Was David Marks an Founding Member of the Beach Boys?

[Jonathan Blum]

He still wasn't fucking in The Beach Boys on their first record or their first appearances! Therefore, not an original. We get it, you wrote about him and you think he's a great guy. I've never met him, but he sure seems like a freakin' awesome dude. But he was not in the original group. But he was on their first album and the group's first really big hits. John McVie was part of the original Fleetwood Mac. Bob Brunning was the original bassist for the first show and I think a few recordings. However, you don't see any biographers wetting their pants trying to say McVie was an original member. Cuz it don't matter. He's been on nearly every important recording by the group, and who gives a sh*t if he is original.

Me, I don't see any biographers wetting their pants trying to say McVie *wasn't* an original member.

Do the words "close enough" ring any bells here, folks?

Cheers,
Jon Blum

[pixletwin]

Has there always been a poll attached to this thread? Well I just voted: "Sort of". That pretty much sums up the whole discussion to me. 

[SMiLE Brian]

Same here, this topic makes my head hurt!

[drbeachboy]

I just voted too, but voted Yes. If The Beach Boys say he is a Founding Member, then he is a Founding Member.

[Phoenix]

He still wasn't fucking in The Beach Boys on their first record or their first appearances! Therefore, not an original. We get it, you wrote about him and you think he's a great guy. I've never met him, but he sure seems like a freakin' awesome dude. But he was not in the original group. But he was on their first album and the group's first really big hits. John McVie was part of the original Fleetwood Mac. Bob Brunning was the original bassist for the first show and I think a few recordings. However, you don't see any biographers wetting their pants trying to say McVie was an original member. Cuz it don't matter. He's been on nearly every important recording by the group, and who gives a sh*t if he is original.

Me, I don't see any biographers wetting their pants trying to say McVie *wasn't* an original member.

Do the words "close enough" ring any bells here, folks?

Cheers,
Jon Blum

Touche'   

[Mike's Beard]

I'd say this is one of the silliest discussions ever on this board, even outside the minor insults. I say, Dave deserves to be regarded as an original and/or founding member, regardless of any detail in the timeline. I am not interested in any I'm right - you're wrong discussions.

Also, I'd like to see a quote by Brian or anyone else in the band that originally they specifically didn't want Dave in the band. I think the reason he didn't feature in the first incarnations of the band was that he was very young AND not family. Al was older, Carl and Dennis were family.

A post which manages to state that David deserves to be regarded as an original member and then a paragraph down mentions that he didn't feature in the first incarnation of the band. You're right Micha, this is one of the silliest discussions on this board ever. 

[Bicyclerider]

I vote for original member - yes.  When they signed their first recording contract with Capitol, Dave was signed as part of the group.  He was on their first album.

Founding member no, Alan was a founding member but got cold feet and bailed.  He was lucky Brian hated touring so much that he needed him to sub for him on the road so he could sleaze his way back into the group!

[shelter]

I'll take another shot at explaining why I think that David Marks was not an original member.

Were The Beach Boys originally going to have three guitarists? No.
Was Brian originally going to be a singer without an instrument on stage, or play keys throughout the entire set? Seems unlikely to me.
So could Al, David and Brian have been in the original live band at the same time? I guess not.
Between Al and David, who was Brian's first choice? Obviously Al.

So there was simply no room for David in the original line-up.

[Mikie]

I vote for original member - yes.  When they signed their first recording contract with Capitol, Dave was signed as part of the group.  He was on their first album.

Founding member no, Alan was a founding member but got cold feet and bailed.  He was lucky Brian hated touring so much that he needed him to sub for him on the road so he could sleaze his way back into the group!

It worked out for both Brian and Al. Remember Brian still toured with the group for a little over a year after Al came back in October, 1963. Dave continued to record with them a little bit into 1964. And Al was still recording with them in '63 even when Dave was still in the band and the two of them toured while Brian stayed home to write and produce Beach Boys records and other artists. So Al didn't free Brian up from touring 100% (especially since Dave left) but Brian still needed Al as a vocalist for the harmony blend on the records and on the road because Dave wasn't singing that much anyway.

And do we know for a fact that David wasn't on any of the demo tracks that Murry submitted to Capitol? Surfin' Safari/409/Lonely Sea/Shut Down/Their Hearts Were Full Of Spring, April 1962?  Just wondrin'.

If Dave had stayed in the band for another year, there's a good chance Brian wouldn't have been against the wall like he was and maybe wouldn't have had a breakdown in late '64.

