Beach Boys vs Beatles in the same years

[hypehat]

Not sure why we're defending cheerleaders. It's the closest The Beach Boys got to Spinal Tap!

[drbeachboy]

Cheerleaders are not crass

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the meaning of crass. In America, they are a part of the culture. They are looked at in a very positive way. So, it may be a bit corny or whatever, but not what I call crass.

Depends which Americans you ask. I just asked my wife, who's from Minnesota (the home of cheerleading) and she said that the only reason she wouldn't use the word "crass" about cheerleading is that she'd use a lot of ruder words...

Wait a minute here, if the college cheerleaders agree to go up and do this and they are not forced, then it is not crass. They are doing it of their own volition. Just about every high school & college, as well as pro sports team in America have volunteer or paid Cheerleaders.

Plenty of people choose to do crass things of their own volition.

Andrew, please look up the meaning. It has to be a man saying or doing something against women. So a woman cannot be crass against herself.  

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Can you people act more like adults, i.e. disagree without taking potshots at each other?

DrBeachboy & Smile Brian....you two don't agree with whether or not the cheerleaders on stage were crass (I think a better word would be 'tacky', actually). That's fine.  I'm not that crazy about them personally, but to each his/her own.

This, however, is not fine...

I guess we do have a beef. If only we could both end up getting banned somehow. I'd definitley take one for the team, if it meant I'd never have to read one of your posts ever again.

So hal, you're saying you're intentionally trying to provoke SB so that you can get him banned? Please clarify, because if so that's not cool at all.

[AndrewHickey]

Andrew, please look up the meaning. It has to be a man saying or doing something against women. So a woman cannot be crass against herself.  

I don't know where you got that, but that possibly explains why we're disagreeing, because that's not what crass means:

From Merriam-Webster:
Crass:
1
a : gross 6a; especially : having or indicating such grossness of mind as precludes delicacy and discrimination
b : being beneath one's dignity <crass concerns of daily life>
c —used as a pejorative intensifier <crass flattery> <crass propaganda>
2
: guided by or indicative of base or materialistic values <crass commercialism> <crass measures of success>

From the Oxford dictionary website:
adjective: showing no intelligence or sensitivity:

From dictionary.comcrass
[kras]
adjective, crass·er, crass·est.
1.
without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; stupid: crass commercialism; a crass misrepresentation of the facts.
2.
Archaic. thick; coarse.
Origin:
1535–45; (< Middle French) < Latin crassus thick, dense, fat, heavy

Related forms
crass·ly, adverb
crass·ness, noun

Synonyms
1. dull, boorish, oafish, indelicate.


Nothing there about "a man saying or doing something against women". I'm not quite sure what word you were thinking of...

[drbeachboy]

Billy, you are correct. Tacky is a better term. If people are going use those terms, at least know the meaning. Using it as something it doesn't mean just confuses the issue. I wasn't sure, so I took the time to go look it up in a dictionary.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

In a way, though, it would fit...

without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; stupid: crass commercialism;

I wouldn't agree, but I can see how it would fit.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

No, that was my attempt at making a joke that made fun of us  both. I wanted to put down SmileBrian and be self-effacing at the same time. I understand the confusion.

Understood, but next time can you just avoid the putdown? You're not the only one guilty of it this thread...not by a longshot, so I'm addressing several others at the same time. Good time management.

Back to the cheerleaders...Brian's vision for 'Be True to Your School', as mentioned above, included the sound of cheerleaders, so the BB using cheerleaders on stage was a bit of a throwback. Personally, I don't like it. Hell, I didn't like it when Brian did it.

[drbeachboy]

Adjective: Lacking sensitivity or due consideration. Crass assumptions that men make about women.

Example: So, since women are primarily cheerleaders, the Beach Boys are being crass making women be cheerleaders.

But, the women are already cheerleaders and perform at the concert by their own volition. Hence, no lack of sensitivity or consideration. Beach Boys are not being crass.

