Are The Beach Boys Going To Become Hip With The Smille Sessions Release?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I've personally felt that SMiLE, had it been released in the 60's...it would have surpassed Sgt. Pepper's completely, both in critical acclaim and in legend.

I think you have mistakingly set your ship to ludicrous speed.

[puni puni]

everyone always forgets that sgt. pepper usually fills the #1 spot as "greatest album of all-time". guess what's #2? pet sounds. and if smile was better than pet sounds...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

everyone always forgets that sgt. pepper usually fills the #1 spot as "greatest album of all-time". guess what's #2? pet sounds. and if smile was better than pet sounds...

The lists often change and, in fact, in recent years it was Pet Sounds battling it out for the #1 spot with Revolver rather than Sgt. Pepper. The thing is, though, that in the 1960s, Pet Sounds was not considered in the same league as The Beatles' stuff. It was recognized critically for being a great album but it didn't quite achieve the legendary status it has now for several years after its release. More over, it simply did not have the commercial appeal to put it in the same category as a Beatles album. Smile had even less commercial appeal and, in fact, didn't really have a single on the album that could push it once released. Heroes and Villains would have probably been a top 10 single but I have no reason to believe it would have reached the same heights that Good Vibrations did. Now, personally, I find it difficult to evalute the music from Smile just because it is so unfinished though had it been finished I probably would have liked it more than I like Sgt. Pepper's but, then again, Sgt. Pepper's is only my fourth favourite Beatles record. With that in mind, I am under no illusion that the album would have hurt the kind of enormous impact that Pepper had, which basically had to do with summing up or symbolically representing the entirety of the countercultural experience of the 1960s.

[puni puni]

the beach boys were more hip than the beatles in late 1966/early 1967

pet sounds was acclaimed in the UK

smile probably would have likely reformed the band's image

[Chocolate Shake Man]

the beach boys were more hip than the beatles in late 1966/early 1967

They were voted more popular in a music magazine but it is important to remember that they had had the biggest selling single of their careers out at that point and The Beatles hadn't released anything since August. It happened to be a reflection of what was big in the charts at that very moment. It, in absolutely no way, forecasted what was the come - especially when you consider that what was to come was The Beatles releasing what was widely considered upon its release to be their masterpiece and a generation-defining record.

pet sounds was acclaimed in the UK

It was acclaimed in lots of places. That still didn't give it then the legendary status it has today or it had by, say, the Beach Boys revival of the mid-70s.

smile probably would have likely reformed the band's image

You're telling me two different things. One, that The Beach Boys were the hippest thing going before Smile came out and that Pet Sounds was regarded as a great album in the UK. Then you say that Smile would have reformed the band's image? But if they were so hip, why would it need reforming?

Part of the problem is that by January 1967, rock and roll music was going in another direction. The US flower power hippie scene was now being defined by groups like Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, Janis Joplin, etc. The Beach Boys simply were not of that ilk (and I for one, am glad). I don't think they would have faded away from the popular music scene quite like they did but you have to acknowledge that the reason why they faded was not simply because Smile didn't come out, and Smiley Smile did. People, at the time, were not necessarily looking for big masterpiece albums like Smile. The baroque/sunshine pop scene had simply waned and a new scene was taking its place.

[puni puni]

But if they were so hip, why would it need reforming?

so that they could transition from the early-60s to the late-60s. instead of just staying in the early-60s until 1971, then going back to 1964 in 1976

[metal flake paint]

"I don't think The Beach Boys are supposed to be hip. I think they're supposed to move you emotionally whether you like it or not."

Daryl Dragon, 1999

[Runaways]

I'd say MGMT are considered "hip" in that they're a couple scenesters with some good pop tunes on their first album.  anyway, one of em had a solo concert and had this to play

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Y-Pe_zLs0

[Awesoman]

beach boys are quite hip. 

I dunno; considering their age these days they might need hip replacements!  Nyuk nyuk.

[Keri]

Part of the problem is that by January 1967, rock and roll music was going in another direction. The US flower power hippie scene was now being defined by groups like Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, Janis Joplin, etc. The Beach Boys simply were not of that ilk (and I for one, am glad).

I agree, I think if Smile had come out then yes they would have been hipper, I can imagine there would have been some stoners that would have got off on Smile, but I still think their striped shirt image and their lack of heaviness would have meant they wouldn't have been at the centre of hipness.

The release now of the Smile Sessions will help the Beach Boys image but it'll be a slow change and there is still the problem of those completely naff post Love You albums that any story of Beach Boys hipness has to edit out.

However, with Smile in the catalogue as a completed album BWPS and as an extensive set of amazing uncompleted pieces and selective editing of the Beach Boys and Brian's catalogue there is an amazing set of music that will live in the soul of the world for sometime. It's hip with me.

