Monterey Pop Festival

[guitarfool2002]

I just want to add that whoever compared the answers to the question "Why didn't The Beach Boys perform at Monterey?" are along the lines of the question "Why wasn't Smile released?" was right on. Honestly, for both if not many of these similar questions in the BB's history, there is no single reason and I doubt there ever can be with all factors involved.

I did want to chime in too about the whole Haight-Ashbury/ San Francisco versus LA issue around Monterey Pop. For the record, this topic fascinates me, and I have corresponded in the past with Jason P. the creator of this thread and one of the most knowledgeable folks I know about this issue, and have studied this a great deal...so if any info is wrong, please correct!

The Haight-Ashbury vs. LA deal may have been a factor, but ultimately it might be better called a "red herring" of sorts because of one group of factors:

Money, access, influence, politics, and power.

Essentially I think Monterey Pop would *never* have happened had the power brokers in LA's pop music scene not stepped in...Not to offend anyone but in the first half of 1967 there may have been a scene going on in SF but they did not have the right machinery in place to stage and pull off such an event. There were folks who could organize communal living arrangements, organize community health centers and VD clinics, safe houses and clinics to treat those who had taken some intense acid trips and needed help coming back, those who were drifting in and out of the city and losing everything they had in search of the promised land...but they simply did not have the resources to stage a major multi-day event.

I also think if Mike had an issue with Coca-Cola or whatever other companies were involved, his anger was either misplaced or a complete load of hypocrisy.

Every single venue except perhaps high schools which the BB's played and made money on tour up to Monterey had to have some kind of agreement with vendors who would work the shows and sell food and drink. That is the way of the world, period, end of story. Every arena has this in place...did Mike question this at any other arena or venue in the year before and the year after his issue with serving cola at Monterey?

On to business, once you get certain names on that "Board Of Governors" or whatever they called it, guys like Lew Adler and Phillips and that whole crew, you gain immediate access to teams of lawyers, agents, contract specialists, negotiators, certain politicians who they may or may not have contributed money to in order to gain support and help with logistics like police and security coverage for the event...

Remember in 1966 going into 1967 guys like Adler and John Phillips and Brian and the rest were literally swimming in cash...and spending like drunken sailors as they bought expensive toys and diversions like sports cars on a whim. Buy a Rolls Royce? Sure, I'll buy TWO!...that kind of thing. With that kind of money and young millionaires throwing it around comes a degree of access...not to power exactly...but to those in power.

San Francisco's music scene in the first half of 1967 was who, exactly? Was there mainstream success? Were there key bands to compare with those coming from LA? Was there much money flowing in *at that exact time*? I'd say no to a degree, and the real attention came after Summer 1967 when it got mainstreamed and the media showed up.

For proof of this, there is a *fascinating* CBS news documentary which was shot in and around the SF scene immediately after Monterey Pop. The style is classic CBS News from the 60's, looking and feeling much like "Inside Pop" which had just aired in April '67. Among the cornerstone events in the film is a free outdoor performance from The Grateful Dead, who were young, not all that different or outstanding (Bob Weir wasn't all that good, honestly, and was still a kid at this point...), and whose featured offering was a cover of Dancing In The Streets.

If I'm wrong, please correct here especially, but apparently the Dead did not have access to a decent sound system and I've heard that they "borrowed" if not took without proper channels part if not most of the sound system components from Monterey Pop so they could stage this "event" while CBS crews were there.

Bottom line, to suggest the LA hip and rich crowd like Adler's crew and the rest of the governors somehow "stole" the festival concept and execution from the SF scene might be a little bit true, but ultimately there was no way the scene in SF...*at that time*...had the resources, the connections, or the funding to stage anything like that. The Dead's influence in '67 amounted to taking a sound system, saying in Micky Rooney's style "Hey kids, let's put on the show right here!", and setting up a public show for CBS, in town to film hippies. 

And part of hosting such an event is funding and logistics, obviously where food vendors and other sponsors are required to be on board. Some may say Mike was taking a stand, others may feel it was naive if not hypocritical to make soft drink vendors such an issue...at least until someone can dig up proof where he staged a similar stance at any other venues where the band signed a contract to play in 66-67.