[SMiLE Brian]

The live "be true to your school" from 1964 is about the only time I have liked that track and the cheerleaders were the BBs themselves.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Adjective: Lacking sensitivity or due consideration. Crass assumptions that men make about women.

Example: So, since women are primarily cheerleaders, the Beach Boys are being crass making women be cheerleaders.

But, the women are already cheerleaders and perform at the concert by their own volition. Hence, no lack of sensitivity or consideration. Beach Boys are not being crass.

I think in this case, it's referring to lacking sensitivity towards the band's legacy, not the cheerleaders themselves. That's how I read it anyway.

Damn my head hurts now.

[AndrewHickey]

Adjective: Lacking sensitivity or due consideration. Crass assumptions that men make about women.

Example: So, since women are primarily cheerleaders, the Beach Boys are being crass making women be cheerleaders.

But, the women are already cheerleaders and perform at the concert by their own volition. Hence, no lack of sensitivity or consideration. Beach Boys are not being crass.

Ah. I see where the confusion lies now. In that first line, "Crass assumptions that men make about women." isn't part of the definition, but an example of the word being used in a sentence. The definition part is just "lacking sensitivity or due consideration."

The definition I was using was closer to sense two of the Webster definition I quoted -- "guided by or indicative of base or materialistic values". I suspect SMiLE Brian meant either that, Webster's definition 1b ("being beneath one's dignity") or the dictionary.com definition ("without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; stupid").

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

http://youtu.be/p3MiD_U4CHQ

[Magic Transistor Radio]

MTR, just out of curiosity, which 20/20 cuts do you consider "filler"?

Bluebirds Over the Mountain and Cotton Fields mostly. Maybe All I Want to Do, but at least it rocks and is an original.

[drbeachboy]

Adjective: Lacking sensitivity or due consideration. Crass assumptions that men make about women.

Example: So, since women are primarily cheerleaders, the Beach Boys are being crass making women be cheerleaders.

But, the women are already cheerleaders and perform at the concert by their own volition. Hence, no lack of sensitivity or consideration. Beach Boys are not being crass.

Ah. I see where the confusion lies now. In that first line, "Crass assumptions that men make about women." isn't part of the definition, but an example of the word being used in a sentence. The definition part is just "lacking sensitivity or due consideration."

The definition I was using was closer to sense two of the Webster definition I quoted -- "guided by or indicative of base or materialistic values". I suspect SMiLE Brian meant either that, Webster's definition 1b ("being beneath one's dignity") or the dictionary.com definition ("without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; stupid").

Well, I thought SB's use of crass was the Beach Boys forcing these women to be on stage. So, now that I understand how he is using it, crass is now in the eye of the beholder. You and he think it is, and I don't. We are now back to square one. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[AndrewHickey]

Well, I thought SB's use of crass was the Beach Boys forcing these women to be on stage. So, now that I understand how he is using it, crass is now in the eye of the beholder. You and he think it is, and I don't. We are now back to square one. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

Yep. Like I said, we can agree to disagree -- now we've agreed what it is we disagree about, anyway

[halblaineisgood]

.

[drbeachboy]

MTR, just out of curiosity, which 20/20 cuts do you consider "filler"?

Bluebirds Over the Mountain and Cotton Fields mostly. Maybe All I Want to Do, but at least it rocks and is an original.

I tend to agree with that, but would they really release "filler" as a single with Bluebirds...? Mine were All I Want To Do, TNFP and NLNTL. Still, not too bad for "filler". Personally, as an album of songs, it is still a pretty strong album.

[drbeachboy]

I think I meant self deprecating, not self effacing. This is dictionarygate.

And like Billy, my head now hurts.

[AndrewHickey]

MTR, just out of curiosity, which 20/20 cuts do you consider "filler"?

Bluebirds Over the Mountain and Cotton Fields mostly. Maybe All I Want to Do, but at least it rocks and is an original.

I tend to agree with that, but would they really release "filler" as a single with Bluebirds...?