[absinthe_boy]

Mike is going to be so hip he'll have trouble seeing over his own pelvis.


Seriously I expect there will be some mainstream publicity and, dare I say it, greater sales of Beach boys and possibly Brian's back catalogue....for a short time anyway. Whether they can capitalise on this depends on what they do in the new year really, before the hype dies down. A reunion gig or two and an album or DVD with some newly recorded material could keep the momentum going.

One thing Mike does know about is making the most of the Beach Boys name and catalogue of great music.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

I have found that the Beach Boys are hipper to a younger generation (40 and under) then the baby boomers.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

everyone always forgets that sgt. pepper usually fills the #1 spot as "greatest album of all-time". guess what's #2? pet sounds. and if smile was better than pet sounds...

It would be:
1. Smile
2. Sgt Pepper
3. Pet Sounds
4. Abby Road
5. Sunflower
6. Revolver
7. Today
8. Rubber Soul
9. Holland
10. White Album

[SamMcK]

Y'know that Bing Crosby was pretty hip in the 70's, even did a duet with David Bowie. 

[puni puni]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m1va4JjgfY#t=1595s

;_;

so sad if he really thinks this

[rab2591]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m1va4JjgfY#t=1595s

;_;

so sad if he really thinks this

No he's right. The majority of young people don't really like The Beach Boys. Young people nowadays are into Rihanna, Eminem, OneRepublic, Lil' Wayne, Coldplay, etc*

A few days ago I was talking with someone who said the Beach Boys were sh*t, the Beatles are where it's at...I don't blame them for this attitude because The Beach Boys have been stuck in an Endless Summer for FAR too long. It's not about hipness anymore, it's become about nostalgia.

This new SMiLE release will give some insight into why The Beach Boys are where it's at. The liner notes will talk about how The Beach Boys beat out the Beatles in 66...the album art is happy/colorful and people will buy it, the mixes (so far) are INCREDIBLE, the price for the two disc set is reasonable....(it sure as hell beats spending $100+ on the GV boxset for a few muddy sounding SMiLE tracks)...

Hipsters are going to see the light with this release. This is the proof we need that The Beach Boys are hip.

*There's nothing wrong with liking any of these artists (Eminem was my idol for YEARS; Coldplay's Viva La Vida is one of my favorite albums), but these 'artists' are not into treading new ground - they don't take that leap of faith when it comes to artistic creativity....Pet Sounds, SMiLE - huge leaps of faith. Anything mainstream nowadays is safe and it shows - everything for the last 10 years sounds exactly the same.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I agree with, Rab. What he says is pretty much true. Sure, there are some young people who love The Beach Boys. I've loved them since I was 9 and then started getting into the obscure stuff with the re-releases around 1999/2000 when I was 19/20 (some of the best years in my memory, and luckily their soundtrack is The Beach Boys). Nevertheless, I wasn't part of a scene of people who were really into The Beach Boys. That was pretty much impossible to find. And it's really no big surprise. The last really big hit that the band had was in the 80s. I was recently at a Brian Wilson concert and me and my girlfriend were by far the youngest people in my purview. The people around us looked at us like we were some kind of novelty. And I'm 30! If that's the audience Brian is looking at night after night, of course he'll reach that conclusion. And the fact is, why should he care if he's down with the youth culture? Doesn't seem like he does - and good for him. Better to not care than to get Smart Girls.

[Runaways]

i think young musicians are into the beach boys.  that's enough for me.  hasn't kanye sung "pet sounds" praises on his blog or something?  i think he did.  it was a while ago, i went looking for it earlier this year, didn't find it.  But i did stumble upon this hip hop message board voting for the best album of all time between sgt pepper, pet sounds and kanye's new album (which got some seriously impressive reviews).  anyway, here was a hip hop board with a bunch of younger folk all singing the praises of....pet sounds.  the majority picked pet sounds as the best.  so all you oldies should know, this music isn't completely lost on us young'ns

[Mike's Beard]

Call this an unfair generalisation if you will, but pretty much anyone under the age of 20 wouldn't recognise a good song if it came up and took a crap on their ipod.

[Runaways]

i don't think most under 20 are capable.  not really about taste. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Call this an unfair generalisation if you will, but pretty much anyone under the age of 20 wouldn't recognise a good song if it came up and took a crap on their ipod.

I disagree. When I was under 20, I'd say that my taste was right in line with what most would consider to be great rock/pop music and so was the tastes of most of my friends. When I went to university, most of the friends I made I made because we connected over the music that we discovered earlier in our lives. The problem is that most people understandably don't know about the existence of music that came before their time. During the 60s, say, there were plenty of teenagers who loved the music that most consider now to be the high point of rock and roll - but that's not because they had better taste, it's because that's what was available to them. Unforunately, rock is now a dead art and most contemporary musicians working in that genre are simply treading water and beating a dead horse. There is simply nothing important rousing the youth today.