[I. Spaceman]

The guy who hatched the festival was Alan Pariser, an LA entrepreneur, as a pop/rock version of the Monterey Jazz Festival. A for-profit enterprise. It was always an LA-supervised trip, power-broker from the start. The problem was that the promoters had to step lightly around the SF scene, because the tastemakers held that whole thing under sway, people such as Ralph J. Gleason. Considering this, the SF bands had an extreme importance to the festival, simply because of where it was held. Popularity in mainstream terms didn't have everything to do with it, because the groups coming from the underground were a big attraction, and everyone involved with the festival was interested in being as hip as possible.
Jefferson Airplane were already mainstream stars with a Top 5 hit. The Dead were an underground act with a big reputation, an acid dance band. They shouldn't be put down for that reason, and for the sound they had. I think they were great at that time. Their performance of Viola Lee Blues at the festival is as good as anything performed there by any act, save Otis Redding.

[guitarfool2002]

Popularity had to have something to do with it because if the bill did not include big names and "hit" artists, you'd have a very hip festival bill packed with lesser-known or just-breaking artists who everyone needed to hear but not as big of a crowd or nowhere near the attention the festival needed to exist.

The Dead were fine, if not at times pretty damn terrific as a house band in the acid scene, but they were nowhere near the draw necessary to bill such an event, and the whole of the SF scene - again at the exact time the festival was being planned - was more of an underground, localized thing.

Again, it's not to say anything negative about the quality of the SF bands or the scene, I'd never suggest that except to look back at the Dead playing for CBS and thing "What was all the fuss about?", and feel they were still working hard to reach what they needed to break out of the West Coast and acid scene and tour as they would soon do. Weir was just not ready, the band overall had terrific moments but weren't there yet. IMO.

The whole affair needed people selling Coca-Cola, they needed KRLA to cover it extensively and publish a full issue of "KRLA Beat" devoted to the festival, they needed a film crew with the skill of a Pennebaker to capture it, they needed the lawyers and contract/legal folks to get everything together, heck The Beatles even needed their own film crew to return with their latest supply of LSD concealed in the lenses...

And I don't think there was any of that - no matter how good or even fantastic the scene was in SF in early '67 - in place to really pull it off beyond having it become another local "Be-in" type of outdoor event which were happening on a weekly basis in some areas.

Do we think the media helped sell it, create the legend, and spread the word? I'd say yes, and argue the people involved from LA were the reason that all of that was already planned and in place for the festival itself.

[I. Spaceman]

Yeah, I wasn't arguing about any of that. The LA people could have staged the festival anywhere. Staging it in San Francisco meant they had to treat the SF bands as superstars, and give them very prominent places in the lineup, and curry favor with all of the SF tastemakers, keep them happy. The Airplane were one of the three hottest bands in the country at that point, so they likely would have headlined a night wherever the festival was held.

[guitarfool2002]

True, the Airplane were definitely at the forefront and were selling records like crazy at that time - if anything they would or could have been the headline draw for any event around that scene. It's funny looking at the "oldies" kind of scene over the past few decades, "Somebody To Love" sometimes seems to get lumped into the LA psych bag more than the scene they were actually in, especially with compilations, greatest hits, etc packages of hits from that era.

When Monterey was planned and when it happened, LA and all the power players were spending 1966 money which they had begun to sow into '67, including our Beach Boys, and San Francisco's scene in 1966 was underground, artistic, and not making near the money. All that would change soon after summer '67, obviously!

[guitarfool2002]

One semi-related question, which I could look up but I trust folks here even more...

When did the Dead start to use the services of "Bear" Owsley and his incredibly expensive and innovative live sound system(s)? I'm thinking into 1967 Owsley was still making his regular secret trips to the bus terminals with his supplies, was busy with all his "blue cheer", "orange sunshine", and all the various "barrels" he was soon producing, and raking in a fortune in profits. If I recall, he and his theories on sound and mixing combined with his budget which allowed for the finest audio equipment of its day to be bought and used may have been what really helped put the Dead on the bigger stage musically, at least where they went from borrowing PA systems to using what was top-of-the-line sound gear with a mad audio genius at the helm.

I'm talking 67-68-69...Owsley and his sound joined forces with the Dead, I'm curious when this happened, or how soon after Monterey. Or was Owsley involved that deeply with the band even in summer '67?

[Custom Machine]

Stephen, thanks for checking in with your comments.  I'm the guy who said the story that the reason the Beach Boys pulled out of Monterey was because Mike Love did not want to be associated with Coke, stated to be one of the sponsors of the event, sounded like absolute bullshit to me.  In addition, I said I hoped you would read this thread and provide elaboration, which you did, but I obviously inadvertently upset you, and for that I apologize, as that was in no way my intent.

