How Could the Beach Boys Have Kept Themselves Relevant after 1966?

[harrisonjon]

Spinning off the Neil Young thread, the indifference towards the group shown by American culture in 1967-73 seems to have various explanations:

1) Cheesy image that the music could not counteract

2) The band's name

3) Brian's sporadic involvement

4) Historical trends outside the band's control

I don't quite buy No. 4 because I don't see why they couldn't have reinvented themselves as a CSN&Y or Mamas & the Papas kind of outfit. They could never have made a White Album or Beggars Banquet because they did not have that edge in the group (no Lennon or Keith figure), but there were harmony-rock options in 1967-70 that Brian could certainly have written albums for.

My own feeling is that, although Wild Honey to Holland is musically a good run of albums, the stylistic variations were just too confusing, and the record company politics meant they never had a clear run at marketing a new image with a solid album/tour package. Brian's image as the man tortured by Smile's failure to appear also haunted the period and meant the albums that did appear were always compared unfavorably to the lost masterpiece or Pet Sounds. Imagine how the White Album would have gone down if Sgt Pepper had been unfinished and instead we got Smiley Sgt Pepper.  

[wantsomecorn]

Attending the Montery Pop Festival probably could have been worth a shot.

They could have had a decent setlist, which is what I don't get about them supposedly not going because of lack of material. They could have put together something along the lines of

Sloop John B
Wouldn't it Be Nice
God only Knows
Caroline, No
Heroes and Villains
Vegetables
Surfs Up
Cool Cool Water
Good Vibrations

and maybe also some early versions of songs from Wild Honey or Smiley Smile (was Gettin' Hungry being worked on at this point?) It would have been much more relevant than Surfin' or a car medley.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I don't quite buy No. 4 because I don't see why they couldn't have reinvented themselves as a CSN&Y or Mamas & the Papas kind of outfit.

They did reinvent themselves and radically so - does Friends or Sunflower or Surf's Up really sound like the band from the All Summer Long - Summer Days era? Do those albums even sound like Pet Sounds-era Beach Boys? They went for a completely different sound in that time. The fact is there was nothing they could do to keep themselves relevant - though I suppose they could have maintained some degree of popularity in the US by continuing to write songs like Do It Again. I'm perfectly happy with the trajectory the band took from the very beginning. Couldn't personally care either way if they were relevant or not and I fail to see why anyone else should. It's not like they disintegrated into nothing after 1967 and were never heard from again - we have a whole collection of fantastic albums both by the band and solo.

[dwtherealbb]

ok i'm probably pissing a lot of when i keep talking about the beatles, but one of the things I've wondered is why the beatles kept producing hits while the beach boys mostly didn't. Even after 1966, the beatles had quite a few hits:
Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane
All You Need Is Love/Baby You're A Rich Man
Hello Goodbye/I Am the Walrus
Lady Madonna/The Inner Light
Hey Jude/Revolution
Get Back/Don't Let Me Down
Let It Be/You Know My Name
The Ballad of John and Yoko/Old Brown Shoe
Come Together/Something

[Chocolate Shake Man]

ok i'm probably pissing a lot of when i keep talking about the beatles, but one of the things I've wondered is why the beatles kept producing hits while the beach boys mostly didn't. Even after 1966, the beatles had quite a few hits:
Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane
All You Need Is Love/Baby You're A Rich Man
Hello Goodbye/I Am the Walrus
Lady Madonna/The Inner Light
Hey Jude/Revolution
Get Back/Don't Let Me Down
Let It Be/You Know My Name
The Ballad of John and Yoko/Old Brown Shoe
Come Together/Something

Don't mean to sound like a broken record but The Beatles were not considered to be a novelty act and so were not put into a box by the general public that they couldn't get out of. The Beatles had for quite some time been accepted not only by teenyboppers but also the more sophisticated rock music crowd and so their transition into a more serious band was never a problem for them.

Plus, don't want to sound like a jerk but The Beatles had always been better at writing commercial music than the Beach Boys and this continued in a much more dramatic fashion after 1966.

