Should the Beach Boys be considered Proto?

^Wise words well received Steve.

And the funny thing is, is that I don't even like the Beach Boys!


Edited by SteveG - September 09 2014 at 19:22

As a blues rock purist, it's always hard to escape the fact that errors, innocent as they are, are still 'nobodies fault but mine'. It's the fact that the rest of the arguement gets thrown out of the pram that ticks me off, so I'll post my position again with the Sgt. Pepper's comparison:

"As a retired recording engineer, I can only give a technically based answer of why the Beach Boys should be considered Proto Prog but it is sufficient enough for me to place them in that category. But first I think it is worth noting who (and by who, I'm happy to refer to Brian Wilson for the sake of simplicity) they actually and greatly influenced as opposed to Stockhausen, Varese and Shostakovich as their influences were purely musical and did not directly impact the most influential Rock Music group of the 20th Century. If they did, I think anyone would be hard pressed to come up with a percentage of influence on the Beatles of more than 5%. But I digress.

I put forward Wilson's work in Pet Sounds in that he took disparate recording practices that were redundant like Phil Spector's ambient and mechanically enhanced echo laden multi instrumental all in one live take 'Wall of Sound' approach and, using many of Spector's studio musicians as well as supplementing them with those more classically trained, he recorded 'snatches' of music in musical suites which he would later edit together, over dub vocals or additional musical instruments and made California's Gold Star studios 'his instrument', which in no way was lost on the Beatles and George Martin prior to their recording of Sgt. Pepper's. The fact that Wilson also used non musical instruments such as partially filled Seltzer bottles for percussion with treated studio harmonics was also not lost on the Beatles either.

If Proto Prog is really supposed to mean the prototypical forerunner and inspiration for the late 60's prog that follows, then I think that Pet Sounds and the Beach Boys meet that criteria."

It may do little at this point, but it least it sets my intention straight and hopefully  people can no longer be concerned with what album influenced what other album and when and return focus back to Pet Sounds and it's technical influence on the Beatles starting with the song Here, There and Everywhere through to Sgt. Pepper's.





Edited by SteveG - September 09 2014 at 19:12

Glad I could stir up this debate. If for nothing else, it may have brought Pet Sounds more into the limelight but Dean, minus his eye glasses, is still correct. Pet Sounds was only released one month prior to Revolver but having realized my error, I didn't want to play 'dirty pool' and conveniently change the already erroneous Rubber Soul to the correct Sgt. Pepper's. It was what it was, blind men be damned. I'm used to the consequences from my opponent from an innocent mistake by now.

For the record, McCartney did state that God Only Knows "was the best song ever written" and it was indeed the inspiration for Here, There And Everywhere.

Pet Sounds influence was more correctly directed at St. Pepper's as Brian Wilson stated his intention for Pet Sounds, while not a concept, was "A teenage symphony to God". An idea that stuck in Sir Paul's head.

While there is no direct musical influence of Pet Sounds on Sgt. Pepper's, McCartney was fixated with Wilson's bass guitar arrangements, particularly in having the studio player starting off a song in a key of G when the song itself was in C and other variants that led to Paul's developing a lead bass style.
(see The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions By Mark Lewisohn Published 1988. PM interview)

Most of the time things are researched. Occasionally errors are made that are sadly compounded by the blind, deaf and you know what.



Edited by SteveG - September 09 2014 at 19:01

earlyprog wrote: And the Rolling Stones' reference to these claims is who? Paul McCartney? I think not.

Jeez, I don't know, I just Googled it.  No one cares enough to research this in-depth or anything.

HolyMoly wrote: "..and in one feverish night, completely re-did the Revolver album in response...."

Well the article claimed "Here, There, and Everywhere" (my parents wedding song ) was influenced by it, but I agree that most of Revolver was in the can and it was Sgt. Pepper that was the prime recipient of the influence.

earlyprog wrote: chopper wrote: earlyprog wrote: chopper wrote: Dean wrote: ... Rubber Soul was recorded before Pet Sounds, it influenced Pet Sounds. He probably meant Revolver. You probably meant that he meant Sgt. Pepper  No I didn't. Revolver was recorded prior to the release of Pet Sounds in the UK. The Beatles may have had an acetate before its release but there's no evidence that Pet Sounds influenced Revolver.  Pepper for sure.

From a Rolling Stone article:  "McCartney had heard the album before it was released, at a listening party in London in May 1966, and was blown away."

earlyprog wrote: chopper wrote: earlyprog wrote: chopper wrote: Dean wrote: ... Rubber Soul was recorded before Pet Sounds, it influenced Pet Sounds. He probably meant Revolver. You probably meant that he meant Sgt. Pepper  No I didn't. Revolver was recorded prior to the release of Pet Sounds in the UK. The Beatles may have had an acetate before its release but there's no evidence that Pet Sounds influenced Revolver.  Pepper for sure.

Edited by Dean - September 09 2014 at 12:37

Svetonio wrote: Padraic wrote: These categories are more trouble than they're worth.  That's my opinion. These catagories can not be a trouble per se.

Very nice post Holy Steve. Thanks man.

Padraic wrote: These categories are more trouble than they're worth.  That's my opinion.

These catagories can not be a trouble per se.