I hope you understand that I was not stating that your recollection of what you had been told was erroneous or in any way BS, but when I said I was wondering were you got this info, the question I wanted to know was who was responsible for telling you this story?  And you answered the question by saying that it was Nick Grillo and American Productions.

So I am in no way saying that your reporting of what you were told by American Productions 45 years ago and have posted on the Hoffman board is in any way circumspect.  Instead, what I was saying is that the story you were told by Nick Grillo and American Productions back in 1967 sounds like bullshit to me, a PR excuse to avoid additional questions as to the real reasons why the BBs failed to appear.  And that's just my opinion, as stated, based on the points I made in my earlier posts.  And like I said in my post, I obviously wasn't there, I'm simply reacting skeptically to the official line American Productions gave you at the time.  As I said in a previous post, you have been an incredible asset to this board, and your reporting of American Productions stated reason for the Beach Boys non-appearance at Monterey adds yet another fascinating element to the story.

And yes, I do know who you are!  You and I have corresponded by email in the past, the first time quite a few years ago, with me lauding the incredible engineering work you did on Sunflower, which is my all time favorite album by anyone, anywhere, at any time, both for the musical selections contained within and also for the fabulous sound stage and overall sonic splendor provided by your engineering work.  I own your Recording the Beach Boys book, have the consumer version of the Desper Spatializer hooked up to my audio chain, and I have recently written to you stating that I'm looking forward to the revised edition of Recording the Beach Boys.  So I have the utmost respect for you, your work, and the wonderful job you have done adding to the historical record of the Beach Boys.

Totally off topic, but something I've been wanting to ask you for awhile, did you ever do engineering at Doug Weston's Troubadour in LA?  In the never aired TV special, "Easy to Be Free," covering Rick Nelson and the Stone Canyon Band's late October thru early November 1969 tour, (produced by Rick's brother David), there are a couple of quick shots of a guy doing the house engineering at the Troubadour, and it looks like a lot like you, but the shots are brief and from the side, so I'm not certain.  This would have been during the time when the album Rick Nelson in Concert at the Troubadour 1969 was recorded.

And, again, in closing, thanks for adding so much great info to the BB's historical record!

COMMENT:  All is well here.  We'll just chalk it up to a poor choice of words -- We've all been there. Thank you for your response and understanding. There are certainly a great group of people posting here.

I did do some PA house mixing at Doug Waston's Troubadour. It was on and off, and not too many times, just a handfull.  Don't forget the FLAME played or even were introduced by BRI at the Troubadour. And if memory serves me right, someone, maybe Alan, did a show or three at the Troubadour. Nevertheless, if a film camera caught someone who looks like me, I doubt it's me as I was only there once in a while.

What I'm really excited about is Brian's win at the Grammy's.  So long overdue!  This year's awards couldn't have gone to more deserving people as Brian, Alan B. and Mark L.    

. . .  now if someone could just get Mark a decent tux . . .

~swd 

And thank you for your response, Stephen.  Glad to hear that all is well here.  This board is filled with a bunch of "Beach Boys geeks" who are anxious to learn about the history of the band and its music, and you are an invaluable resource in adding to the historical record. 

[I. Spaceman]

Owsley joined up with the Dead during the acid tests in early 1966. He started building electronics for them immediately, and funding purchases of equipment for them with his family fortune and personal fortune from his drug dealings. He seems to have worked with them for intense, but intermittent, periods through 1970, when he was arrested and sent to prison for two years. His famous "wall of sound" system was created after his release.
From everything I have heard, his sound systems for the Dead were incredible and groundbreaking....when they worked, which was about 50% of the time. They required a tremendous amount of stage power, which had a tendency to blow all electric circuits and halt proceedings indefinitely (which happened at Woodstock).
The best example of the early "Owsley sound" (something that the man himself didn't need to be present for, just that his equipment and sound design concept be utilized), in my opinion, is the GD release Two From The Vault, capturing two extremely intense shows at the Shrine Auditorium in August 1968.
Owsley also worked with other SF greats, and without his input, it is hard to imagine the quintessential roaring ballroom attack of Big Brother's Cheap Thrills and, especially, Quicksilver's Happy Trails (the ultimate SF guitar album).

