"you'll never hear surf music again"

[Magic Transistor Radio]

I do recall reading that the Doors were very fond of Wild Honey. Does anyone know if it was the album or just the song?

My impression is that true artists respected Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys. But the people that were more about the 'hip' culture then the art thought of them as surfing Dorris Days (apologies to Bruce).

[I. Spaceman]

I do recall reading that the Doors were very fond of Wild Honey. Does anyone know if it was the album or just the song?

The album, and it was Morrison, not The Doors in general.

[I. Spaceman]

But Wild Honey did the roots thing better, and months earlier.

In an uncommercial way. Do It Again is a vital, radio-ready track that jumps out of the speakers. It has a certain spark that is lacking on the more mellow and idiosyncratic Wild Honey.

[I. Spaceman]

And also worth clarifying since the quotes often get mentioned together is the Hendrix quote about a "psychedelic barbershop quartet", which some still think was a dig at the Beach Boys as a band but was in reality his reaction to hearing the record "Heroes And Villains". Hendrix didn't dig the record, that's fine, but it doesn't mean he had something against the band in general. Not that it matters, but it's another Hendrix/Beach Boys thing that got blown out of proportion.

And of course, Hendrix was fairly spot-on with that comment, as the vocals he was referring to were called "barbershop" by the band.

[GhostyTMRS]

Do It Again was a big hit in 1968 and a part of that roots movement, along with The Beatles' Lady Madonna.

I have to disagree with that. "Do It Again" is hardly a roots song. It was a hit because it was a catchy feel-good summery song and what the general public expected and wanted from The Beach Boys. "Lady Madonna" was a Fats Domino pastiche that harkened back to 1957 or so. The Wild Honey album, on the other hand, could be classified as a "back to the roots" record (well...half of it anyway) since it was the group rediscovering R'n'B in the same stripped down way that the Beatles dropped the studio trickery from the previous year for "Lady Madonna" (...although the it's b-side could've easily fit on 1967's Sgt. Pepper/Magical Mystery Tour) or how Dylan went old-timey country on John Wesley Harding or how the Monkees went out on the road backed by Sam and The Goodnighters and presented an old fashioned soul rave up, etc.
The LA surf scene was not part of the roots movement of 1968, probably because it had just happened. "Do It Again" is certainly a celebration of The Beach Boys' own roots but I doubt when listeners were revelling in the 50's blues/rockabilly/R'n'B revival that they were also thinking of hits from only 4 years ago.     

[I. Spaceman]

Do It Again was a big hit in 1968 and a part of that roots movement, along with The Beatles' Lady Madonna.

I have to disagree with that. "Do It Again" is hardly a roots song. It was a hit because it was a catchy feel-good summery song and what the general public expected and wanted from The Beach Boys. "Lady Madonna" was a Fats Domino pastiche that harkened back to 1957 or so. The Wild Honey album, on the other hand, could be classified as a "back to the roots" record (well...half of it anyway) since it was the group rediscovering R'n'B in the same stripped down way that the Beatles dropped the studio trickery from the previous year for "Lady Madonna" (...although the it's b-side could've easily fit on 1967's Sgt. Pepper/Magical Mystery Tour) or how Dylan went old-timey country on John Wesley Harding or how the Monkees went out on the road backed by Sam and The Goodnighters and presented an old fashioned soul rave up, etc.
The LA surf scene was not part of the roots movement of 1968, probably because it had just happened. "Do It Again" is certainly a celebration of The Beach Boys' own roots but I doubt when listeners were revelling in the 50's blues/rockabilly/R'n'B revival that they were also thinking of hits from only 4 years ago.     

I completely and totally disagree. You're judging the 1960's like it was any other decade. The world, the artistic landscape, was entirely different with every passing year. You think that The Beach Boys' early hits were not already thought of as oldies by 1968? Even before The Beatles came along, the music of the 50's was looked upon that way. Check out Little Caesar & The Romans' Those Oldies But Goodies, released in 1961!!!
Do It Again "hardly" a roots song? By that measure, neither is a song such as Elvis's Burning Love, which sounds like 70's radio country-rock. The movement was NOT about one particular "stripped-down" sound, it was about the longing for a simpler age, the roots of the progressive 60's musical flower. The Beach Boys were part and parcel of that, and have remained so ever since, for better or worse.