[Outtasight!]

'relevant' in this context is difficult to define but i don't think it would have mattered. Look at Dylan, he became less relevant after 66 but sold more records in the following years, go figure. The best thing they could have done to maintain sales would have been to finish and release smile.

[lee]

I have no idea but I think they still could have gone strong if Sunflower would have been written/released as a followup to Pet Sounds.

[Phoenix]

1) Finished Smile.

or

2) Bounced back right after Smiley and returned to more commercial, fully produced material.  Brian said years later that he fell out of touch with what the kids wanted by he was still writing great songs during the Boys' "stripped down" period.  Radio programmers just didn't know what do do with them.  The next REALLY commercial song he delivered was "Darlin'" but it followed "Getting Hungry", "Wild Honey", and the "non traditional" "Heroes And Villains" to the desks of program directors who'd probably just about given up on them by that point.  And "You're Welcome", (the creepy) "Wind Chimes", and the two year old "Devoted To You" (which might as well have been two DECADES old back then) didn't give DJ's the choice of something commercial on the flip side either.  (And yes, I know "Darlin'" WAS a hit but it should have been a #1 or at LEAST and undisputed top ten and I'm sure THEY thought so too!)

Along with either of the above things done, they should have brought back David and returned to guitar based rock and roll, now that the world was really embracing it.  And with Al on bass and Bruce on keyboards, they could have dropped the sidemen and therefor looked like a tight BAND onstage, rather than the pop "act" their concerts started resembling.  Remember:  This was in the days when the Stones, the Who, the Kinks, Cream, etc. were up their with no help.  That was rock and roll. 

When the Boys DID decide to "rock" again on 20/20 the results were embarrassing attempts IMO; sorta like the Pat Boone Metal album of the 90's.  The weren't doing it well and sounding contemporary again (since the early stuff) until Dennis's stuff on Sunflower and by then it was too late. 

[Cam Mott]

They just celebrated their 50th year, isn't that a pretty good record of relevance?

[D409]

They just celebrated their 50th year, isn't that a pretty good record of relevance?

But (and I'll put my bullet-proof vest on ready) the BB's arrived at their 50th year as a touring band based mainly on playing songs from their golden hit-making period and not necessarily being "relevant".

[Cabinessenceking]

The Beach Boys operated in a nishe which basically disappeared overnight. From being to chart toppers to bottom scrapers took only 2 years.

I believe there was no way the Beach Boys would remain a regular top 10 band. But things they coulda done
- play Monterey Pop with a progressive up-to-date setlist. Perhaps played some songs in collaboration with another main group at the time. Make sure they didnt wear those candy shirts and keep Mike from talkin too much to the crowd.
- Release Smile in the way The Who's Lifehouse became Who's Next. They could assemble it in many different ways and patch it together best they could. The result would still be respectable by any standards. Had it been out by summer they would still be a part of the psychedelic movement, which was absolutely key at that time for anyone to remain relevant.
-Not release Friends. Least commercial album they ever did up until then. Something more similar to Sunflower would be preferable.


These are just off the top of my head. As said, they would not remain chart toppers anyhow. Unless Brian coulda done something he never did.

[gxios]

Random memories: I don't think there's anything they could have done.  They were seen as squares as the youth movement became Stalinist in 1968 and narrowed what was acceptable entertainment.  I dutifully bought all their 45's from 1965 until 1969 when I missed "Break Away" because A)  I never found it in the local record store and B)  heard it maybe twice on the radio, and it disappeared from my consciousness for a time.  My "hip" friends dropped them quickly, although they all liked "I'd Love Just Once To See You" for the sneaky ending you could play for girls. I'm glad they stayed true to themselves in the unpopular years. They're not trapped in time like a lot of music was. The drug taking turned more to downers in those years and the music became more "heavy" and serious (I associated the success of Black Sabbath and Zeppelin to quaalude and angel dust lovers).  The Beatles were always on a higher level, maybe moreso in countries other than the UK, so they were bullet proof. "Happy" music in 1969 was the realm of Tommy Roe and the Archies- for younger kids.  By 1971 I could impress all but my most jaded friends and acquaintances with Sunflower and Surf's Up and it was starting to show at their concerts, which never failed to knock people out.  I am the original source of the November 7, 1971 Georgetown University concert tape, and the very end (which has not been let out) is the crowd singing, stomping, and clapping  the falsetto ending of "Fun, Fun, Fun" after the Boys had left the stage for the last time- that's how good that show was.