Also, I'd like to recommend the version of Cream Puff War that can be heard here, some of the most wild pre-punk fury that can be found. Closer to the MC5 than say, The New Riders Of The Purple Sage:
http://archive.org/details/gd1966-11-19.fm.9730.shnf

[sntb]

Hello, and this is my first post. Good to be here. Apparently some here enjoyed a blog post I wrote about the BBs and Kinks parallel "golden era"s (best music, worst sales). Anyway...Monterey. A few thoughts:

1) I think a well-played Beach Boys set at Monterey would have been regarded similarly to The Association's set.
Nice, but not game-changing (me, I'd rather watch The Association's dorky "Association Machine" schtick than the Hendrix guitar burning.)
2) Who were the big noises at Monterey? The ones who broke stuff. The Dead were given a prime slot, but no one remembers them because they only played songs.
3) The video on You Tube of the Dead's "Viola Lee Blues" at Monterey (a poor quality outtake) ends with them all up against their amps, making pure feedback--their early love of noise isn't usually part of their legacy.
4) In the last 2 seconds of that clip, you see someone walking onstage. Who's that? PETER TORK!!
5) WHY OH WHY doesn't film exist of that awkward 2 minutes where Tork kind of tries to admonish the crowd for getting rowdy while Phil Lesh tells Tork that he's gotta chill out. I made a YouTube clip of the audio of that interlude, but I've never seen a photo or a clip.
6) The Monkees at Monterey would have kicked ass.
Ever hear I'm Not Your Stepping Stone from their summer '67 tour?
It's closer to the Velvet Underground or Syd-era Floyd. Unhinged!
7) Top 5 "wish they were there"s of Monterey:
1) Monkees 2) Kinks 3) Velvet Underground 4) Beach Boys 5) Pink Floyd

[Jason Penick]

Great post there SNTB, and welcome to the forum! I would be interested to read your essay, as though I've never considered it, the Kinks and the Beach Boys did sort of hit their respective low ebbs commercially as they were making the best music of their careers. Sad, really.

Speaking for myself, I would have liked to have seen the Doors, Love, Gabor Szabo, the Yardbirds, Phil Ochs, Captain Beefheart & the Magic Band and the Peanut Butter Conspiracy appear at Monterey the most. Unlike most here, I don't think a Lei'd in Hawaii styled, stripped-down Beach Boys set would have gone over particularly well with the crowd there. Most of the artists present came with a high energy set, and those that didn't (thinking Laura Nyro here) did not go over well, and from the clips I've seen, Laura was brilliant. It just wasn't that sort of a scene.

However, a striped shirt hits extravaganza along the lines of what they had just finished touring over in England probably would have wooed the crowd, who seemingly had no problems accepting the slicker acts such as the Association or Lou Rawls. This would change by the time of Woodstock, but in 1967 such a thing was still quite acceptable to all but the most hardened SF scenester.

The Monkees at the time would have been crucified by the press, regardless of how good their live show was. Tork and Dolenz caught so much undeserved flack simply for showing up. It seems stupid that at the time the supposed "love crowd" couldn't open their hearts to such a great group of guys who were just eager to please, but I can understand these people were weary of the hype machine. The Monkees were being shoved down everyone's throats by NBC, and the fact that the relatively weak More of the Monkees was the biggest selling rock LP of all time, indicates that the average American rock fan had something of a legitimate reason to hate the group. The real tragedy is that more people didn't grasp the innate greatness of Headquarters and PAC&J, Ltd.-- two albums that have more than stood the test of time, while many of their psychedelic contemporaries have fallen by the wayside.

It's bullshit that the public couldn't accept the wonderful pop music of the Beach Boys, the Mamas & Papas, the Monkees or the Association in conjunction with the harder rock sounds of the Dead, the Who and Hendrix. But tastes back then were ephemeral, and the strong reaction against "hype", and a failure to buy into the American corporate way led towards a dividing line of Us vs. Them, and too many of these brilliant pop groups got caught on the wrong side of the zeitgeist. Worse, AM radio's abandonment of said artists (who didn't ever stand a chance on the FM side of the dial) caused massive problems for these bands. Thankfully, their recordings still exist and can be enjoyed today.

Could you link us to the Dead/ Tork clip you referred to in your post? Thanks.

[Cam Mott]

I agree, an appearance at Monterey wouldn't have been a game changer or had much effect at all on the career for an established act like the Boys just as it was not a game changer for the established acts that did appear. Breaking acts got their game changed, if anybody.

[sntb]

Oh man, I'm sorry--I got lost in other things and forgot to reply.

1) Gabor Szabo? I need to see what he's all about.
2) Here's the video I created to accompany Tork interrupting the Dead's Monterey set:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKc6bpIRUAo
3) and here's the Dead doing Viola Lee Blues--literally at the last 2 seconds you can see Tork walking out on stage--I wish a better quality version of this would surface...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W58nWaU2Xo

thanks, and I'll try to keep on top of stuff from now on....