The interesting thing about that album and what it says about the band's attitude at the time is that they only ever performed *one* of Brian's songs from it (Do It Again) live at the time, but performed every single other song on the album except Be With Me live at least once -- I Can Hear Music, Bluebirds, All I Want To Do, Nearest Faraway Place, Cottonfields and Never Learn Not To Love were all performed live around the time of the album's release, but not I Went To Sleep, Time To Get Alone, Our Prayer or Cabinessence.

So I suspect that if they saw anything as filler, it might have been Brian's tunes...

[SMiLE Brian]

You might be onto something Mr. Hickey....

[drbeachboy]

MTR, just out of curiosity, which 20/20 cuts do you consider "filler"?

Bluebirds Over the Mountain and Cotton Fields mostly. Maybe All I Want to Do, but at least it rocks and is an original.

I tend to agree with that, but would they really release "filler" as a single with Bluebirds...?

The interesting thing about that album and what it says about the band's attitude at the time is that they only ever performed *one* of Brian's songs from it (Do It Again) live at the time, but performed every single other song on the album except Be With Me live at least once -- I Can Hear Music, Bluebirds, All I Want To Do, Nearest Faraway Place, Cottonfields and Never Learn Not To Love were all performed live around the time of the album's release, but not I Went To Sleep, Time To Get Alone, Our Prayer or Cabinessence.

So I suspect that if they saw anything as filler, it might have been Brian's tunes...

Except for TTGL, I would think the other songs would be tough to do live and do well with the small band they had in place. Of course Al revamped Cottonfields.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

There is a difference between filler and a deep cut. Neither would make good singles, but a deep cut is actually good music. A Day in the Life, With You and Without You  are deep cuts IMO, When I'm 64 is filler. I didn't realize Bluebirds was a single, but I don't believe it should have been.

As for the tacky discussion, I think a lot of things were tacky in the 80s not just the Beach Boys. The Monkees anyone? Mullets? Having said that, I like new wave music especially The B52s and Devo. Also some of BB85 has grown on me. California Calling is not one of them!

I think the Beach Boy history is frustrating for many hard core fans. Where might Brian have gone if he completed SMiLE and continued in that vain? What if Blondie and Ricky stayed around and they progressed beyond Holland? And the fact that most Beach Boys 'fans' have limited knowledge of the band. I have only been to 2 Beach Boys concerts,  The 50th anniversary was awesome, but the Mike and Bruce show circa 1999 was awful. The deepest cut was Do it Again! But I suppose that is the curse of being hard core about them. Most people aren't. Most on this board are out numbered. For every Good Vibrations, Pet Sounds and SMiLE box sets, there are hundreds of greatest hits releases.

But I am thankful that we have gotten so many great things over the last 13 years. I got really into the Beach Boys in 98 and thought I'd never experience anything worth while from what I saw in the Mike and Bruce show. But since then I have seen Brian Wilson's Pet Sounds and Smile tours, POB release, TLOS, BWRG, Postcard, TSS, TWGMTR and the 50th tour. I can appreciate these things and let the tacky masses have their thing!

[Sheriff John Stone]

I'll play along and stay with the thread.

I find very little filler on Beatles' albums. Very little. Actually, I find almost ALL of their albums to be five star albums, as do most music publications which rank albums. No other rock group has approached the Beatles in the CONSISTENT excellence of their recordings. They rarely recorded anything that was less than great, in my opinion, of course.

Brian Wilson was as talented, if not more talented than Lennon and McCartney. But, Brian's bag was the hit single. Brian was a disciple of Phil Spector, and Spector wanted the hit singles. Brian recorded a couple of singles, they packaged them together and called it an album. Only when Brian heard Rubber Soul did he focus on making an album. By the time Friends was done, Brian was back to making "songs" again. By that time Brian lost the focus to do a whole album, Love You being the strange exception.

