on your unhelpful attitude. Jusdafax 00:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no interest in being indoctrinated into wikipedias cultures, or "growing as a wikipedian". I have used several user names over the years. Honestly dude, you seem way more interested in talking about bs wiki culture than actually discussing the topic at hand. Almost nothing has been written thus far against any of my points. None of my points have been addressed, none of my suggestions discussed. I have begged and pleaded that you guys actually read this stuff and respond but instead it seems like you're more interested in getting hung up on the fact that I won't sign my posts (why would I when it does it automatically for me?) The consensus on the beatles page is that all things like psychedelic are considered to be "styles" under the genres of "rock" and "pop" and they decided to leave it at that. I'm calling for the same thing to be done here. I'm asking you to tell me why we SHOULD NOT use "Sunshine Pop" in the genre list over Surf Rock and Psychedelic Rock. I have pointed out many times that Sunshine Pop includes Surf Rock, Baroque Pop, and Psychedelic Pop, in my opinion if we're striving for brevity listing sunshine pop gives us the most bang for our buck. Nobody has yet responded to that point. THIS IS THE FIFTH TIME I'VE BROUGHT THIS UP BUT NOT ONE OF YOU HAS WRITTEN A SINGLE WORD WHY THE CURRENT WAY IS PREFERABLE NOT A SINGLE WORD. Discussion isn't moving along because you guys are not having a discussion. If we were to list Sunshine Pop instead of Surf Rock and Psych Rock we would make the genre list more concise without diminishing the importance of the surf rock genre to the bb legacy. before you write anything else, you could at least consider this one point and then tell me why you think it's negative. Please. No bs about wiki culture, no snarky bs posts of just "sigh". Consider what I've written time and time again, and tell me why you think I'm wrong.

Arbitrary break[edit]

WHY IS: "ROCK, POP, SURF ROCK, PSYCHEDELIC ROCK" BETTER THAN "ROCK, POP, SUNSHINE POP" ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Why do you prefer it your way when sunshine pop includes BOTH surf rock and psychedelic pop IN ADDITION TO BAROQUE POP. It's very clear that the beach boys did all of those genres, they did Sunshine Pop, Surf Rock, Psych Pop, and Baroque Pop. So why not list the genre as sunshine pop if all four genres fall under that heading and are discussed on the sunshine pop wiki article? WHY ARE YOU AGAINST THIS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason why surf rock etc are mentioned on the sunshine pop page is because they sometimes share the same elements, however they are different sub genres of rock and pop and are not sub genres of sunshine pop. I think we should really follow the likes of The Beatles and The Kinks and just have "Rock,pop" because all the sub genres the Beach Boys have covered will be under two main genres "rock,pop". "Rock,pop" sounds allot better than both "Rock,pop,sunshine pop" and "Rock,pop,surf rock, psychedelic rock".(talk) 01:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally agreed. It's completely redundant to list other genres over "rock, Pop". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should now come to an agreement that "Rock,pop" is the best solution because we can't keep arguing over sub genres. I too personally agree we should aim to be like the Featured Articles like The Beatles and The Kinks, its the only way we will ever progress.—Hattiethecat1234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