[GhostyTMRS]

Actually, I'm not. I'm judging the 60's as it's own entity. We'll agree to disagree. You bring up the "roots of the progressive 60's musical flower". The Beach Boys were NOT thought of that way in 1968/69. If anything "Do It Again" was a freak hit that found favor with same AM Top 40 radio crowd that enjoyed Bobby Goldsboro and the Lemon Pipers (who also had poppy big hits that year). Unjustly, the groups critical cache was so low that if they had pulled a Sweetheart Of The Rodeo out of their back pocket I doubt it would've been even noticed. Outside of "Do It Again", there was NO mainstream revival of the early surf sound in 1968. The Beatles may have aped the Beach Boys on "Back In The USSR" (a parody of Chuck Berry's "Promised Land" but it was done moreso with irony rather than a loving tribute. The roots movement was primarily folk/country/blues based (and in fact, still is!). There's a reason why Bobby Vee didn't get the respect Fats Domino did. What you're talking about came later in the early 70's.
This brings up another topic actually. The 60's music scene changed so fast so often that it can make your head spin. Think about it...From "I Get Around" through Pet Sounds, Smile and up to "Do It Again" all happened while kids went from their freshman to senior years in high school. That's practically a blink of the eye. We tend to think of the Beach Boys' career in the 60's as having this long storyline with twists and turns. It seems like there's an eternity between All Summer Long and Wild Honey but there isn't. It's nothing. Just 4 measly years!

Where's the progression in today's music? Where's the "saga"? Why does a Foo Fighters record from 1995 sound pretty much like a Foo Fighters record from 2005? Music changes at a snail's pace these days.    

[I. Spaceman]

You bring up the "roots of the progressive 60's musical flower". The Beach Boys were NOT thought of that way in 1968/69.     

Exactly. That's the entire point.
And I can assure you I need no lessons on musical history or to be told by you that my comprehension of the facts is mistaken. I've been writing about music for over 20 years. Save that language for the teenagers present here, thanks.
What is it about the fact that the early "roots" movement did not have one specific sound and approach do you not understand? Everyone thinks of The Band as one of the proponents of the movement, but their first album has psychedelic keyboard sounds, Leslie guitar effects and a sound clearly influenced by Procol Harum. The "roots" thing, in terms of the T-Bone Burnett-style genre approach, wasn't codified until long after that. Ever hear a record by The Everly Brothers, entitled Roots? It encompasses everything up to baroque sunshine pop. Things were much, much more freer then.
The reason Do It Again was a hit was because a popular band, The Beach Boys, were going back to the roots of their sound, and the roots of 60's culture, and singing about it, in the guise of a perfect radio song. It does not mean jack sh*t on a shingle that no one else revived the surf sound on a manstream level. The Beach Boys REPRESENTED IT. The reason people accepted John Wesley Harding was because it resonated with people's memories of the early acoustic Dylan. And, it is another roots record.
The last two paragraphs of your post, I agree with.

[GhostyTMRS]

First of all, why the heck are you so angry? Your responses to me are filled with the exact same kind of information and music curios that I'm responding with, and I'm not freaking out and accusing you of lecturing me.

I still disagree with your points and the fact that you've written about music for 20 years doesn't sway me. I didn't just pop out of the womb 10 minutes ago with no knowledge of the era. I'm thinking of the back to the roots vibe of 68 in particular, that hangover from psychedelia overload, and how that movement was perceived at the time. If I'm going by accounts, interviews and articles from the era, The Beach Boys and "Do It Again" are never mentioned in the same breath as Dylan, "Lady Madonna" in fact, The Beach Boys are barely mentioned at all. I can only point to Paul Williams in Crawdaddy as someone who did that, but he seems to be more the exception than the rule. But hey...maybe I've just been reading the wrong stuff all these years.       

[Jon Stebbins]

Do It Again was without a doubt a back to roots, nostalgic, play it simpler like the old days single, and went to #1 in the UK and top 20 US because of that.

[GhostyTMRS]

Do It Again was without a doubt a back to roots, nostalgic, play it simpler like the old days single, and went to #1 in the UK and top 20 US because of that.

