Jon's new book

[Micha]

but I just can't agree with you when you say that if Wild Honey was more guitar-centric it would've been better.

You're talking about personal taste here. Personally I like guitars better than pianos. Had Wild Honey had more guitar, I would probably like it better. But that doesn't mean it would objectively be better. (I think had they recorded it in real studios it would have been better IMHO .)

My favorite tracks on it are I'd Love Just Once to See Her and How She Boogalooed It - no pianos .

[Wirestone]

Something was bugging me about this thread, and about the excerpts posted from the book, and then I figured it out.

Jon cares _a lot_ about what people think of the band. He wants the general public to think of the band as cool, and he wants them -- even retroactively -- to burn up the charts. It seems to be one of the motivations behind the Marks and Dennis books, too. Hey, look at these cool guys who were part of what seems like a boring oldies band, and who could have made it as cool as they were!

I respect this opinion, and for people who are a little closer in time chronologically to the band -- or people who actually live the SoCal lifestyle -- perhaps it really hits home.

But to me, I've never liked the band because they were cool. I thought the music was good. And I think most music fans in their 20s and 30s see Brian and the BBs music -- at least the unquestionably great stuff from the 60s and early 70s -- as good. It just seems like the overall battle for the BB's legacy 1.) cannot possibly be won, and 2.) has already been won. That is, the pop culture silliness of latter-day Beach Boys is just a fact, as is the cheesiness of Mike. No amount of retroactive grumping about keyboard-based albums can change that. But secondly, discerning folks know how great the work is, and appreciate it for that.

Why else would the Smile Sessions be coming out? Why did the Pet Sounds sessions come out? Why did the POB double set? Record companies don't issue these things out of the goodness of their hearts, or to be educational. They do it because there's a market. That is, enough people want to buy this weird, arty music in expensive packaging.

These are the facts: People get fat. People go crazy. People get old. People disappoint us. People die without fulfilling their potential. And in the rock and pop world -- one that is obsessed with youth -- all of these things are unforgivable. But they are also unavoidable.

-----

(Edit: This is in no way a personal attack on Jon, whose credentials and bibliography are impeccable -- and whose posts are often outstanding. I look forward to receiving my copy of the book. I just find it interesting how different perspectives on this band, its members and its history can be. We all start from such different places!)

[Jon Stebbins]

Something was bugging me about this thread, and about the excerpts posted from the book, and then I figured it out.

Jon cares _a lot_ about what people think of the band. He wants the general public to think of the band as cool, and he wants them -- even retroactively -- to burn up the charts. It seems to be one of the motivations behind the Marks and Dennis books, too. Hey, look at these cool guys who were part of what seems like a boring oldies band, and who could have made it as cool as they were!

I respect this opinion, and for people who are a little closer in time chronologically to the band -- or people who actually live the SoCal lifestyle -- perhaps it really hits home.

But to me, I've never liked the band because they were cool. I thought the music was good. And I think most music fans in their 20s and 30s see Brian and the BBs music -- at least the unquestionably great stuff from the 60s and early 70s -- as good. It just seems like the overall battle for the BB's legacy 1.) cannot possibly be won, and 2.) has already been won. That is, the pop culture silliness of latter-day Beach Boys is just a fact, as is the cheesiness of Mike. No amount of retroactive grumping about keyboard-based albums can change that. But secondly, discerning folks know how great the work is, and appreciate it for that.

Why else would the Smile Sessions be coming out? Why did the Pet Sounds sessions come out? Why did the POB double set? Record companies don't issue these things out of the goodness of their hearts, or to be educational. They do it because there's a market. That is, enough people want to buy this weird, arty music in expensive packaging.

These are the facts: People get fat. People go crazy. People get old. People disappoint us. People die without fulfilling their potential. And in the rock and pop world -- one that is obsessed with youth -- all of these things are unforgivable. But they are also unavoidable.

-----

(Edit: This is in no way a personal attack on Jon, whose credentials and bibliography are impeccable -- and whose posts are often outstanding. I look forward to receiving my copy of the book. I just find it interesting how different perspectives on this band, its members and its history can be. We all start from such different places!)