  • While I agree that we can't keep arguing about it, I strongly disagree that we remove "surf rock" as a genre, which has been a stable part of the description in this Wikipedia article for many years. The Beach Boys were known for being a surf rock band in '62-'66, by far their peak sales years. Even when they stopped making albums with references to the sport, that's how they were known. Taking surf rock out "dumbs down" the infobox description. The "psychedelic rock" tag is in regards to their greatest hit, Good Vibrations. You want to take that out, I'm "meh" about it. But count me in with those who want to keep "surf rock" as a description of the mucic band called the Beach Boys... which was formed in 1961 when Dennis Wilson suggested that they write a song about the sport, and the result was their first single Surfin' , followed by three best selling albums with the word "Surf" in the title. It appears that there are a few here who don't like it and don't want it in the infobox, but without "surf rock", there would be no Beach Boys, and that is well-documented music history. Jusdafax 18:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that in most cases only the main genre should be listed, however there are many cases were a group is associated with the founding and/or the spread of mass popularity of a sub genre. In this case its widely confirmed that the "Boys" although did not invent the sound per say are accredited with making "surf rock" a main stream genre. So if there is a a vote per say i would say that "surf rock" should stay - As for "psychedelic rock" i would say they only incorporated some of this sounds but as a whole its not there sound. Sunshine pop and surf rock as pretty much the same - Sunshine pop is a new term that was not around when the "Boys" were at there peak (its a revival term). Moxy (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm totally fine with "Surf rock and Psychedelic rock". But I kind of agree with the statement "Rock and Pop is the best solution" due to arguments and what not. Wrestledope (Wrestledope) 21:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The genre box is not supposed to be a list of only what genres the band did that were most popular, it should aim to give an understanding of all the main genres the band worked in regardless of how popular they were. There's a lot of characterization going on by the people who want surf rock to be privileged. Today!, Summer Days!, and Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations are NOT surf rock and these albums are arguably more well known and important than the surf rock albums. Songs like I Know There's an Answer and I Just Wasn't Made For These Times are psych, California Girls was written on acid. Saying that the band is most well known for Surf Rock is totally wrong when the Rolling Stone #2 album of all time, and the bands most famous song aren't even surf rock!!!!! And their style of production was a huge influence on the "popularization" of the burgeoning psych music scene. The Beach Boys are not "defined" by Surf Rock at all, The Beach Boys would not be The Beach Boys if not for all the different styles they recorded, I know you think surf rock is the best or most important thing they did but as far as their identity as a band goes it's not the most important and should not be privileged. I'm generally confused as to why you guys are resistant to the band's other genres being equally represented. But my vote certainly is to either keep it at only Rock, Pop OR represent the other genres. Again the genre list is not there to say what genre they did that is arguably the best or coolest or whatever, it should be a neutral list that gives equal share to all the band's genres regardless of how cool you may or may not perceive them to be personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Rock,pop" would be better than representing all the sub genres because the info box could become clustered. Rvd4life (Rvd4life) 22:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The way I was suggesting it before "Surf Rock, Sunshine Pop, Blues Rock, Electronic Rock, Soft Rock" would pretty fairly represent all the different eras of the band's career with only 5 genres. But some of the people ealier in the discussion had a huge unexplained issue with this for some reason. So to avoid argument, leaving it at just "Rock, Pop" would probably be best. It's really strange considering that all wiki defines electronic rock as is rock music with synths, but there was still a lot of resistance to this for some reason despite the influential, pioneering use of the moog synth on several of the band's 70s albums. I could never really get anyone to respond to what the harm was in acknowledging the band's post-1964 work in the genre box was, seems pretty irrational to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For a group that did so much, it's quite hard to decide which genres are the most significant. For the genres you stated, they are probably quite controversial with other users so you were right to avoid them. But other than that "Rock,pop" is defiantly the best way forward and I really do agree with you about the "Rock,pop" stuff.Rvd4life (Rvd4life) 22:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly does it take to reach consensus? Most of the people posting in this talk page are now supporting the position that the genre should only be rock, pop. and indopug hasn't contributed any reason why that should not be the case. We should be following the example of the beatles and kinks pages, it works there and it will work here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems some editors are arguing in favour of just "rock, pop" solely because "it will avoid arguments". That's not really the right way to go about this, because there's only one editor who's creating such a hoopla about this (I suggest you all read the short essay WP:GENREWARRIOR), to the extent that he accuses the article of propogating a conspiracy theory called the "Brian Wilson myth" by listing surf and psychedelic rock as Beach Boys genres. Further, remember that another editor could just as likely come along in a few days and start trolling for the genres to be changed again.

