Things that I just don't get about my favorite band (and that piss me off!)

[punkinhead]

What's this talk of the premiere of Yellow Submarine come from? Is that a new story that has popped up somewhere online and I just haven't been on so long to hear about it. Is there footage or pictures?

[bossaroo]

Depression and mental illness are difficult things to explain. Brian suffered from both. By the late 60s I think he felt stifled and trapped by the band to a large extent. Unable to really express himself fully anymore. He tried working outside the group with bands like Redwood and got berated. The sale of his publishing by Murry also did a lot of damage. And then there was the drug abuse.

Brian also grew insecure and lost his former confidence. He still had an amazing voice throughout the 70s but grew embarrassed by it. The lower gruff voice he employed on '15 Big Ones' was completely intentional and was his way of sounding more "macho." He could have sang in a clearer prettier voice but he chose not to. His vocal on Matchpoint Of Our Love is the best example I can think of that his voice was still in fine shape into the late 70s.

Apparently Brian is still unhappy with a lot of his old falsetto work. He has said he "sang like a girl" on more than one occasion and he kept Let Him Run Wild, one of his finest songs, off the box set in 1993 because he can't stand to listen to his singing on it. There's that hotel room video on youtube where he refers to the song Surf's Up as "p*ssy sh!t"

There's a lot of confounding and infuriating things about this band we all love so much. It continues to this day. What matters is that Brian has survived and is still making the music that only he can make.

[metal flake paint]

What's this talk of the premiere of Yellow Submarine come from? Is that a new story that has popped up somewhere online and I just haven't been on so long to hear about it. Is there footage or pictures?

Research conducted by guitarfool2002:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10870.msg204278.html#msg204278

[LetHimRun]

Depression and mental illness are difficult things to explain. Brian suffered from both. By the late 60s I think he felt stifled and trapped by the band to a large extent. Unable to really express himself fully anymore. He tried working outside the group with bands like Redwood and got berated. The sale of his publishing by Murry also did a lot of damage. And then there was the drug abuse.

Brian also grew insecure and lost his former confidence. He still had an amazing voice throughout the 70s but grew embarrassed by it. The lower gruff voice he employed on '15 Big Ones' was completely intentional and was his way of sounding more "macho." He could have sang in a clearer prettier voice but he chose not to. His vocal on Matchpoint Of Our Love is the best example I can think of that his voice was still in fine shape into the late 70s.

Apparently Brian is still unhappy with a lot of his old falsetto work. He has said he "sang like a girl" on more than one occasion and he kept Let Him Run Wild, one of his finest songs, off the box set in 1993 because he can't stand to listen to his singing on it. There's that hotel room video on youtube where he refers to the song Surf's Up as "p*ssy sh!t"

There's a lot of confounding and infuriating things about this band we all love so much. It continues to this day. What matters is that Brian has survived and is still making the music that only he can make.

Being someone who was a tenor in chorus, it sucks to hear Brian say this and berate his younger high voice. I absolutely love his high voice and it was one of the big things that grabbed me when I started getting into the Beach Boys. He had a great high voice and I love to sing his leads or even harmonies. It was amazing work and he shouldn't be ashamed, but it is what it is.

[schiaffino]

I don't know if this pisses me off, but it has been one of the more frustrating things...

I'm sure we could list a dozen reasons why, but, after recording Friends in 1968, when Brian Wilson was only 26 years old, it is hard to believe that Brian never sat down specifically for an album project, and composed, arranged, and produced a 10-12 song album of new material.

It is hard to believe how prolific he was, and how reduced that output became. On 20/20, Sunflower, Surf's Up, CATP, and Holland, Brian recorded meerly a few short minutes of songs. That trend continued from L.A. Light Album to the present. The exceptions, of course, are Love You and MIU. Even as far as entirely new material is concerned, his solo albums only contained a handful of new songs, if that.