[Cabinessenceking]

Stripped down version of new best song 'Yet Again'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kop5ylg0kc

The band is similar to the Beach Boys in so many ways. Even their drummer is the best looking one of them, albeit I doubt he is quite as charismatic as Dennis was (who could ever be?) 

[sockittome]

I'm going to go along with the idea that there probably wasn't anything they could have done.  They were probably very lucky to be releasing anything.  The main thing I remember about the late 60s-early 70s was how rapidly pop music was changing.  It went from psychedelic to bubblegum to funk and then back to a sort of nostalgia trip right around '75.  That nostalgia thing, of course paved the way for the Beach Boys early material to blast over the airwaves as sort of a novelty (at least in my neighborhood, that's how it was viewed).  And that brings up another thing: in those days, if it wasn't on the radio, it didn't exist.  The BBs lack of airplay in the late 60s-early 70s had to be devastating to their popularity.

Most of the people around me at the time were not interested in digging deeper into any group's catalog.  They just wanted to buy records of what they were hearing on the radio....now.....this week.....today!  If you weren't up on the newest sound you were a nerd!  (Disco changed that because so many people hated it!)

[Cabinessenceking]

edit: posted in wrong thread

[Pretty Funky]

All dead at 27.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[filledeplage]

I'm going to go along with the idea that there probably wasn't anything they could have done.  They were probably very lucky to be releasing anything.  The main thing I remember about the late 60s-early 70s was how rapidly pop music was changing.  It went from psychedelic to bubblegum to funk and then back to a sort of nostalgia trip right around '75.  That nostalgia thing, of course paved the way for the Beach Boys early material to blast over the airwaves as sort of a novelty (at least in my neighborhood, that's how it was viewed).  And that brings up another thing: in those days, if it wasn't on the radio, it didn't exist.  The BBs lack of airplay in the late 60s-early 70s had to be devastating to their popularity.

Most of the people around me at the time were not interested in digging deeper into any group's catalog.  They just wanted to buy records of what they were hearing on the radio....now.....this week.....today!  If you weren't up on the newest sound you were a nerd!  (Disco changed that because so many people hated it!)

Exactly.
 
But, that cluster of years marked the beginning of the tunneling underground of the music into the fm format.  And the live shows on college campuses and theaters revitalized it, in a more artful context.  The historic and social contexts are meaningful as well. JMHO

And, I think did all they could to ride out all the changes in that era.

[sockittome]

I'm going to go along with the idea that there probably wasn't anything they could have done.  They were probably very lucky to be releasing anything.  The main thing I remember about the late 60s-early 70s was how rapidly pop music was changing.  It went from psychedelic to bubblegum to funk and then back to a sort of nostalgia trip right around '75.  That nostalgia thing, of course paved the way for the Beach Boys early material to blast over the airwaves as sort of a novelty (at least in my neighborhood, that's how it was viewed).  And that brings up another thing: in those days, if it wasn't on the radio, it didn't exist.  The BBs lack of airplay in the late 60s-early 70s had to be devastating to their popularity.

Most of the people around me at the time were not interested in digging deeper into any group's catalog.  They just wanted to buy records of what they were hearing on the radio....now.....this week.....today!  If you weren't up on the newest sound you were a nerd!  (Disco changed that because so many people hated it!)

Exactly.
 
But, that cluster of years marked the beginning of the tunneling underground of the music into the fm format.  And the live shows on college campuses and theaters revitalized it, in a more artful context.  The historic and social contexts are meaningful as well. JMHO

And, I think did all they could to ride out all the changes in that era.