Another thing about surf rock: remember that since 1975 or so, the Beach Boys' have achieved considerable fame/notoriety as an oldies' act, performing mostly their early, popular surf music. So restricting the band's surf period to just 1963-66 is also not really accurate. Surf music is what they play to this day.—indopug (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

So basically you're saying you don't care what the other editors are agreeing upon because you don't think they're doing it for the right reasons? It seems to me you're just trying to maintain your stranglehold on this page. Please provide sources saying that band's albums 15BO, LY, MIU, LA, KTSA, S/T, etc are "surf rock" albums. Also "oldies" is NOT the same thing as surf rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Dude, quit yelling.—indopug (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not yelling, it's called bold. You have to be speaking to yell so I don't really know what you're talking about dude. How about actually backing up your positions for once. If you've read any of my posts, you know the issue is, I do not care what genre is they were most successful at, or did for the longest or whatever, that's NOT the point of the genre list to tell people that, it should be a neutral list of all the genres the band did and nothing more. With the case of the beach boys it's totally subjective what genres they did and which ones they had the most success with. They DID NOT have the most critical success with surf rock, maybe the most popular success but is that your only qualification? I don't think it should be. We can argue back and forth about which genres are most important for the band, but that's totally subjective and we'll never reach consensus. So why continue with this? why not just leave the genre rock, pop? What's the harm in that?

I agree that the genre should be rock, pop only i don't know what it takes for consensus i tried to edit it to our way, but the guy edited it back and said "don't pretend there's a consensus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.40.31 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I had reverted 24.177.208.148 with the edit summary "don't pretend there's a consensus", so why are you saying that that "i tried to edit it to our way, but the guy edited it back"?—indopug (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
   sorry I meant "he" tl;dr  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.40.31 (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 
There seems to be some frantic desire to manufacture consensus to delete "surf rock" at the expense of deliberation, that's what I'm getting. The argument that it must be deleted doesn't hold water, in my view. And I agree that something is fishy as well. Could be time for other eyes on this. Jusdafax 03:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
There has been no deliberation, you and indopug have posted very little in the way of actually discussion. You have asked me for examples and sources, I have provided them. Instead of reading them or responding to them you seem to have a frantic desire to keep surf rock in spite of the consensus that is growing on this talk page. My point again and again is that the info box should not privilege any genre regardless of how popular or succesful it was in any area. Do you disagree with this? listing surf rock separately is redundant and serves no purpose other than to say "this is the most important genre the band did" which is very subjective. most important in what field? commercially? critically? You can, and I have provided many good arguments disputing this. The band's critical masterpiece isn't surf rock, it's most well known single isn't surf rock, it's really unnessecary to list surf rock on top of rock/pop. It seems counterproductive to resist this change without contriubting the discussion. At this point your blocking the change out of spite without saying anything as to why we're wrong. If you won't answer to all these points stop blocking the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Indopug speaks for me as well... the edit to the talk page here by a second IP who does not sign posts is troubling. Especially when it is their first edit. This needs to get sorted out. Jusdafax 03:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
At this point you're just deflecting the issue. The people for the change outnumber those for. The consensus seems to have changed so now you are doing everything you can to prevent the change. Who are we going to turn to resolve this? By what criteria will they decide. I am frankly skeptical that they will be impartial. The template for genres says "aim for generality", listing only "rock, pop" is more general than the way it currently is. So by the only criteria I can find removing "surf rock" is the way to go. Please answer to all the points I've raised in this discussion. You have not added anything to this discussion besides a preoccupation with superfluous issues of wiki culture. Can you contribute to the discussion please???—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Any time table on when you guys are going to actually you know, respond to the many points in favor of changing the genres. Also while I'm at it is anyone going to put up a big irrational stink if I remove the part that says Friends was a "largely acoustic album". I actually don't think there is a SINGLE track on that album without amplified instruments. Many parts of this article seem to have been written by someone that hadn't listened to the material they were writing about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There has been no movement here for a few days now. I again ask those against change to defend themselves.