The frustrating period was 1969-1973, because IMO, everything that Brian was composing during that period was brilliant. I sometimes imagine a solo album around 1970-71 with songs like "This Whole World", "Til I Die", "A Day In The Life Of A Tree" and "Marcella". Musically, Brian was still in a cool place. And also, during the 1976-77 period, when he was back to composing, he also came up with some fascinating stuff. Look at how great Love You turned out when Brian re-dedicated himself to songwriting.

Why didn't Brian consistently record full albums, especially during a time when he was young, still had his voice, and his contemporaries were still around, churning out great music. It's not that he didn't have the time...

Agree with you, Sheriff. Brian's output was so inconsistent and spread in those years that it doesn't make sense. For someone who had lost his 'genius' he was writing pretty darn good songs then - all the ones you listed.

Could it be that actually Brian had more songs or, better, the intention to have more of his songs in 'Sunflower' for example, but the band vetoed him? Not necessarily an active dismiss, but a passive one that re-sounded larger in Brian's mind. I heard for example that 'Til I die' was actually pitched to the band way earlier (not sure if actually in 1969, 1970) and that someone said 'what a downer' and Brian just shelved the song for years.

Maybe there were more similar cases we are not aware of. Sad.

[hypehat]

I don't know if this pisses me off, but it has been one of the more frustrating things...

I'm sure we could list a dozen reasons why, but, after recording Friends in 1968, when Brian Wilson was only 26 years old, it is hard to believe that Brian never sat down specifically for an album project, and composed, arranged, and produced a 10-12 song album of new material.

It is hard to believe how prolific he was, and how reduced that output became. On 20/20, Sunflower, Surf's Up, CATP, and Holland, Brian recorded meerly a few short minutes of songs. That trend continued from L.A. Light Album to the present. The exceptions, of course, are Love You and MIU. Even as far as entirely new material is concerned, his solo albums only contained a handful of new songs, if that.

The frustrating period was 1969-1973, because IMO, everything that Brian was composing during that period was brilliant. I sometimes imagine a solo album around 1970-71 with songs like "This Whole World", "Til I Die", "A Day In The Life Of A Tree" and "Marcella". Musically, Brian was still in a cool place. And also, during the 1976-77 period, when he was back to composing, he also came up with some fascinating stuff. Look at how great Love You turned out when Brian re-dedicated himself to songwriting.

Why didn't Brian consistently record full albums, especially during a time when he was young, still had his voice, and his contemporaries were still around, churning out great music. It's not that he didn't have the time...

Agree with you, Sheriff. Brian's output was so inconsistent and spread in those years that it doesn't make sense. For someone who had lost his 'genius' he was writing pretty darn good songs then - all the ones you listed.

Could it be that actually Brian had more songs or, better, the intention to have more of his songs in 'Sunflower' for example, but the band vetoed him? Not necessarily an active dismiss, but a passive one that re-sounded larger in Brian's mind. I heard for example that 'Til I die' was actually pitched to the band way earlier (not sure if actually in 1969, 1970) and that someone said 'what a downer' and Brian just shelved the song for years.

Maybe there were more similar cases we are not aware of. Sad.

The reason probably lies in the band growing as songwriters at that time? The specific examples that comes to mind of the band spurning BW's material seems to be Old Man River, or possibly SOMS (two of the stupidest decisions made by them, if you ask me). I don't think 'Til I Die had THAT long of a gestation period, it might have been rejected once (for Sunflower, possibly) but when the paucity of BW material became evident during the SU sessions they would take anything to fulfil their contract (am I mixing up my record deals - was there a 'Brian Clause' in their Reprise contract?).

SWD also has mentioned that Brian was in the habit of recording tunes, then wiping the tapes or giving up on them in various stages of completion during these years. Which may just indicate he was feeling insecure about what he was writing and producing, or simply apathetic and letting the band carry some of the heavy lifting. The latter of which isn't quite borne out in the writing credits/production of some of those records. It could have definitely been the case in 1968 post Friends, which could have also coincided/peaked with his stint in the hospital.