Yes, very true.  And that is why, for the most part everything turned out alright....music-wise, anyway.  Sadly, it took it's toll, personally, on the Boys.

[Aum Bop Diddit]

They were completely relevant -- its everybody else who missed the boat.

[Phoenix]

Random memories: I don't think there's anything they could have done.  They were seen as squares as the youth movement became Stalinist in 1968 and narrowed what was acceptable entertainment... 

They were seen as squares because they released stripped down albums with weird tunings and nonsensical songs RIGHT when the Pop music scene expanded on BRIAN'S work.  "1966 is when Pop music became art."  Brian was responsible for that!  And how does "he" follow up the greatest Pop album of all time?  "Getting Hungry"!

OK fine.  Like I said, give the band a one album pass.  After all, they're one of the absolute biggest bands in the world at the time.  Then they put out an almost unplugged album with the above mentioned weird tunings with a TOTALLY produced, commercial single right smack in the middle of it and send "Wild Honey" to the radio stations instead!  As noted, "Darlin'" DOES become a hit (but not to the degree it deserved) and instead of taking the GIANT CLUE fans just sent them, the follow it up with ANOTHER "down home" album and single (neither of which sound like "Darlin'") and they BOTH BOMB, charting lower than any album OR a-side before them!  "Darlin'" SHOWS that the fans knew what they wanted but the Boys failed to deliver time and time again until the record buying fans gave up on them. 

People can dog 20/20 for not sounding cohesive but that was when the band finally started getting their sh!t together and making commercial AND artistically fulfilling music again.  There's a whole other thread on "20/20 through Holland" on the front page right now.  Unfortunately, by then it was too late and the hillbilly stomp of "Bluebirds Over The Mountain" was the final straw.  So again, "What could they have done?"  It's not rocket science.  Look at the numbers! 

Heroes and Villains (old school Brian, tho stops and starts don't make it great for radio)     #12 US      #8 UK
Gettin' Hungry (weird, silly, eperimental, NOT comercial, not even credited to the band!)    Doesn't chart in US OR UK
Wild Honey (stripped WAY down, weird tuning, whiteboy R&B)                                        #31              #29
Darlin' (fully produced TOTALLY commercial single)                                                       #19              #11 (a marked improvement)
Friends (stripped down again, wimpy tho marvelous harmonies, out of step lyrics)              #47              #25 (ouch)
Do It Again (SUPER commercial, old school formula, etc.)                                               #20              #1 (!)
Bluebirds Over The Mountain (THIS is how they follow DIA???)                                        #61              #33 (so much for a comeback)
I Can Hear Music (THIS should have been the follow up!)                                               #24              #10 (very respectable return)

I'd bet my life ICHM would have charted higher if it was released before BOTM.  The fact that it did as well as it did is proof of just how great it was.  But by this point most of the fans moved on and those who hadn't were about to.  UK fans, being more faithful and forgiving, hung around for two more singles but that was it.

Break Away (Such a shame)                                                                                #63              #6
Add Some Music to Your Day (too little to late)                                                      #64              Did not chart.
Cottonfields (released not by the group but by their FORMER label!)                           #103(!)          #1

Oh well.  At this point at least they're still big overseas.  Capitol proved it.  How do the Boys follow it?

Slip On Through (Not even the best Dennis song on the album!)
Tears In The Morning (Really?!?!)
Cool, Cool Water (Like "Give Peace A Chance" it's a nice chorus but BARELY a song, much less a commercial one!)

Unsurprisingly, none of the above managed to chart.  And unsurprising for the Beach Boys, ALL THREE of those last singles had some of the best, most commercial songs from the album ("This Whole World", "It's About Time" and "Forever") as their B-SIDES! 

Apart from "Darlin'" and "Break Away" (and ASMTYD, which apparently just wasn't single material) it's like they actively TRIED to chase away their casual fans by releasing uncommercial stuff on purpose!