I'm not debating whether it was a return to their early sound/lyrical concepts or even the band's intention (which it obviously was). The question asked by Magic Tranistor Radio was about the image of the band during that time period and why the hippie crowd accepted Elvis and Chuck Berry but not The Beach Boys. My point was that while the Beach Boys themselves may have tried to get bak to their roots with Wild Honey and "Do It Again", they were not recognized at the time as being part of that movement and I disagree that "Do It Again" was popular because of the zeitgeist of the time. I always think of The Beach Boys as being on the outside looking in from mid-67 up through the Surf's Up album. As if the rock world carried on chasing after the zeitgeist of the times and whatever the Beach Boys did was seen as inconsequential or they were dismissed as has-beens or even worse! While Elvis, Fats Domino, 50's rock and rollers, etc were getting heaps of praise, The Beach Boys were left out in the cold by the rock world....probably because their height of popularity was fairly recent and they weren't part of that first wave of Rock'n'Roll that was being celebrated at the time (and it didn't help that they became the whipping boys of the rock elite). My argument was that while "Do It Again" was a hit, I feel it was a hit because it was a catchy single and (right or wrong) it was what the mainstream expected and wanted from the group, not because it was part and parcel of that stripped down roots movement associated with Rock with a capital "R" in the late 60's, if you catch my drift.

Maybe I. Spaceman thinks I'm slamming the song, as if having a popular AM Top 40 radio hit is somehow lesser than being accepted as part of the "rock scene" at that time (it's not..the late 60's rock elite..Jann Wenner and the like..can go screw), but despite "Darlin" and "Do It Again", the Beach Boys at that time were nearly being relegated to  "whatever happened to..?" status.
 
Interestingly, when that second wave of 50's nostalgia really crested in the early 70's, it was more Doo Wop oriented than anything else. That might explain why The Beach Boys, as a vocal group, were a part of that 70's wave (although I view them as having been influenced by that music rather than being part of it). In a way, the early 70's seems to be much more a time of longing for the innocence of pre-Beatles America. The late 60's roots movement seems more preoccupied with authenticity and "soul" and "Hey man, listen to how stark and dirty this bluesy record is. This is the real deal" rather than nostalgia for poodle skirts, diners and jukeboxes, if that makes any sense (and yes, I think a preoccupation with the former borders on pretentious hipsterism).

[DonnyL]

You bring up the "roots of the progressive 60's musical flower". The Beach Boys were NOT thought of that way in 1968/69.      

Exactly. That's the entire point.
And I can assure you I need no lessons on musical history or to be told by you that my comprehension of the facts is mistaken. I've been writing about music for over 20 years. Save that language for the teenagers present here, thanks.
What is it about the fact that the early "roots" movement did not have one specific sound and approach do you not understand? Everyone thinks of The Band as one of the proponents of the movement, but their first album has psychedelic keyboard sounds, Leslie guitar effects and a sound clearly influenced by Procol Harum. The "roots" thing, in terms of the T-Bone Burnett-style genre approach, wasn't codified until long after that. Ever hear a record by The Everly Brothers, entitled Roots? It encompasses everything up to baroque sunshine pop. Things were much, much more freer then.
The reason Do It Again was a hit was because a popular band, The Beach Boys, were going back to the roots of their sound, and the roots of 60's culture, and singing about it, in the guise of a perfect radio song. It does not mean jack sh*t on a shingle that no one else revived the surf sound on a manstream level. The Beach Boys REPRESENTED IT. The reason people accepted John Wesley Harding was because it resonated with people's memories of the early acoustic Dylan. And, it is another roots record.
The last two paragraphs of your post, I agree with.

I must admit I'm warming up to you Spaceman !

Do It Again was without a doubt a back to roots, nostalgic, play it simpler like the old days single, and went to #1 in the UK and top 20 US because of that.