The band also became 'a band' of several individuals contributing material in this period (as opposed to Brian + collaborator handling everything) and so maybe they did force out several Brian tunes. Which again, isn't quite borne out by credits by anyone except Dennis and Bruce - Brian cowrote a lot with the band. It's not like we had an influx of 'solo' Carl or Mike material until SU and beyond, give or take a negligible amount (All I Wanna Do, which apparently was Mike's to begin with?/if the melodic germ of Our Sweet Love came from Carl and/or Al). Those records - Friends to SU - are odd in a way because it seems that they were all learning to produce/write, the quickest of which was Dennis and Mike the slowest (STD being possibly his only 'solo' contribution in the period, despite it's obvious origin). You have a talented writer like Bruce getting some leg room, Carl and Al testing their mettle on covers (on 20/20 and the Cotton Fields single, but Al didn't ever quite get beyond that as a songwriter).

Again, the Cotton Fields single bears a strange angle - a band member openly expressing dissatisfaction with BW's production nous, which had gone unchallenged (his decision to scrap Smile natch) until that point, and recording his own version without him. If the single actually succeeded Stateside, that would have sucked for Brian.

But then by Sunflower, BW was also being seceded in the producer's chair by Carl & Dennis in spots, but then it's the classic artist 'it's my song, we'll do it how I want' thing which isn't necessarily bad (although it did break up The Beatles). Whether he was secretly resentful (I doubt it), or genuinely happy to let his little brothers try their hand at it and helpful in the process (his backing vox all over Sunflower back this up) or just didn't give a crap who was producing his three year old demos and was just good with singing (cynical possibility) we'll never quite know, as he never gets into this sort of detail anymore. Nor does he have to.

I certainly don't think the 'sabotage' theory has much weight wrt Brian's retreat (like we say, he was still contributing 85% great material). It may just be apathy, which Sunflower did a little bit to assuage until it tanked.

We are also forgetting BW's other 'big idea' during this period - Mt. Vernon. Dotty, yes, but he wanted it to be the centrepiece of Holland. Maybe with stuff like that, CWTL, and Old Man River, he was still thinking in the Smile widescreen mode. Little segments linked by a central narrative or musical idea. And yet these never got off the ground - either apathy or boredom (CWTL, a little bit for Mt Vernon) or outright band rejection (Ol Man, and again a bit of Mt. Vernon). Brian Wilson might  not have been wholly interested in a simple 12 track album in those days! Sunflower shook him out of it a bit, possibly.


I'm just spinning the wheels here, tbh.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Depression and mental illness are difficult things to explain. Brian suffered from both. By the late 60s I think he felt stifled and trapped by the band to a large extent. Unable to really express himself fully anymore. He tried working outside the group with bands like Redwood and got berated. The sale of his publishing by Murry also did a lot of damage. And then there was the drug abuse.

Brian also grew insecure and lost his former confidence. He still had an amazing voice throughout the 70s but grew embarrassed by it. The lower gruff voice he employed on '15 Big Ones' was completely intentional and was his way of sounding more "macho." He could have sang in a clearer prettier voice but he chose not to. His vocal on Matchpoint Of Our Love is the best example I can think of that his voice was still in fine shape into the late 70s.

Apparently Brian is still unhappy with a lot of his old falsetto work. He has said he "sang like a girl" on more than one occasion and he kept Let Him Run Wild, one of his finest songs, off the box set in 1993 because he can't stand to listen to his singing on it. There's that hotel room video on youtube where he refers to the song Surf's Up as "p*ssy sh!t"

There's a lot of confounding and infuriating things about this band we all love so much. It continues to this day. What matters is that Brian has survived and is still making the music that only he can make.