Just FYI...the section about guitars and Wild Honey is in a section devoted to my opinion on what were some of the significant "artistic missteps" that hurt the Beach Boys popularity when they occurred. This is a historical perspective and has little to do with trying to make the Beach Boys cool retroactively. To go non-guitar in 1968 might be fun and quirky from a 2011 perspective, but in 1968 it was popularity suicide. That's my point. Its a very simple point. It has to do with the context of 1968...and I know many people have a problem with that because their perspectives want to ignore such contextual arguments because they cannot get their heads around it in a clear way now. I try to remind people that the cultural factors in play when these releases happened are part of why the Beach Boys had such wild swings of popularity, up and down. The missteps section points out things like missing Monterey, touring with Maharishi, going soft on guitars as being significant in the Beach Boys loss of their fan base back then. Its not about me wanting them to be more popular, its just a fact they lost it, and I'm giving plausible reasons why. As far as Friends and Wild Honey being good or not...in my opinion they were GREAT. In the section where I write about each album individually, both of these records are described in a very positive way. I love them both, and that will be clear to you when you read the book. And thanks for the kind words too, I appreciate that so many people care enough to take my writing seriously. I try hard to make it interesting.

[ghost]

Whatever Jon, cat's out of the bag, we all know you want to hear a John Stamos guitar solo in Don't Talk (Put Your Head On My Shoulder).

[Jon Stebbins]

Whatever Jon, cat's out of the bag, we all know you want to hear a John Stamos guitar solo in Don't Talk (Put Your Head On My Shoulder).

Wow...you really know how to create nightmarish imagery. That is a chilling thought.

[SMiLE Brian]

Something was bugging me about this thread, and about the excerpts posted from the book, and then I figured it out.

Jon cares _a lot_ about what people think of the band. He wants the general public to think of the band as cool, and he wants them -- even retroactively -- to burn up the charts. It seems to be one of the motivations behind the Marks and Dennis books, too. Hey, look at these cool guys who were part of what seems like a boring oldies band, and who could have made it as cool as they were!

I respect this opinion, and for people who are a little closer in time chronologically to the band -- or people who actually live the SoCal lifestyle -- perhaps it really hits home.

But to me, I've never liked the band because they were cool. I thought the music was good. And I think most music fans in their 20s and 30s see Brian and the BBs music -- at least the unquestionably great stuff from the 60s and early 70s -- as good. It just seems like the overall battle for the BB's legacy 1.) cannot possibly be won, and 2.) has already been won. That is, the pop culture silliness of latter-day Beach Boys is just a fact, as is the cheesiness of Mike. No amount of retroactive grumping about keyboard-based albums can change that. But secondly, discerning folks know how great the work is, and appreciate it for that.

Why else would the Smile Sessions be coming out? Why did the Pet Sounds sessions come out? Why did the POB double set? Record companies don't issue these things out of the goodness of their hearts, or to be educational. They do it because there's a market. That is, enough people want to buy this weird, arty music in expensive packaging.

These are the facts: People get fat. People go crazy. People get old. People disappoint us. People die without fulfilling their potential. And in the rock and pop world -- one that is obsessed with youth -- all of these things are unforgivable. But they are also unavoidable.

-----

(Edit: This is in no way a personal attack on Jon, whose credentials and bibliography are impeccable -- and whose posts are often outstanding. I look forward to receiving my copy of the book. I just find it interesting how different perspectives on this band, its members and its history can be. We all start from such different places!)

Just FYI...the section about guitars and Wild Honey is in a section devoted to my opinion on what were some of the significant "artistic missteps" that hurt the Beach Boys popularity when they occurred. This is a historical perspective and has little to do with trying to make the Beach Boys cool retroactively. To go non-guitar in 1968 might be fun and quirky from a 2011 perspective, but in 1968 it was popularity suicide. That's my point. Its a very simple point. It has to do with the context of 1968...and I know many people have a problem with that because their perspectives want to ignore such contextual arguments because they cannot get their heads around it in a clear way now. I try to remind people that the cultural factors in play when these releases happened are part of why the Beach Boys had such wild swings of popularity, up and down. The missteps section points out things like missing Monterey, touring with Maharishi, going soft on guitars as being significant in the Beach Boys loss of their fan base back then. Its not about me wanting them to be more popular, its just a fact they lost it, and I'm giving plausible reasons why. As far as Friends and Wild Honey being good or not...in my opinion they were GREAT. In the section where I write about each album individually, both of these records are described in a very positive way. I love them both, and that will be clear to you when you read the book. And thanks for the kind words too, I appreciate that so many people care enough to take my writing seriously. I try hard to make it interesting.

It would be awesome if David and Carl had dueling shredding guitars as a change up as Carl could really go wild on guitar if he we was given the chance, which wasn't often. I wonder what Carl's and David's relationship was like up until Carl died.  The post Brian period of the early 1970s would have been really interesting to hear with Carl and David playing together.