[Austin]

Speaking as someone who got into the band about two years ago, when I was 18, I find the tone of this thread to be largely patronizing. I know just as many 40+ year olds with music tastes I don't care for as I do teenagers. Who cares? To each his own.

Call this an unfair generalisation if you will, but pretty much anyone under the age of 20 wouldn't recognise a good song if it came up and took a crap on their ipod.

Arguing that one generation lacks the "intelligence" to appreciate the Beach Boys, or any band for that matter, is dogmatism, and an emotionally immature way to debate generational differences.

[Wirestone]

I don't think you can make any generalization about people under 20 -- just like you can't about people over 40. Everyone is different.

I think this is especially true now, when there's really no mass music culture anymore. I mean, the radio is so limited, and MTV has reality shows. Pretty much whatever people are interested in is narrow-cast to whatever stream of the cyberverse they call home.

So in one way, the box might be good for the Pitchfork set -- the specific hipster subset who used to really get into Surfjan Stevens. Not sure who is the flavor of the month now. But that set of folks revere Pet Sounds and BW already.

Let's put it this way -- I have a 23-year-old coworker who is really into music. And seems to be a Pitchfork kinda guy. And he knew Smile and TLOS when I met him. And he's not a fan -- just someone who was following new music.
 

[Austin]

Also.

I don't think the Beach Boys will ever earn turnaround artistic credibility with one release. If that was the case, Pet Sounds and "Good Vibrations" would have done the trick 45 years ago. But they've been blessed over the last decade or so with a very gradual re-evaluation not just by critics, but by the people who manage their catalog. Their reissues and compilations are sequenced, produced, and packaged with a degree of respect markedly different from, say, the 1980's. Their recent live shows, by any of their members, are routinely praised. And most importantly, Brian Wilson has sustained a creative presence for the first time since his heyday. As I read older articles about him and make my way to present-day writings, you can see how his reputation has started to shift from being a brilliant-but-reclusive burnout to an artist who has done fine work in his own regard.

One of my pop music textbooks, published in the mid-2000's, doesn't even mention the Beach Boys outside their surf era. I think the last decade has gone a long way in changing that. The Smile Sessions alone are not going to change the band overnight. But it's continuing a transition that has gone on for quite some time, and will serve as an excellent starting place for people who, like me not long ago, are just finding out what made them so special.

[monicker]

I think a very clear distinction needs to be made between THE BEACH BOYS and PET SOUNDS because that is how the mainstream sees the two: as separate. The mainstream public as well as a lot, or even most, young kids who are "hip" like PET SOUNDS, not the Beach Boys. This is why i am so tired of Pet Sounds. Not the music itself or anything about the album, but simply the fact that it inevitably overshadows the entire rest of the career and output of the band. And as a big fan, that is really annoying and frustrating. In a weird way, i feel that Pet Sounds has almost done worse for the group than it has good, only because the album seems to stand entirely on its own as a totally separate entity from the group. So, it's still not as if the Beach Boys get due respect and recognition, Pet Sounds does. Wonder how the Lovester feels about that. He's oblivious though because as long as he sees big crowds of all ages turn out for the nostalgia show, he's none the wiser.

Furthermore, when we speak of "The Beach Boys" in conversations like these, in this sort of context, in regards to the demographics in question, we should make it clear that it's the golden age Beach Boys (which, in their case, covers a pretty long amount of time), not the Beach Boys from the 1980s on (which are totally irrelevant), and especially not the current incarnation of the Beach Boys (which is not really the Beach Boys). You can't really take the reaction, or lack thereof, that young people have to the current band or even the band 25 years ago, or to Brian Wilson as a touring artist today, as a barometer of any sort. It's a moot point. THE BEACH BOYS died decades ago. The great music they made is locked into a very specific time in the distant past. For all intents and purposes, speaking today of the Beach Boys as a relevant, good group is no different than speaking of some group that broke up in 1980. Which is just one reason why i think it would be a terrible idea to attempt this 50 year anniversary reunion.

EDIT: To illustrate my point, has anyone ever anywhere heard anyone reduce the Beatles to one album? Do people talk solely of Sgt. Pepper or Revolver or the white album or Rubber Soul or Abbey Road? Of course not. The Beatles are THE BEATLES. Does any other band get reduced to just one of their albums? I don't think so. The sad truth is that outside of the obsessive fans, THE BEACH BOYS = PET SOUNDS.