Good points, bossaroo. There are two of them that I do respectfully question, though. You said that Brian was "unable to really express himself fully anymore". See, I think he could. I listen to "Do It Again", "Time To Get Alone", "This Whole World", "All I Wanna Do", "Til I Die", "My Solution", "A Day In The Life Of A Tree", "Marcella", and others - and I hear music that was very complex, emotional, and fulfilling. I don't know specifically what battles Brian had to fight to get those songs recorded, but he got them done. While Brian wasn't operating on the same level as Pet Sounds or SMiLE just a few short years earlier, he was pretty damn close. Maybe it's just a question of quantity versus quality. Brian demonstrated that he "still had it"; I am just questioning why he didn't dedicate himself to doing more, stringing 10-12 of those type songs together into a complete album. It's not that the others were so prolific. Mike wasn't contributing much. Or Al. Carl started to write and, of course, Dennis. But, I would've loved to see Brian doing whole albums.

You also wrote that "the lower gruff voice that he employed on 15 Big Ones was completely intentional". I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I just have a different opinion, which has been discussed on numerous threads. I agree that Brian had issues with his earlier higher voice. However, I don't think it would get to the point that he would actively alter it to the extent that he ruined it. I believe Brian's voice was irreparably damaged by his cocaine use. I believe his vocal chords were scorched through intense use of cocaine. I really don't think Brian was aware at just how much damage he was doing to his voice. Smoking, even intensely, would take years to have the effect that Brian experienced. Brian's damaged voice happened almost overnight, or at least in the course of a year (1974-75). Smoking, even intensely, would take years to ruin a voice as strong as Brian's. And, there is still some falsetto in the subsequent albums, so Brian wasn't totally adverse to his high singing. Just my take...

[Sheriff John Stone]

hypehat, you made your post while I was typing my response to bossaroo. I get what you're saying. While a lot of it would serve as an explanation, I can't get beyong the power that Brian still yielded. I'm from the school of "Brian did what he wanted to do, how he wanted to do it, when he wanted to do it". I believe that was true until after Love You. When Brian produced (or lack of) Love You, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Never again would Brian be allowed to embarrass himself or the group. Brian would, from that point on, be monitored and not be allowed to do whatever he pleased. He would no longer have the final say.

But, I believe Brian still had the power from 1969-1976. If Brian compiled a group of 10-12 songs that he wanted to make an album out of (supplemented by a song or two from Dennis or the others), I can't see how it would be disallowed. hypehat, you said, " it may just be apathy". Yeah, it probably was. The never ending debate is why. We're talking about Brian Wilson here, and his composing music for the Beach Boys. That's what he did. That was his life. How could that undergo such a change in such a short period of time? Where it dried up to virtually 5-6 minutes of released music per year?

[schiaffino]

...While Brian wasn't operating on the same level as Pet Sounds or SMiLE just a few short years earlier, he was pretty damn close. Maybe it's just a question of quantity versus quality. Brian demonstrated that he "still had it"...
[/quote]

I understand your position, but I have to respectfully disagree with you. My understanding of 'having it' its both in terms of the quality of the songs made, the quantity delivered and the 'market' reaction to it. I know it sounds too business-like, but music-recording is an industry as any other. To be a leader in a market you have to be not only producing quality products (songs) in a sufficient frequency, but those products have to fulfill the demand expectations of the consumers of the market.

Why were the Beatles so successful? Because their musical evolution captured not only the self-grown expectations of the youth of the 60s, but also drove innovation with creative techniques and meaningful lyrics. Brian had this same 'perfect' marketing mix in the early years of the band: quality songs/albums, coming out on a healthy basis and that captured the essence of the California life-style with innovative techniques (vocal harmonies + pure rock n' roll).

Within this successful mix (what Mike called the formula), Brian was growing and the market was responding. Although not a number one, 'Pet Sounds' pushed the boundaries and it was understood by the youth. It paved the way for 'Good Vibrations', in essence, an optimized version of the 'formula' - companies continuously optimize their marketing mix as new products are delivered, its just the way it is.