[Youre Under Arrest]

Random memories: I don't think there's anything they could have done.  They were seen as squares as the youth movement became Stalinist in 1968 and narrowed what was acceptable entertainment... 

They were seen as squares because they released stripped down albums with weird tunings and nonsensical songs RIGHT when the Pop music scene expanded on BRIAN'S work.  "1966 is when Pop music became art."  Brian was responsible for that!  And how does "he" follow up the greatest Pop album of all time?  "Getting Hungry"!

OK fine.  Like I said, give the band a one album pass.  After all, they're one of the absolute biggest bands in the world at the time.  Then they put out an almost unplugged album with the above mentioned weird tunings with a TOTALLY produced, commercial single right smack in the middle of it and send "Wild Honey" to the radio stations instead!  As noted, "Darlin'" DOES become a hit (but not to the degree it deserved) and instead of taking the GIANT CLUE fans just sent them, the follow it up with ANOTHER "down home" album and single (neither of which sound like "Darlin'") and they BOTH BOMB, charting lower than any album OR a-side before them!  "Darlin'" SHOWS that the fans knew what they wanted but the Boys failed to deliver time and time again until the record buying fans gave up on them. 

People can dog 20/20 for not sounding cohesive but that was when the band finally started getting their sh!t together and making commercial AND artistically fulfilling music again.  There's a whole other thread on "20/20 through Holland" on the front page right now.  Unfortunately, by then it was too late and the hillbilly stomp of "Bluebirds Over The Mountain" was the final straw.  So again, "What could they have done?"  It's not rocket science.  Look at the numbers! 

Heroes and Villains (old school Brian, tho stops and starts don't make it great for radio)     #12 US      #8 UK
Gettin' Hungry (weird, silly, eperimental, NOT comercial, not even credited to the band!)    Doesn't chart in US OR UK
Wild Honey (stripped WAY down, weird tuning, whiteboy R&B)                                        #31              #29
Darlin' (fully produced TOTALLY commercial single)                                                       #19              #11 (a marked improvement)
Friends (stripped down again, wimpy tho marvelous harmonies, out of step lyrics)              #47              #25 (ouch)
Do It Again (SUPER commercial, old school formula, etc.)                                               #20              #1 (!)
Bluebirds Over The Mountain (THIS is how they follow DIA???)                                        #61              #33 (so much for a comeback)
I Can Hear Music (THIS should have been the follow up!)                                               #24              #10 (very respectable return)

I'd bet my life ICHM would have charted higher if it was released before BOTM.  The fact that it did as well as it did is proof of just how great it was.  But by this point most of the fans moved on and those who hadn't were about to.  UK fans, being more faithful and forgiving, hung around for two more singles but that was it.

Break Away (Such a shame)                                                                                #63              #6
Add Some Music to Your Day (too little to late)                                                      #64              Did not chart.
Cottonfields (released not by the group but by their FORMER label!)                           #103(!)          #1

Oh well.  At this point at least they're still big overseas.  Capitol proved it.  How do the Boys follow it?

Slip On Through (Not even the best Dennis song on the album!)
Tears In The Morning (Really?!?!)
Cool, Cool Water (Like "Give Peace A Chance" it's a nice chorus but BARELY a song, much less a commercial one!)

Unsurprisingly, none of the above managed to chart.  And unsurprising for the Beach Boys, ALL THREE of those last singles had some of the best, most commercial songs from the album ("This Whole World", "It's About Time" and "Forever") as their B-SIDES! 

Apart from "Darlin'" and "Break Away" (and ASMTYD, which apparently just wasn't single material) it's like they actively TRIED to chase away their casual fans by releasing uncommercial stuff on purpose!

I think a release of All I Want To Do from 20/20 would have charted well in the UK, perhaps the US.

[Phoenix]

I think a release of All I Want To Do from 20/20 would have charted well in the UK, perhaps the US.

In those territories, it was the uncharting b-side to "I Can Hear Music" but it probably got some airplay.  Personally I'm not a big fan of it.  Like "Bluebirds Over The Mountain", I think it's another embarrassingly failed attempt at "rocking" but I think it sounded WAY more contemporary. *





*Oops!  I originally read the above quote without seeing the words "would have".