I'm not debating whether it was a return to their early sound/lyrical concepts or even the band's intention (which it obviously was). The question asked by Magic Tranistor Radio was about the image of the band during that time period and why the hippie crowd accepted Elvis and Chuck Berry but not The Beach Boys. My point was that while the Beach Boys themselves may have tried to get bak to their roots with Wild Honey and "Do It Again", they were not recognized at the time as being part of that movement and I disagree that "Do It Again" was popular because of the zeitgeist of the time. I always think of The Beach Boys as being on the outside looking in from mid-67 up through the Surf's Up album. As if the rock world carried on chasing after the zeitgeist of the times and whatever the Beach Boys did was seen as inconsequential or they were dismissed as has-beens or even worse! While Elvis, Fats Domino, 50's rock and rollers, etc were getting heaps of praise, The Beach Boys were left out in the cold by the rock world....probably because their height of popularity was fairly recent and they weren't part of that first wave of Rock'n'Roll that was being celebrated at the time (and it didn't help that they became the whipping boys of the rock elite). My argument was that while "Do It Again" was a hit, I feel it was a hit because it was a catchy single and (right or wrong) it was what the mainstream expected and wanted from the group, not because it was part and parcel of that stripped down roots movement associated with Rock with a capital "R" in the late 60's, if you catch my drift.

Maybe I. Spaceman thinks I'm slamming the song, as if having a popular AM Top 40 radio hit is somehow lesser than being accepted as part of the "rock scene" at that time (it's not..the late 60's rock elite..Jann Wenner and the like..can go screw), but despite "Darlin" and "Do It Again", the Beach Boys at that time were nearly being relegated to  "whatever happened to..?" status.
 
Interestingly, when that second wave of 50's nostalgia really crested in the early 70's, it was more Doo Wop oriented than anything else. That might explain why The Beach Boys, as a vocal group, were a part of that 70's wave (although I view them as having been influenced by that music rather than being part of it). In a way, the early 70's seems to be much more a time of longing for the innocence of pre-Beatles America. The late 60's roots movement seems more preoccupied with authenticity and "soul" and "Hey man, listen to how stark and dirty this bluesy record is. This is the real deal" rather than nostalgia for poodle skirts, diners and jukeboxes, if that makes any sense (and yes, I think a preoccupation with the former borders on pretentious hipsterism).

I feel like a lot of people sort of buy the 'history of rock n roll' sort of approach to this stuff, which is such hall-of-fame/rolling stone bull$hit (not saying you do, Ghosty).

The Beach Boys were completely hip and ahead of their time in actuality in the late-'60s ... personally and artistically. Smiley Smile is by far the most ballsy album ever released by a major group, period. And what was so great about it is how unpretentious it is. When Wild Honey came out, everybody was still doing Sgt Pepper.

"Do It Again" is part of a roots deal but done with more class than many of the others ... it's a conceptual thing, perfectly in tune with the times without pandering to stylistic trends.

[GhostyTMRS]

I think somewhere in there my point has been miscommunicated. Yes, we can all look back on albums like Wild Honey and Smiley Smile and place them in the context of the times and see what The Beach Boys were doing was ballsy. Certainly nowadays those two albums have reputations have been thoroughly rehabilitated. We can now see that, yes, the Beach Boys may have been one of the hippest bands going. 

I was speaking of how the band was perceived at the time, not retroactively when we're all sitting back and taking a look at rock history. The Beach Boys themselves have spoken many times about how "unhip" they were thought of at the time. I'm talking about the opposite of the "history of rock'n'roll/Rolling Stone/Hall of Fame" mentality. I'm talking about the rock press and community at that time...which was incredibly naive for the most part (this is the same crew that likened Dylan to Che Guevara and hoped he was going to storm the White House) and very dismissive of bands they considered "bubblegum". Consider the flack the Doors were given for "Hello, I Love You", as if it they had cashed in their credibility and were poseurs to be disdainful of for all of eternity. The Beach Boys were given an even worse end of the stick from the music press at that time.

I don't think what I've been talking about is so terribly incendiary as to inspire anger in anyone, and frankly, I'm a little surprised at the reaction, considering the topic is brought up constantly on here. I'm not saying I agree with how the band was perceived at that time at all. In fact, I sort of revel in how much of an outcast The Beach Boys had become. The hipper-then-thou music press at the time and their naivete has a charming element to it, but it's all horseshit. Not quite as odious as what Rolling Stone would become (where Springsteen became an almost Christ-like figure to those jaack offss) but horseshit nonetheless.
       

[Sheriff John Stone]

I do recall reading that the Doors were very fond of Wild Honey. Does anyone know if it was the album or just the song?

The album, and it was Morrison, not The Doors in general.