But at some point during the recording of 'Smile', Brian not only lost the ability to connect all the song sections but also lost the 'market' meaning of the project. How was 'Smile' going to drive innovation and tackle the needs of the listeners? No one in the band had an answer for this and the easy way out was to 'down-size' the market presence of the company 'Beach Boys' and dedicate themselves to a smaller market segment they thought they could handle.

But as years went by, even that market segment started to diminish.

So although Dennis, Carl, (somehow) Bruce grew as songwriters, the market for their products within the 'Beach Boys' branding was over. My conclusion then is that Brian did not 'have it' after Smile and no one else was business-wise enough to rock the boat.

Hope the above makes sense. I'm open to criticism 

[runnersdialzero]

The frustrating period was 1969-1973, because IMO, everything that Brian was composing during that period was brilliant. I sometimes imagine a solo album around 1970-71 with songs like "This Whole World", "Til I Die", "A Day In The Life Of A Tree" and "Marcella". Musically, Brian was still in a cool place.

Why didn't Brian consistently record full albums, especially during a time when he was young, still had his voice, and his contemporaries were still around, churning out great music. It's not that he didn't have the time...

He just didn't have it in him at that time on a number of levels and for a number of reasons. There was never going to be a Brian-dominated album in the late 60s or early 70s barring a completely different set of circumstances. When he was actually up for it every once in a while, he really made it count, but there was not going to be album after album of mostly songs of that quality as he'd done from '61-'67.

I speak from personal experience - he simply didn't have it in him at the time. Left to his own devices, we probably wouldn't have heard a damn thing from the guy during these years if not for the prodding (and encouragement) of the band and the people around him. He wasn't incapable of writing happy music or never happy as the original post implies (depression etc. does NOT work that way), but the guy was clearly burnt the fuck out from all the work he'd done in the past and more and more was likely beginning to feel like a failure as an artist and as a person.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

The Beach Boys are almost entirely unique in wilfully, deliberately burying some of their greatest work, much of it still to this day. That's pretty bloody annoying.

[Freddie French-Pounce]

There's some very long posts in this topic, and that's what annoys me about the beach Boys - they make a lot of reading! (Albeit, very good reading )

[Amanda Hart]

I understand your position, but I have to respectfully disagree with you. My understanding of 'having it' its both in terms of the quality of the songs made, the quantity delivered and the 'market' reaction to it. I know it sounds too business-like, but music-recording is an industry as any other. To be a leader in a market you have to be not only producing quality products (songs) in a sufficient frequency, but those products have to fulfill the demand expectations of the consumers of the market.

Why were the Beatles so successful? Because their musical evolution captured not only the self-grown expectations of the youth of the 60s, but also drove innovation with creative techniques and meaningful lyrics. Brian had this same 'perfect' marketing mix in the early years of the band: quality songs/albums, coming out on a healthy basis and that captured the essence of the California life-style with innovative techniques (vocal harmonies + pure rock n' roll).

Within this successful mix (what Mike called the formula), Brian was growing and the market was responding. Although not a number one, 'Pet Sounds' pushed the boundaries and it was understood by the youth. It paved the way for 'Good Vibrations', in essence, an optimized version of the 'formula' - companies continuously optimize their marketing mix as new products are delivered, its just the way it is.

But at some point during the recording of 'Smile', Brian not only lost the ability to connect all the song sections but also lost the 'market' meaning of the project. How was 'Smile' going to drive innovation and tackle the needs of the listeners? No one in the band had an answer for this and the easy way out was to 'down-size' the market presence of the company 'Beach Boys' and dedicate themselves to a smaller market segment they thought they could handle.

But as years went by, even that market segment started to diminish.

So although Dennis, Carl, (somehow) Bruce grew as songwriters, the market for their products within the 'Beach Boys' branding was over. My conclusion then is that Brian did not 'have it' after Smile and no one else was business-wise enough to rock the boat.