We have defended ourselves; we have merely used fewer words than you, hence our arguments are likely lost among your incessant rants. I have changed the genres to "rock, pop, surf rock" as an attempt to strike a compromise between the the general and the specific. Remember that surf rock is by far the most iconic of The Beach Boys (I mean, duh, they are the Beach Boys); an infobox that has just "rock, pop" would "dumb down" the article (to quote another user above), and the removes the element asserts their uniqueness compared to The Beatles or The Kinks.
In summary, The Beach Boys played a number of genres throughout the career, all of which are subgenres of rock and pop. However, for the most iconic, popular, well-remembered part of their career their music (and image) was all surf rock.—indopug (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

BS, there's no consensus for you to remove psych rock, having only surf rock is far worse than having both. You also haven't defended yourself. Why again does the info box have to include the most popular genre they did? I mean, yes, they undisputedly preformed surf rock, but they just as undisputedly played other genres as well. My point has continually been, why does the genre list have to tell us what genre the band did that was most popular???? It's a list of genres not a list of most popular genres. Also why is popular success the only measure? They were certainly more critically revered for music they did that was not surf rock, even GV their most successful single was not surf rock. I really don't understand your position. You're argument seems to be "well they're the beach boys, so that means they did surf rock", the beach boys, as an entity, are equally defined by all their musical periods and experiments, not just what one was the most popular. There's no reason to so insistently demand that only surf rock be represented. And you haven't answered at all as to why that's the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.208.148 (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) rock & pop should never be used in wikipedia articles, they are way too general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.220.148 (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Beach Boys member[edit]

(Automatic translation) beach boys Hello! I wanted to mention one thing: they should get Brian and Al from the list of current members, although obviously not in the band, but I read somewhere that they are legally in the group. After reading that I realized in this wiki because they were in there, but why now removed? I Gelpgim22 of the Spanish Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.63.10.6 (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Jardine and B. Wilson are not in the current members list because, as you say, they are "obviously not in the band". They may still have a legal stake in the band, but that is irrelevant as far as mentioning them as current members goes.—indopug (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Since I am standing here, I wanted to clarify a question: if you seek the gold & platinum disc on the website of the RIAA, there is The Beach Boys in Concert with gold record, but says the disc is from 1965, obviously have Beach Boys Concert mistaken, of similar title, but which of the two albums is gold discs? ¡¡¡Saludos desde Argentina!!! --186.63.10.10 (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Brian Wilson and Al Jardine are not current members of the Beach Boys band. They may still be members of the Beach Boys business company, but this article is about the Beach Boys musical group, not about technical side of the Beach Boys' business arrangements. To have Wilson and Jardine listed as current members is inaccurate.Jamespnugent (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed Al Jardine was moved back to the "current members" list. Is there any new evidence that Jardine is once again part of the group? The Wikipedia page for Al Jardine states: "Jardine left the touring version of the Beach Boys in 1998 after Carl Wilson died of lung cancer, but remains a member of the Beach Boys corporation Brother Records." From what I understand, Mike Love kicked him out of the band. Jamespnugent (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed under "Past Members" in the top info box, Glen Campbell is listed along with other former/deceased members. However, he is not listed with other former members in the Beach Boys template at the bottom of the page. I might suggest that some consistency would be good here. Also, with the band's 50th Anniversary Tour having come to an end and Mike/Bruce restarting their own Beach Boys tour, it may be worth discussing whether or not Brian Wilson, Al Jardine, and David Marks should still be listed as current members. My understanding is that they are still legal members of the band, though they are not currently touring with the band. 74.215.119.125 (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to refer to Glen as an official Beach Boy at the same level as the core quintet plus David, Bruce, Blondie and Ricky. Glen temporarily joined the touring band to ensure the band could continue playing live in light of Brian's hasty withdrawal in 1964 and was gone after only a few months. Had he contributed vocally to albums, appeared in publicity shots, album covers etc. he'd probably be seen as once being a legitimate member of the band. As it stands, he's really no more a Beach Boys than Ed Carter or Billy Hinsche and I think he should probably be removed from the infobox. Also, as I understand it, Al, David and Brian are still legal members of the Beach Boys and Brian has stated that he is currently writing to record with the Beach Boys again in the near future. For that reason, I'd say that they are very much still part of the band and they should retain their positions in "current members". To do otherwise would be akin to saying Brian was not a Beach Boy in 1966 when the band was touring and he was writing Pet Sounds. Regards, Jamekae (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Very valid points. I fully agree that if Glen Campbell was just a touring member and session musician, not an official member, then it is not accurate to list him as a former member, despite his short-lived prominence in the group. A question I have though (which I truly do not know the answer to) is how we should indicate the current membership status then? Very true that Al, Brian, and David are still legal members and that there has been talk from Brian of another album, but as we all know, they are not currently touring with the group known as "The Beach Boys." I could be wrong, but I don't think this is in the same sense that Brian still worked in the studio for the band while Blondie/Ricky toured. Nonetheless, they are still legitimate members of the band (as you said). I know there is already a page called "The Beach Boys lineups," which details members and touring members over time, so I guess what I'm asking is how do we account for the differences in membership in the infobox (or do we even need to at all)? I saw a day or two ago, it was edited to two sections - the 50th Anniversary lineup and the current touring lineup, but that's gone now, so I guess the more experienced editors decided that wasn't the best way to deal with this. Cheers! Mgrimm789 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've adjusted the box to include Brian & Alan as "current members", because they are. In all the reissues of recent vintage, as approved by BRI, they're included. True, they're not touring as "The Beach Boys" currently, but then, the band that tours as "The Beach Boys" uses that name for touring only, as voted by the members of BRI back in 1999. They were not fired, as reported in the media last fall - the 50th Anniversary was never intended to be a permanent arrangement. Nonetheless, Brian & Alan are members of The Beach Boys, according to Brother Records Inc. Andrew G. Doe (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Beach Boys Billboard[edit]