Just a quick question on this...In an early Doors press release, I think put out by Elecktra Records in early 1967(?), Jim Morrison listed Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, and The Beach Boys among his "favorites". However, I don't recall seeing in any book or magazine where Jim specifically mentions Wild Honey. I'm not saying he didn't mention it, just that I missed it. Does anyone know the source of that Wild Honey reference?

[GhostyTMRS]

I do recall reading that the Doors were very fond of Wild Honey. Does anyone know if it was the album or just the song?

The album, and it was Morrison, not The Doors in general.

Just a quick question on this...In an early Doors press release, I think put out by Elecktra Records in early 1967(?), Jim Morrison listed Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, and The Beach Boys among his "favorites". However, I don't recall seeing in any book or magazine where Jim specifically mentions Wild Honey. I'm not saying he didn't mention it, just that I missed it. Does anyone know the source of that Wild Honey reference?

Same here. I don't know of any place where Morrison stated he liked "Wild Honey". I did, however, always think it was cool that he listed The Beach Boys and Love as favorite bands...giving fellow LA bands some respect. I hope it was true because he also listed his parents as deceased which wasn't the case. lol

[bgas]

I do recall reading that the Doors were very fond of Wild Honey. Does anyone know if it was the album or just the song?

The album, and it was Morrison, not The Doors in general.

Just a quick question on this...In an early Doors press release, I think put out by Elecktra Records in early 1967(?), Jim Morrison listed Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, and The Beach Boys among his "favorites". However, I don't recall seeing in any book or magazine where Jim specifically mentions Wild Honey. I'm not saying he didn't mention it, just that I missed it. Does anyone know the source of that Wild Honey reference?

Same here. I don't know of any place where Morrison stated he liked "Wild Honey". I did, however, always think it was cool that he listed The Beach Boys and Love as favorite bands...giving fellow LA bands some respect. I hope it was true because he also listed his parents as deceased which wasn't the case. lol

According to I.Spaceman,  David Anderle mentioned it in an interview with Paul Williams

[DonnyL]

The hipper-then-thou music press at the time and their naivete has a charming element to it, but it's all horsesh*t. Not quite as odious as what Rolling Stone would become (where Springsteen became an almost Christ-like figure to those jaack offss) but horsesh*t nonetheless.

ha! i agree totally (hope you didn't take any offense in my post, I was just adding some thoughts on the topic)

[bgas]

And so I went traipsing off to find my copy of Outlaw Blues and read thru till I found the passage desired( in my copy, paperback, it's on page 157); but there's so much good stuff you really have to read the whole thing, or at the very least the Brian section of 52 pages: 

   

[Sheriff John Stone]

And so I went traipsing off to find my copy of Outlaw Blues and read thru till I found the passage desired( in my copy, paperback, it's on page 157); but there's so much good stuff you really have to read the whole thing, or at the very least the Brian section of 52 pages: 

   

Thanks for looking that up, bgas.

[guitarfool2002]

For those with a copy of Look Listen Vibrate Smile, that same article is reprinted in full, all the parts, and the part in question is "Part Three", where the Morrison quote is found and also where the whole "roots" thing is discussed, including Lady Madonna.

Remember, too, these two men rapping with each other have a total and unapologetic love for Brian Wilson and his music, and wear it on their sleeves during this interview. It's their opinion, it's what they feel about this musician and his music which led to three chapters of this banter:

Williams: Uh-huh, the whole trip was...
Anderle: Yeah, right, it was a pan-patriotic thing..
Williams: Uh-huh, yeah.
Anderle: ...that Van had, and Brian, um, he just dug this trip, you know?
Williams: Uh-huh, it was new and...
Anderle: Right. Okay.
Williams: Let's talk about Mike Love.
Anderle: Yeah.

But it is a terrific firsthand account, a great period piece, and even though some would say it's too biased to pump up everything Brian was doing into something groundbreaking, or that Anderle leaves out some key points, it's a must-read.

However, to place Smiley Smile or Wild Honey in historical context based on interviews like this - where the people involved have an agenda (at that time) to push where their friend and client and artistic pied piper is getting a huge boost and his latest work is being promoted to the readers as something worth buying at the local record store (i.e. 'commerce'), the article cannot be placed into historical context as a definitive account because the subjects in fact were too close to the subject matter.