Hope the above makes sense. I'm open to criticism 

I understand the argument you're trying to make here, but I think that you're making a mistake by making a direct correlation to music and marketing. If all it took to be successful in the music industry was a good song or innovation, things would be very different.

You mention The Beatles success coming from their music, lyrics and innovative/changing sound, but when it came to their popularity, The Beatles were just as much about image as they were about music. They have Brian Epstein and support from EMI to thank for the their huge success. That's what, in reality, really separates them from their peers, The Beach Boys included. Since the Epstein Marketing Machine and EMI were fully supportive of the band and properly promoted their changes, the music buying audience followed suit (or loss of suits in this case ).

If the Beach Boys would have had the same kind of continued support and marketing that The Beatles did from their management and record company they could have kept on the charts. I really believe that their popular decline has less to do with Brian's abilities or will than it does with the point sometime in '66 or '67 that Capitol started to distrust their direction. Unfortunately though, an already sensitive Brian took the decline in popularity personally and it did have an effect on his output. That's where the mental illness part of it all comes into play; a person with healthier coping skills and self-worth may have been able to have a better perspective on the situation and still remained productive.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

One thing that is being overlooked is the change from mono to stereo...that had to limit Briana tad as well.

[schiaffino]

I understand your position, but I have to respectfully disagree with you. My understanding of 'having it' its both in terms of the quality of the songs made, the quantity delivered and the 'market' reaction to it. I know it sounds too business-like, but music-recording is an industry as any other. To be a leader in a market you have to be not only producing quality products (songs) in a sufficient frequency, but those products have to fulfill the demand expectations of the consumers of the market.

Why were the Beatles so successful? Because their musical evolution captured not only the self-grown expectations of the youth of the 60s, but also drove innovation with creative techniques and meaningful lyrics. Brian had this same 'perfect' marketing mix in the early years of the band: quality songs/albums, coming out on a healthy basis and that captured the essence of the California life-style with innovative techniques (vocal harmonies + pure rock n' roll).

Within this successful mix (what Mike called the formula), Brian was growing and the market was responding. Although not a number one, 'Pet Sounds' pushed the boundaries and it was understood by the youth. It paved the way for 'Good Vibrations', in essence, an optimized version of the 'formula' - companies continuously optimize their marketing mix as new products are delivered, its just the way it is.

But at some point during the recording of 'Smile', Brian not only lost the ability to connect all the song sections but also lost the 'market' meaning of the project. How was 'Smile' going to drive innovation and tackle the needs of the listeners? No one in the band had an answer for this and the easy way out was to 'down-size' the market presence of the company 'Beach Boys' and dedicate themselves to a smaller market segment they thought they could handle.

But as years went by, even that market segment started to diminish.

So although Dennis, Carl, (somehow) Bruce grew as songwriters, the market for their products within the 'Beach Boys' branding was over. My conclusion then is that Brian did not 'have it' after Smile and no one else was business-wise enough to rock the boat.

Hope the above makes sense. I'm open to criticism 

I understand the argument you're trying to make here, but I think that you're making a mistake by making a direct correlation to music and marketing. If all it took to be successful in the music industry was a good song or innovation, things would be very different.

You mention The Beatles success coming from their music, lyrics and innovative/changing sound, but when it came to their popularity, The Beatles were just as much about image as they were about music. They have Brian Epstein and support from EMI to thank for the their huge success. That's what, in reality, really separates them from their peers, The Beach Boys included. Since the Epstein Marketing Machine and EMI were fully supportive of the band and properly promoted their changes, the music buying audience followed suit (or loss of suits in this case ).

If the Beach Boys would have had the same kind of continued support and marketing that The Beatles did from their management and record company they could have kept on the charts. I really believe that their popular decline has less to do with Brian's abilities or will than it does with the point sometime in '66 or '67 that Capitol started to distrust their direction. Unfortunately though, an already sensitive Brian took the decline in popularity personally and it did have an effect on his output. That's where the mental illness part of it all comes into play; a person with healthier coping skills and self-worth may have been able to have a better perspective on the situation and still remained productive.