[Jon Stebbins]

I'll be joining DJ Dennis King on the radio tonight at 7:15 PST (10:15 EST) to talk about my new Beach Boys FAQ book, and we'll be giving one away to a caller. Join us if you can.

Island Time Radio Show
Hosted by DK the DJ
WBWC 88.3 FM, wbwc.com

[shelter]

Still listed as "not yet released" on the site where I usually order my books and CDs... 

[bgas]

That was pretty cool Jon!! 
I thoroughly enjoyed hearing you on the web/radio; nice to know you're out there getting some promo, maybe you'll be doing more radio? 

And to top it all off?  I called in and won the prize package!!!!

[Andrew G. Doe]

Just got my copy - only up to page xiii but so far it's damn good. 

[Jon Stebbins]

Trippin on this review...
http://psychobabble100.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/review-the-beach-boys-faq/

[ghost]

Trippin on this review...
http://psychobabble100.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/review-the-beach-boys-faq/

kick his ass man

[Andrew G. Doe]

Been skinning and dipping in Jon's book for a few days, and it's a great read. You're a BB fan, you need this book - not so much BB FAQ as BB101. There's stuff that will piss just about everyone off at one time or another (particularly if you're a fan of Stamos) and stuff that will surprise. Essential.

[drbeachboy]

Ah, Stamos is a benign character in the whole of the Beach Boys story. I neither love him or hate him.

I love the book. I agree with Jon that in the late 60's, a little harder edge to their music would have helped with their popularity in the U.S.. Adding that edge to their live shows really helped in the early to mid-70's revival. It's weird that even during that time that they never went that route in the studio. From Sunflower through Holland there are only a handful of tracks that have a hard guitar edge to them.

Terrific job Jon!

[brother john]

If Brian Wilson had been a guitar player instead of a piano player then its likely that all the BB songs including those on Wild Honey would be more guitar-driven.

But he wasn't, he was a piano player, and if he hadn't been he would have written different songs, and the BBs wouldn't have been anything like they were, and you and I probably wouldn't be nuts about them in the way we are. (Actually, probably not true...)

If I want to hear guitars I'll listen to a guitar band, not listen to the Beach Boys and wish there were more guitars. I think the arrangements of the whole Wild Honey/Friends era are perfect the way they are, complete with all many and varied guitar parts.

That theory would make sense if it did...but it doesn't. Brian Wilson gained fame and all of his cache in a guitar driven band. His first TEN hits were guitar songs. Am I not mistaken to think that he wrote those songs on a piano and managed to allow them to be re-worked and then released as guitar songs? Would it have been so strange that after a slight shift to keyboard driven sound that Brian might have experimented with a more guitar present sound again? Not at all. i love Wild Honey and Friends too. That's not the point. The point is Brian was ignoring an arrow in his quiver which unfortunately was one reason the Beach Boys lost significant popularity in a certain environment called 1967/68. That is history.

That's missing the point. The early 60s BBs were a Surf band with a Surf sound. They were primitive and played guitars because that's what they had and because that's what Chuck Berry did.

The first ten hits weren't all guitar songs (BTTYS, WIGUTBAM, for instance, California Girls just outside the 10) and I'd seriously question whether BW 'gained fame and all of his cache in a guitar driven band', and I'd hardly describe Pet Sounds and Smile as 'a slight shift to keyboard driven sound'. What Brian was doing was maturing. He'd grown out of guitars, which is why he didn't use them in the way he had before (though are still all over Friends and Wild Honey).

And I don't think its as simple as saying if the Beach Boys had followed their peers into more guitar-driven work they wouldn't have had the hiatus. There were other reasons: the material (and not just the arrangements), the terrible wardrobe misjudgements, the fact that all the BBS apart from Dennis and Mike were by the standards of the day uncool, that fact that they sang like girls etc.

I know what you're saying, but I don't think any number of guitars would have made any difference.

[Jon Stebbins]

If Brian Wilson had been a guitar player instead of a piano player then its likely that all the BB songs including those on Wild Honey would be more guitar-driven.

But he wasn't, he was a piano player, and if he hadn't been he would have written different songs, and the BBs wouldn't have been anything like they were, and you and I probably wouldn't be nuts about them in the way we are. (Actually, probably not true...)

If I want to hear guitars I'll listen to a guitar band, not listen to the Beach Boys and wish there were more guitars. I think the arrangements of the whole Wild Honey/Friends era are perfect the way they are, complete with all many and varied guitar parts.