Yeah, the cheerleaders were tacky and crass and whatever. But I forgive Mike. Mike knew that The Beach Boys had become a traveling juke box. He knew that in 1968! Why do you think Mike recruited the Maharishi to ride along? Why did Mike dress in turbans and sequins and bed sheets? Why did he bring "The Chief" Charles Lloyd on stage? Why did he teach corny sing-a-long songs like "Country Pie"? Why did he recruit The Beatles' drummer for a D.C. Beach Party (how blasphemous was that?) Why did he have Billy Hinsche dress up in that hideous costume and rap to "Wipe Out"? Why does Mike embrace a soap opera/TV sit com actor to play drums and rhythm guitar? Why did Mike kick Al Jardine's ponytail out of the band?

Yeah, Mike looked like an ass many times, and many of the things he's done have not made the band look any better for it. But I forgive him, because he tried. He tried to do SOMETHING to save a band that was on the decline for many of those 46 years since 1967. Yeah, Mike had something to do with that decline, but, damn, look at the others in the band, too. Look at the lives of the others in the band. Is it any wonder that the band had was on autopilot at times? They were just trying to survive, not just on stage but off stage. Mike was misguided at times, no doubt about it. But he wasn't getting a lot of help. He was surrounded by some very dysfunctional people, who weren't doing very many positive things for the group.

What's that old cliche. Give me the errors of enthusiasm over the wisdom of complacency. Or something like that. How about That?

[Magic Transistor Radio]

I'll play along and stay with the thread.

I find very little filler on Beatles' albums. Very little. Actually, I find almost ALL of their albums to be five star albums, as do most music publications which rank albums. No other rock group has approached the Beatles in the CONSISTENT excellence of their recordings. They rarely recorded anything that was less than great, in my opinion, of course.

Brian Wilson was as talented, if not more talented than Lennon and McCartney. But, Brian's bag was the hit single. Brian was a disciple of Phil Spector, and Spector wanted the hit singles. Brian recorded a couple of singles, they packaged them together and called it an album. Only when Brian heard Rubber Soul did he focus on making an album. By the time Friends was done, Brian was back to making "songs" again. By that time Brian lost the focus to do a whole album, Love You being the strange exception.

Yeah, the cheerleaders were tacky and crass and whatever. But I forgive Mike. Mike knew that The Beach Boys had become a traveling juke box. He knew that in 1968! Why do you think Mike recruited the Maharishi to ride along? Why did Mike dress in turbans and sequins and bed sheets? Why did he bring "The Chief" Charles Lloyd on stage? Why did he teach corny sing-a-long songs like "Country Pie"? Why did he recruit The Beatles' drummer for a D.C. Beach Party (how blasphemous was that?) Why did he have Billy Hinsche dress up in that hideous costume and rap to "Wipe Out"? Why does Mike embrace a soap opera/TV sit com actor to play drums and rhythm guitar? Why did Mike kick Al Jardine's ponytail out of the band?

Yeah, Mike looked like an ass many times, and many of the things he's done have not made the band look any better for it. But I forgive him, because he tried. He tried to do SOMETHING to save a band that was on the decline for many of those 46 years since 1967. Yeah, Mike had something to do with that decline, but, damn, look at the others in the band, too. Look at the lives of the others in the band. Is it any wonder that the band had was on autopilot at times? They were just trying to survive, not just on stage but off stage. Mike was misguided at times, no doubt about it. But he wasn't getting a lot of help. He was surrounded by some very dysfunctional people, who weren't doing very many positive things for the group.

What's that old cliche. Give me the errors of enthusiasm over the wisdom of complacency. Or something like that. How about That?

Brian Wilson is a greater songwriter than Paul or John as individuals IMO. The Beatles had less filler than the Beach Boys, but than again, one guy was doing it alone. On the other hand Pet Sound and SMiLE may have eclipsed anything Lennon/McCartney and George Martin did together. But it is like a handicap match (for WWE fans out there). Imagine if Dennis was as gifted as he would eventually become as early as 1962? Wow!

Also, I agree that I don't blame Mike for everything. The 3 guys with the most creativity in the band were unable to overcome personal issues. If Brian, Dennis and Carl were more stable imagine what great albums they could have released in the 70s!