Thanks for your opinion, Amanda, you raise a good point. The support of the label is key for a band to maintain a leading position in a market and there is no doubt that this was a factor in The Beatles success (along with having Epstein & Martin - what a team!).

But in the summer/fall of 1966, The Beach Boys WERE at the top of their game with Capitol. They had just launched 'Good Vibrations', number one everywhere, selling millions of copies. The label was supportive of Brian and that's why they continued financing the recording of 'Smile', even way after the problems started to arise later that year.

Although I can't deny that Brian's musical direction was difficult for Capitol to swallow, the key factor in losing their label's favor was the lawsuit. From then on the band fell into a limbo, that most certainly affected the positioning of their music in the market. If you add to this the fact that the quality of the music produced, although good to us (fans), was not the kind of innovation/subject matter that the market was expecting, the consequences are inevitable. Someone said in another thread that the band started to slip into nostalgia with 'Do it again'...I think they started to become 'irrelevant' in terms of their understanding of the youth's zeitgeist and their role in driving culture already with 'Smiley Smile' (regardless of how much I like some of the songs there).

But in a way The Beatles were a team, the Beach Boys were not. Whatever pressures from the label/market, they had more balls to fight back 

[Micha]

You mention The Beatles success coming from their music, lyrics and innovative/changing sound, but when it came to their popularity, The Beatles were just as much about image as they were about music. They have Brian Epstein and support from EMI to thank for the their huge success.

And they were better looking. And did funnier interviews. And, as Schiaffino said, they truly were a team. The reason the Beatles were so successful is not down to the music only, but the high quality of their music did help.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

The Beatles were better looking? I must respectfully disagree. 

[Amanda Hart]

The lawsuit really was the straw that broke the camel's back. There was no going back for band/label relations after that.

[Micha]

The Beatles were better looking? I must respectfully disagree. 

That's OK with me. But here's my point: Beatles - three handsome guys and one with a big nose who is the salt in the soup. The Beach Boys - a short guy, a chubby boy, a balding guy, a huge guy with a crooked mouth and slightly insane look - and a surfer who was the only one the girls were after.

[schiaffino]

The Beatles were better looking? I must respectfully disagree. 

That's OK with me. But here's my point: Beatles - three handsome guys and one with a big nose who is the salt in the soup. The Beach Boys - a short guy, a chubby boy, a balding guy, a huge guy with a crooked mouth and slightly insane look - and a surfer who was the only one the girls were after.

Not sure if the Beatles were better looking, but for sure they were better in promoting their 'hip' image. Although they retired from touring, their public appearances were always cool: trendy 60s fashion, haircuts/facial hair, awesome cars (John's phantom!)...etc. Plus they mingled with the cream of Swinging-London's cultural/musical/fashion jetset - they were perceived as part of the trend-setting leadership.

The Beach Boys never enjoyed the same acceptance in the States, among others:

• Unlike London-centric England, the US is huge and with multiple cultural centers (what's hip in NY is not necessarily hip in LA)
• Although musically appreciated by some critics, their lyrics' social relevance in the context of the 60s revolution were minimal
• US musical output was more extreme than the British - In the charts you could find both Bob Dylan's acoustic moaning with Jimmy Hendrix's electric inferno. The Beach Boys music in 1967-68 ('Friends") didn't fit anywhere in between...

In any case I don't want to focus too much in the comparison between both bands. This thread is about things we don't get about the Beach Boys and that really pisses us off...

For example, can anyone tell me who thought it was a great idea for them to look like this in the early 70s? Aside from a couple of very limited examples from 'Surf's Up', their musical output is not coherent with this rebel/post-hippie cool image...if at all...<sigh>....