Hello again, I'm Gelpgim22 wanted to ask because the information has been removed that (according to Billboard) The Beach Boys is the group most sold singles and albums in the U.S.. Here you can see the issue [11]. Greetings! --186.63.10.82 (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No one responded at the time, but the issue has come up again. I assume it was removed because there was no citation to support the claim. Frankly I think the statement may well be true, but it needs someone to come up with a reliable source and so far I haven't been able to find one. It also matters when the claim was made, since other bands could have change this.--SabreBD (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Further to that I managed to find a version of the article with a source for the claim, which was removed by Indopug in this edit. There was no edit summary, but checking out the reference I can see why it was removed as the source was not Billboard at all but someone's calculation based on Billboard statistics and this really doesn't look reliable to me. The statement was clearly erroneous (Billboard did not claim it) and is dubious, so, just for the record, I suggest we leave it out, there are after all lots of much better substantiated claims to fame for this band to go in the lead.--SabreBD (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Daryl Dragon & Toni Tennille[edit]

If you read the wiki for both, each state having a part in the Beach Boys in the early 70's. Why does this wiki not have any reference to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.7.9 (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

References review[edit]

Could we have a review of the references (not the Notes section). I can see that Wilson's text is cited in the notes and I see this addition where that author added Endless Summer Quarterly. Are the other two used?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits and the stats posted about the number of top 40 hits matches to said reference. As per history tidbits in the book, there appears to be no link to this page Gsgeek540 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Seis Beach Boys.gif Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Seis Beach Boys.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Seis Beach Boys.gif)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Should The Smile Sessions be part of the Beach Boys album discography?[edit]

Alan Jardine called it a "Beach Boys version of Smile", so I am tempted to think they consider it a regular Beach Boys album. I'm not a Beach Boys expert so I really don't know how many other albums would have to be included if we applied the same criteria for the Smile Sessions to another Beach Boys albums consisting of old studio material. I want to avoid adding every odds-and-ends compilation to the list, but the Smile Sessions seems more like a regular album, just released late. Any thoughts? Masebrock (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Piriczki (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Technical sophistication of "God Only Knows"[edit]

"far more technically sophisticated than anything the Beach Boys, or arguably any group, had ever attempted before." This is a total fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.95.187.15 (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverted new-version of the lead.[edit]