[Phoenix]

Oh.  And another thing.   

they did not have that edge in the group (no Lennon or Keith figure)

Oy.   

Another myth.  I guess you think Dave replaced Al, who then replaced Dave too.   

Just because McCartney took better care when talking to the press, doesn't mean he wasn't almost ALWAYS ahead of Lennon in terms to having an edge; especially when it came to songwriting.  From "I Saw Her Standing There" and "Can't Buy Me Love" all the way through "Helter Skelter" and "The End", McCartney wrote the heaviest, most hard rocking, original songs on almost every album.  John scores with "It Won't Be Long" on With The Beatles and (barely) with "No Reply" on the VERY un-edgy Beatles For Sale.  George wins Yellow Submarine with "It's All Too Much", thanks mainly to Paul's Hendrix-like guitar playing.  Revolver is tricky because while John's "Tomorrow Never Knows" is probably the heaviest and definitely the edgiest track, it would have been a COMPLETELY different song without Paul's tape loops and guitar solo. 

Paul gets thrown under the bus because people feel like they have to "choose" and
1) He didn't die "young" (and John didn't live long enough to start phoning it in).
2) He had no shame in putting out a fair amount of "schmaltz" ("Honey Pie", "Maxwell's Silver Hammer", etc.)
3) John slammed him in "How Do You Sleep?"
and
4) He ALSO wrote the band's best ballads ("Yesterday", "Blackbird", etc.) AND most commercial stuff ("Hey Jude", "Let It Be", etc) so John "must" have been "the heavy one."

Don't get me wrong.  I LOVE John Lennon and I love his music even more.  He's EASILY my third favorite songwriter (behind just Paul and Brian) and one's musical preference is just that, but the fact that John rarely thought before he spoke spoke and had a tendency to let the public see his pissy side doesn't take away from Paul's edge or talent. 

Musically, Paul's songs were usually "done" when he brought them up but little consideration is given to how much Paul put into a "John song".  A perfect example is "Rain".  It's probably my second favorite John composition (coincidentally* behind "I'm Only Sleeping").  And John should and does get credit for its first use of backward masking (Huzzah!) but just try to imagine that song without Paul's high harmony vocal or that absolutely KILLER bassline.  Those were both Paul's but when asked "who wrote that?" his answer would be "John" because that's who wrote the chords and lyrics.  People site the middle eight as Paul's contribution to "A Day In The Life" but Paul's piano part and the orchestra (which was also his idea) are pretty much the WHOLE song (along with "I'd love to turn you on").  When John DID contribute to a "Paul song" (like "I've Got A Feeling") edge usually wasn't what he brought. 

Finally, beyond the Beatles, John's edge ended after the Plastic Ono Band album, which was more Emo (in fact the only GOOD Emo album) than Heavy.  The only songs he released after it with any real edge to them it were "How Do You Sleep?", "Gimme Some Truth", "Meat City", and "I'm Losing You".  While Paul gave us "Jet", "Helen Wheels", "Junior's Farm", "Rock Show", "Soily", "So Glad To See You Here" and a whole slew of others in the same amount of time. 

Apologies for going on about it, especially to harrisonjon and in THIS particular forum, but like "Brian stayed in bed from the collapse of Smile until the Brian's Back campaign" and "Blondie was the bass player", it just kills me to see the myth perpetuated. 
...And I think I missed my evening medication.

Again, musical preference is one thing but ones love of something doesn't make it edgy.
(And for the record, I think John was a slightly better lyricist.)




* coincidentally because both those songs include back masking.

[Kurosawa]

I don't think apart from finishing Smile there was anything they could do after 66. In fact, as some others have said, maybe they went into too many different directions and didn't have one real consistent direction or sound so they were hard for more casual fans and radio programmers to take. When a record as excellent as Sunflower doesn't become a hit, there's really not much that can be said.