That may sound harsh, but I've come around just a bit on my thinking overall on this time period, the post-Smile-collapse period.

The notion that "Do It Again" was popular because it sounded like a great radio hit single is the one I agree with, and ultimately I think that is the single most important driving force behind the audience embracing a record. All record label shenanigans and Payola deals aside, if people like the sound and feel of a record, they embrace it.

And Do It Again, from the first 5 seconds with the awesome sonic hook of S. Desper's snare sound nailing the walking-tempo beat, sounded like a hit that made people tap their foot and nod their head to the beat. The record has about 5 solid pop radio hooks happening in a few minutes, I'd argue more than an entire side of either Smiley Smile or Wild Honey had to offer.

One thing about top 40 and record-buying habits in general in 67-68-69 is that there were no rules, no patterns, and no movements. Styles were interchangeable, you couldn't label something as a hit record based on genre.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

IMO, what the Beach Boys were doing at the time, including Friends, was fantastic. Not what people were looking for at the time. However, of the two hit singles being discussed, I think that Darlin fits the roots movement better then Do It Again. At least what was considered to be such at the time. Of course, a lot of this is media hogwash.

Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends and even Love You, are all very creative and beautiful. But has an appeal akin to the likes of Syd Barrett, Daniel Johnston or the Danielson Famile. Too quirky to be understood or even fit into their own times or even in the underground indie music scenes, at least at first. While albums like Pet Sounds, SMiLE, Sgt Pepper, etc are mind blowers on first listen, SS, WH, F and LY, take a while for most to get. They first have to get passed 'this isn't cool' mind set. These albums have had just as much effect on me as Pet Sounds or Sgt Pepper once I got it.

[I. Spaceman]

Of course, Do It Again was a hit because it was a great record. No one was saying any different. The O Brother Where Art Thou soundtrack wasn't a hit BECAUSE it was a roots record. For cripes sakes, what we have here is a failure to comprehend.

[Paulos]

Of course, Do It Again was a hit because it was a great record. No one was saying any different. The O Brother Where Art Thou soundtrack wasn't a hit BECAUSE it was a roots record. For cripes sakes, what we have here is a failure to comprehend.

You just reminded me of "Po' Lazarus" from the O Brother Where Art Thou soundtrack, absolutely incredible song.

[clack]

The words are obviously from Hendrix. I know the Beach Boys ceased to be hip (common opinion, not mine) by sometime in 1967. I wasn't around since I am only 35. For those who were there, were the Beach Boys the poster child for everything unhip? Or were they just another unhip band? I assume that the Four Seasons and Jan and Dean had the same image problems as the Beach Boys? What about the image of Elvis, Berry, etc in the late 60s from the hippy croud?  

Rather than the Four Seasons or Jan and Dean, I'd compare the hipness quotient of the '67 Beach Boys to the Mamas and the Papas, say, or the Lovin' Spoonful :  that is, groups that were fairly hip by '66 standards, but that were suddenly looking , well -- not unhip, exactly, but rather irrelevant.

The counter culture didn't think that Brian Wilson -- or Chuck Berry, for that matter -- was crap. Just that while they were both great in their day, their day had passed.

[the professor]

IMO, what the Beach Boys were doing at the time, including Friends, was fantastic. Not what people were looking for at the time. However, of the two hit singles being discussed, I think that Darlin fits the roots movement better then Do It Again. At least what was considered to be such at the time. Of course, a lot of this is media hogwash.

Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends and even Love You, are all very creative and beautiful. But has an appeal akin to the likes of Syd Barrett, Daniel Johnston or the Danielson Famile. Too quirky to be understood or even fit into their own times or even in the underground indie music scenes, at least at first. While albums like Pet Sounds, SMiLE, Sgt Pepper, etc are mind blowers on first listen, SS, WH, F and LY, take a while for most to get. They first have to get passed 'this isn't cool' mind set. These albums have had just as much effect on me as Pet Sounds or Sgt Pepper once I got it.

Yes, I agree: well explained. Time is the only true judge of the sublime, and the BB win at every tick of the clock. See Longinus's late classical track (tract, rather, but I left in track for obvious reasons) Περὶ ὕψους, "On the Sublime."