Hi, I reverted the lead to the stable version I wrote over a year ago. The stable version of the lead was better than the current one for the following reasons:

  1. Hagiography: "Noted as America's greatest rock group and an important catalyst in the shaping of popular music, the Beach Boys are one of the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful bands of all time" is a highly contentious claim, and the sentence reeks WP:PEACOCK. Best avoid to making such claims entirely or to quote somebody on it, as the old version did. Even "Brian was pushed back into the role of the Beach Boys' producer in what most report was an exploitative move given Brian's unstable and unprepared mindset" is very controversial language.
  2. Length and lop-sided coverage: the lead is meant to be a summary, but the new version goes into too many details. But yet it manages to miss out many important things: how their peak was in 1965/66 when they briefly challenged the Beatles, the very-important "Good Vibrations" singles. While their most acclaimed work Pet Sounds is mentioned in passing in a sentence that is primarily about Smile, the lesser-known Love You. Remember although one may think Loves You (or whatever other album) was wrongly overlooked in its time, Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs.
  3. Recentism: why are two entire sentences devoted to their latest record when none of the others get even one (except, of course, Love You)?

That said, there are a few more things that need to be incorporated: Endless Summer and how its success enabled the band to tour as an oldies' act; how their early music was "Influenced by barbershop music and rhythm and blues". There also needs to be a word about the new album.

However to name a number of their albums but not talk about them at all (like had been done with All Summer Long, Today!, Sunflower, Surf's Up and Summer Days (And Summer Nights!!)) is not useful to the reader. It is also against the point of the lead, which is to provide a succinct summary of the band's entire story.—indopug (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree that the new version is no improvement and I support the revert. Jusdafax 06:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
  • As the primary contributor of the new lead, I also support the revert. In retrospect, I agree that it does look a lot neater in this condensed state, however, language like "However, Wilson would soon lose control of the band because of mental-health and substance-abuse issues." and "the group never managed to reclaim its mid-'60s peak when The Beach Boys briefly challenged The Beatles both in terms of commercial and critical appeal." reads a little problematic in my eyes. The former doesn't state the democratic shift of the band and the stepping up to the plate of the other Beach Boys, which should be a vital note. It's not as if the band drifted aimlessly following Brian's retreat. Secondly, the band put out multiple international no. 1 singles and well received albums, sometimes with no Brian involvement, it was primarily in the United States where they weren't very strong performers, which I think is a substantial point to note. Also, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with "The Beatles" being used as a benchmark, it just doesn't sit well with me.

Apart from that, I understand why we can't cover everything in the lead, so I think I'll devote some time to improving the body of the article. Cheers, Jamekae (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

band members - timeline[edit]

This is one of the best band of all time, and there is no band members or timeline when who was in the band. Its a shame. see the article of fleetwood mac and and and. Hope there will be a timeline soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.242.76 (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a whole page dedicated to this! Please See The Beach Boys lineups Gsgeek540 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Crocodile Rock[edit]

In 1991 the Beach Boys covered Elton Johns' "Crocodile Rock" on the Two Rooms album. Benfredrick (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Musical style and development[edit]

In an effort to bring the musicianship of this band to light (along with facts pertaining to why this band is more than a 1960s footnote in surf rock who recorded Pet Sounds as a fluke—something I've been devoting probably way too much time to for a while now) I've extracted provisional quotations from Domenic Priore's 2005 book on Smile that I hope can eventually be added to the article a la The Beatles#Musical style and development and Pink Floyd#Musicianship. I hope to find more if I can ever get access to the whole of Philip Lambert's 2007 book that analyzes Wilson's music.

This is everything I found notable in Priore's book up until around page 65 when the focus comes squarely on Smile. Page numbers can be found through here.

I still think there is a wealth of related information that could and should be forked from Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations, and Smile article's 'composition,' 'recording,' and 'critical reception' sections. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The rest of the book.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Removed template. There's still some stuff in the Priore pastebins I didn't bother using, most of it only columns of praise.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)