[guitarfool2002]

Thanks for posting that Tork audio, I thought I had not heard it before but after listening I remembered someone, somewhere had that (probably a Monkees site).

The one part which I think got lost in the posting was I believe Tork was asked to make that announcement by "official" channels because the organizers and security were worried people would get hurt or collapse a fence, or something similar. So it's not like Tork randomly pulled an ego-fueled Abbie Hoffman at Woodstock and interrupted the music on his own terms, I *believe* he was asked to do that to avoid a bigger problem but any clarification is of course welcome!

I wanted to mention the Kinks in all of this as well: I've been reading "X Ray", Ray Davies' bio, and specifically around these years I got the impression The Kinks in general were being shunned if not treated poorly out of spite by American acts and surrounding interests beyond the dust-up they had with the union who "blackballed" the band. That book suggests they were viewed as more young English interlopers or carpetbaggers who threatened American acts for the sheer fact they were British and selling records in large numbers.

Among these bands shunning them, according to Ray, was the Beach Boys, whom the Kinks were fans of as most bands of the mid 60's were it seems. I wish he had gone into more detail, but he describes being treated coldly if not outwardly hostile by Mike Love (and perhaps Dennis too, I'll have to re-read that section) when the Kinks met up with the Beach Boys in person.

It's odd that The Who, being also a young English band, seemed to escape this kind of hostility at least on the surface, yet The Kinks felt like they were getting the cold shoulder when they were in America. I have to wonder if the union problem filtered down to the actual band members like The Beach Boys getting word that these lads were no good?

I just think that adds more weight against the Kinks ever performing at Monterey, even hypothetically, because it seems they didn't have the support of their fellow musicians.

And I'll agree to disagree on the Monkees - the bloated San Francisco scene aside, these guys may have had a backlash from all the hype but at the same time I think among a core group of those we'd now consider "hip" musicians in LA in 66-67, they were friends and part of the scene itself, and I believe whatever backlash there would have been at Monterey was probably fueled by the San Francisco hipper-than-thou journalists and musicians who had an axe to grind that went beyond The Monkees.

[Heysaboda]

Just caught this quote from Stephen W. Desper over on the Hoffman forum. Pretty shocking that this hasn't been brought up yet over here. (Unless it has, in which case mods feel free to delete of course.)

As you may know The Beach Boys were suppose to perform at MPF, but at the last minute pulled out because Mike Love did not wish to be associated with Coke, one of the sponsers of this event. At the time he was into health foods in a big way and did not wish the group to be a part of MPF for that reason.

So the Beach Boys pulled out of the festival not over concerns related to their set list or Brian's psychological well being, but... Coke?

Its on page 153 of The Beach Boys FAQ book published 2011.

A book NO ONE should be without!  No one!

[SMiLE-addict]

I was just thinking about this today.

I was thinking they might have done something which met with praise from the crowd if they did a sort-of "Baroque Pop" set. So they arrive at the festival, and the only instrument they bring is a harpsichord. They do Wonderful, WIBN, IJWMFTT, Caroline No, You Still Believe in Me, and maybe Fun Fun Fun. Also it would be near to write a new, long song just for the festival, with super-duper hairy harmonies that the crowed could really get into.

And then, for the finale, the entire Wrecking Crew arrives onstage and they do an extended version of Surf's Up (presuming they completed it first). Or maybe Cabin Essence.

[Lonelysea30]

Damm Smile addict,.... sounds pretty good!

[Peter Reum]

What  no one has mentioned is that The Beach Boys (without Dennis) DID play the 1970 Monterey Festival, and were warmly received. I have the show on cd, and they were very well received, not only by the audience, but also by the other artists.

[Cabinessenceking]

What  no one has mentioned is that The Beach Boys (without Dennis) DID play the 1970 Monterey Festival, and were warmly received. I have the show on cd, and they were very well received, not only by the audience, but also by the other artists.

How good is the quality of that?

[Steve Mayo]

the beginning of the revival....

[Jon Stebbins]

What  no one has mentioned is that The Beach Boys (without Dennis) DID play the 1970 Monterey Festival, and were warmly received. I have the show on cd, and they were very well received, not only by the audience, but also by the other artists.

I don't think its a contextually relevant comparison between the Monterey Pop Festival 1967 and the Big Sur Folk Festival at Monterey 1970. They were entirely different scenes. The former was in essence a cutting edge rock festival with numerous "hard rock" acts on the bill, while the latter was a "folk" festival with no hard rock at all. That said, it did garner the Beach Boys some positive cred and press with the softer end of the counter culture.