[drbeachboy]

The pic you reference was from the Surf's Up era. For all of the people then who thought they were so un-hip, this pic along with the album, turned a lot of heads and made those hipsters take another look at the band. They finally looked "of the times".

[SMiLE Brian]

That picture has Brian in his proto-bathrobe stage.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

That is a GREAT pic of the band! They look awesome (well, except for the weird bald guy at the back - who invited their dad along...?) Would you rather they were still wearing their striped shirts? And i think this look goes perfectly well with their '71-'73 output, don't really get the claims of discrepancy there.

[schiaffino]

That is a GREAT pic of the band! They look awesome (well, except for the weird bald guy at the back - who invited their dad along...?) Would you rather they were still wearing their striped shirts? And i think this look goes perfectly well with their '71-'73 output, don't really get the claims of discrepancy there.

I knew I was going to get in trouble with that pic...

First, a couple of clarifications: 'Surf's up' is in my top 5 BBs albums list. I think it was an amazing effort, a (for the first time) smart marketing move into getting the band (and Brian) to release the title song. And the tour to promote the album benefited from supporting acts like the Grateful Dead. So yes, it was the period they were the 'coolest' in years...but also proved to be the breaking point in their unity as a band. Let me explain that.

The previous post-'Smile' albums showed the individual growth of some of the band members in terms of musicianship and songwriting. But in a certain way the directions they were taking were still in alignment. Dennis made some amazing songs in 20/20, for example, and his style was the one (softly) challenging their overall approach. For all I love Carl, his songs/production were not departing drastically from the bands musical legacy. And needless to say, both Al and Bruce were playing it safe by all means.

But 'Surf's Up' began the cracking of this relative status-quo. Dennis had an impressive song inventory, that would fit perfectly with Jack's idea of the album...but his songs were not considered. Instead we got an extremely incoherent piece of recording, with stuff like 'Take a load of your feet' that...doesn't make sense....do you imagine this group of ragged wanna-be hippies playing that song live?

Or 'Disney Girls'?

-break- To be honest, this incredible ambiguity between musical direction & image, plus the incoherence in their songs' styles is what fascinates the most about the band -break end-

The follow-up albums showed the increasing division in song-writing unity. And even more increasing style ambiguities, with Mike looking like a cross-dresser whereas the rest looked like members of the Hell's Angels.





So, in a sense, that pic summarizes for me the different mentalities in the band members. If they wanted to make a social statement with 'Surf's Up', do it all the way! Everyone needs to look cool in the pic, hide Mike away and get Brian not to look like he came out of the shower.

And by the way, how this crazy bunch could still play 'Fun,Fun,Fun' during those days? Were their BBs greatest hits part of the setlists they played with the Grateful Dead? I mean...come on....

[hypehat]

The frustrating period was 1969-1973, because IMO, everything that Brian was composing during that period was brilliant. I sometimes imagine a solo album around 1970-71 with songs like "This Whole World", "Til I Die", "A Day In The Life Of A Tree" and "Marcella". Musically, Brian was still in a cool place.

Why didn't Brian consistently record full albums, especially during a time when he was young, still had his voice, and his contemporaries were still around, churning out great music. It's not that he didn't have the time...

He just didn't have it in him at that time on a number of levels and for a number of reasons. There was never going to be a Brian-dominated album in the late 60s or early 70s barring a completely different set of circumstances. When he was actually up for it every once in a while, he really made it count, but there was not going to be album after album of mostly songs of that quality as he'd done from '61-'67.

I speak from personal experience - he simply didn't have it in him at the time. Left to his own devices, we probably wouldn't have heard a damn thing from the guy during these years if not for the prodding (and encouragement) of the band and the people around him. He wasn't incapable of writing happy music or never happy as the original post implies (depression etc. does NOT work that way), but the guy was clearly burnt the fuck out from all the work he'd done in the past and more and more was likely beginning to feel like a failure as an artist and as a person.

This is what I was driving at when I said 'apathy'. Runners, OnTheMoney