That theory would make sense if it did...but it doesn't. Brian Wilson gained fame and all of his cache in a guitar driven band. His first TEN hits were guitar songs. Am I not mistaken to think that he wrote those songs on a piano and managed to allow them to be re-worked and then released as guitar songs? Would it have been so strange that after a slight shift to keyboard driven sound that Brian might have experimented with a more guitar present sound again? Not at all. i love Wild Honey and Friends too. That's not the point. The point is Brian was ignoring an arrow in his quiver which unfortunately was one reason the Beach Boys lost significant popularity in a certain environment called 1967/68. That is history.

That's missing the point. The early 60s BBs were a Surf band with a Surf sound. They were primitive and played guitars because that's what they had and because that's what Chuck Berry did.

The first ten hits weren't all guitar songs (BTTYS, WIGUTBAM, for instance, California Girls just outside the 10) and I'd seriously question whether BW 'gained fame and all of his cache in a guitar driven band', and I'd hardly describe Pet Sounds and Smile as 'a slight shift to keyboard driven sound'. What Brian was doing was maturing. He'd grown out of guitars, which is why he didn't use them in the way he had before (though are still all over Friends and Wild Honey).

And I don't think its as simple as saying if the Beach Boys had followed their peers into more guitar-driven work they wouldn't have had the hiatus. There were other reasons: the material (and not just the arrangements), the terrible wardrobe misjudgements, the fact that all the BBS apart from Dennis and Mike were by the standards of the day uncool, that fact that they sang like girls etc.

I know what you're saying, but I don't think any number of guitars would have made any difference.

Its just one factor, and all of the others you mentioned as being significant are equally emphasized in the book...and more.

[Howie Edelson]

Guitars would've made "The Little Girl I Once Knew" a hit and "Sloop John B." even cooler. Even The Association was guitar based. The hippest sound in the world in the mid-'60s was the guitar and Brian dumped it save for intros on "California Girls" and "WIBN." Even their "return to surf" -- "Do It Again" -- lacks a substantial guitar track. All these clips of dudes miming to keyboard-based tunes strumming guitars, think about it -- it's weird, no???

Imagine David Marks returning in '71 and serving as their Terry Kath. It would've been major.

[ghost]

Wtf there's guitar all over Little Girl i Once Knew and California Girls and Sloop John B

[Howie Edelson]

Not rock guitar there isn't.

[Aegir]

Guys, what are we really doing here? Why were Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations, Smile, et cetera so acclaimed? Because they took the pop/rock formula and turned it on its head. Instead of a guitar we have a cello and a bike whistle and a theremin and animal noises and people chewing on vegetables.

Would Barbara Ann even have been a hit if it had electric guitar and drums? Maybe not.

[ghost]

Would Barbara Ann even have been a hit if it had electric guitar and drums? Maybe not.

hell yes it would, the live version in 1965 with brian is GREAT

[Mikie]

Imagine David Marks returning in '71 and serving as their Terry Kath. It would've been major.

I'll buy that! Too bad it didn't happen.

But Blondie wasn't so bad, was he?  And I don't think he was ever fully utilized.

[Aegir]

Would Barbara Ann even have been a hit if it had electric guitar and drums? Maybe not.

hell yes it would, the live version in 1965 with brian is GREAT

I'll agree that it was great. but it was also only a minute long.

[Howie Edelson]

But Aegir, even you would have to admit that it's the production and the vocals -- above the instrumentation of "GV" -- that stole the show, and that PET SOUNDS has been given a masterpiece status with an asterisk by the rest of the world (*** Brilliant work that wasn't seen at the time) and SMILE -- well, it never came out, man. But, having heard nearly everything -- SMILE would've been far better with more guitar!!!! 1000 times better. Having tasteful electric rock guitar with balls -- ala say, George Harrison and/or Paul McCartney-- would've benefited EVERYTHING the Beach Boys did after 1964. The guitar was the touchstone sound that connected the youth. It was everything. Listen to PEPPER!!! Having that tool in Brian's arsenal would've been tremendous. But, as we all know, he opted for tack pianos and accordions -- not in addition to, but INSTEAD OF guitars. Imagine electric guitars driving a track like "Darlin'" on Top 40 radio at the time??? Even when they scaled things back at Bellagio, the guitar tracks STILL had the sensibilities and lack of bite of a 50-year-old session dude with a pot belly and a pompadour. It's one of the few things I would've changed musically about the band. I would've rather had that, than Carl earnestly strumming intricate piano chords on his Epiphone -- despite the fact that there were 43 keyboardists on stage at any given time.

I'm just saying, it coulda been cooler -- and it coulda been cooler REALLY EASY.

[Aegir]

I'll agree with that. I love the live version of Let the Wind Blow with the awesome guitar solo.