Saturday, October 3, 1970: “Celebration: A Day of Music,” Big Sur Folk Festival, Monterey
Fairgrounds, Monterey, CA, with Kris Kristofferson, Joan Baez, Mimi Farina, John Phillips, John
Hartford, Country Joe McDonald, Mark Spoelestra, Linda Ronstadt, The Beach Boys and Merry Clayton (Two
shows)

[Peter Reum]

That is exactly my point....if the '67  was a "hard rock" festival, the BBs were a lousy fit on that bill. They bailed for a number of reasons, but the one that has always made sense to me was that they did not fit with that bill. They were still wearing the Kingston Trio shirts then. By 1970, even though they were on the ropes in terms of record sales, Monterey began to build them the respect that they needed from Northern California hipsters, who were the arbiters of underground music taste back then. They had a great review of Sunflower the previous month, and got some good alternative press notices because they met the San Franciscans "halfway in Monterey." They did it again Holland, and Rolling Stone named it one of the year's best albums in their 1973 year end music review.

[SMiLE-addict]

If The Association could fit well into the '67 festival and be well-received, I see no reason why the BB's could not also.

[SenorPotatoHead]

I can totally see the Beach Boys being welcomed and received well at the festival, maybe even in the striped shirts.  The attendees were, by and large I would propose, at the festival to have fun.   The Beach Boys are fun (fun, fun), or certainly were; corny fun perhaps, but fun nonetheless, so why not?  However, handled correctly they also could have used the opportunity to perhaps surprise the audience (in a good way) and take a giant step outside their "image" and present a newer one in its place - still with many of the old attributes (even the Beatles were still the Beatles no matter how much they changed over the course of their career), but with alterations akin to the times and changes happening both outside of and within the band itself.    I think they could have done this even with it being Smiley Smile instead of Smile as the r most recent record.   I honestly think such a move could have (at the very least) gone down well.  
But darn that Coke, they messed everything up!    
Why must "Beach Boys" always mean surfin' and cars, beach bunnies and clambakes?   Because that's what the long term marketing push has been.  But could they not have molded a new perception of the band?  They almost did in the 70's, but had they all united and committed to a decision to broaden their horizons back in 66/67 (recognizing that things - the music - had already changed) - could they not have pulled it off earlier and much more successfully than their "almost but not quite" 70's attempt?   A beach is way more than surfin' and chicks (both lovely things mind you) - it's symbolic and metaphoric and euphoric and alas poor Yorick....a beach is a place where a man can feel he's the only soul in the world that's real.     That's a lovely line, not a Beach Boys line, but lovely nonetheless.  Because it's true.  A beach is a place where you look out into that giant swelling body of water.  You become entranced, hypnotized, awe struck and overwhelmed by the eternalness of it all.  It emboldens you even as it frightens you, enlarges your vision even as it makes you feel small...a cork on the ocean, rock in a landslide, leaf on a windy day......(also very lovely lines).  
So I don't know, perhaps, maybe not.  Playing my own devils advocate I'd present the case of, funny enough, Coke!   They stuck with the same recipe to great success for umpteen-however many years, then changed it and it caused a mighty backlash.....so, maybe playin' it safe really is the way to go.  

EDIT:  and yes, I do perhaps over use the word lovely as a descriptive term.....

[SMiLE-addict]

^
Y'know I've often thought similar things. I don't see why they couldn't still have done some beach and/or surfing songs once in a while - just make them highly sophisticated beach or surf songs.

For example, I could imagine a song about a surfer riding the waves, and he's way far out, and suddenly the wind and waves pick up and he's not ready, and he's not a super-expert surfer, so he's trying desperately to get back to shore before it gets worse, and the seagulls overhead are "laughing" at him, and the beach is empty so there's no one to rescue him, so he has to rely on himself, and he's afraid he's not going to make it. And once he gets wiped out by a big wave and thinks, for a moment, that he's going to drown, but he doesn't, and finally he just barely makes it back to shore which gets him thinking about the special-ness of life. But the whole song is metaphorical, and now and then some lyrics are inserted into the song telling the listener the song is *really* about something else.

Stuff like that.

Off-topic, sorry.

[Cam Mott]

I still say the Boys got invited because they were who they were and did what they did. If they had appeared they would have been as warmly received as anyone on the bill just performing and wearing and doing what got them invited.