I voted yes, by the way.

[Micha]

I'd say this is one of the silliest discussions ever on this board, even outside the minor insults. I say, Dave deserves to be regarded as an original and/or founding member, regardless of any detail in the timeline. I am not interested in any I'm right - you're wrong discussions.

Also, I'd like to see a quote by Brian or anyone else in the band that originally they specifically didn't want Dave in the band. I think the reason he didn't feature in the first incarnations of the band was that he was very young AND not family. Al was older, Carl and Dennis were family.

A post which manages to state that David deserves to be regarded as an original member and then a paragraph down mentions that he didn't feature in the first incarnation of the band. You're right Micha, this is one of the silliest discussions on this board ever. 

Did you really not get what I mean? This is another post I think is spot on:

Dave was a founding father in the evolution of the band - same with Al, but in a different way. Simple, surely?

[Mike's Beard]

Funny thing is, this thread has dragged on page after page when the answer was summed up perfectly after about the fifth post.

Here's the thing...

He played and sang with the Wilsons before the Beach Boys existed. As someone actually CALLED a Beach Boy, he was not an original.

[TimmyC]

I think the Wilsons, Mike, Al, and Dave are the 6 "original" members.

But only the wilsons and mike could be called the "founding" members. (although I really don't think this matters one way or other).

And I'd say the "classic" lineup is the Wilsons, Mike, Al and Bruce.

[Mikie]

So I see a few here are still differentiating "Founding" and "original" members. So in your own words (disregarding how it's defined in dictionaries on the Internet) please tell us the difference between the two!

[drbeachboy]

So I see a few here are still differentiating "Founding" and "original" members. So in your own words (disregarding how it's defined in dictionaries on the Internet) please tell us the difference between the two!

Someone will make something up to their liking, to be sure.

[Mikie]

So I see a few here are still differentiating "Founding" and "original" members. So in your own words (disregarding how it's defined in dictionaries on the Internet) please tell us the difference between the two!

Someone will make something up to their liking, to be sure.

Exactly. With no facts or other substantiation. Just to have something to argue about, I guess. Nothing else in the world to do at the moment. If it smacked 'em square in the face they would still argue no about it. Doc, you can't tell someone something that they don't want to hear.

[TimmyC]

So I see a few here are still differentiating "Founding" and "original" members. So in your own words (disregarding how it's defined in dictionaries on the Internet) please tell us the difference between the two!

Someone will make something up to their liking, to be sure.

Exactly. With no facts or other substantiation. Just to have something to argue about, I guess. Nothing else in the world to do at the moment. If it smacked 'em square in the face they would still argue no about it. Doc, you can't tell someone something that they don't want to hear.

Jeez. Sorry. I was definitely not arguing, just giving an opinion. I think you can make a distinction but it's not important especially if you're going to get angry about it.

[Rocky Raccoon]

He still wasn't fucking in The Beach Boys on their first record or their first appearances! Therefore, not an original. We get it, you wrote about him and you think he's a great guy. I've never met him, but he sure seems like a freakin' awesome dude. But he was not in the original group. But he was on their first album and the group's first really big hits. John McVie was part of the original Fleetwood Mac. Bob Brunning was the original bassist for the first show and I think a few recordings. However, you don't see any biographers wetting their pants trying to say McVie was an original member. Cuz it don't matter. He's been on nearly every important recording by the group, and who gives a sh*t if he is original.

Me, I don't see any biographers wetting their pants trying to say McVie *wasn't* an original member.

Do the words "close enough" ring any bells here, folks?

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I would certainly count McVie as original whether he was on the first recording or not.  The band is called Fleetwood Mac.  He is Mac.  But I'm getting off-topic here.

[Mikie]

So I see a few here are still differentiating "Founding" and "original" members. So in your own words (disregarding how it's defined in dictionaries on the Internet) please tell us the difference between the two!

Someone will make something up to their liking, to be sure.

Exactly. With no facts or other substantiation. Just to have something to argue about, I guess. Nothing else in the world to do at the moment. If it smacked 'em square in the face they would still argue no about it. Doc, you can't tell someone something that they don't want to hear.

Jeez. Sorry. I was definitely not arguing, just giving an opinion. I think you can make a distinction but it's not important especially if you're going to get angry about it.

I'm not angry at all! Sorry I came off that way. No, there's no reason at all to get mad about this topic. I don't think it's really controversial, and it's no skin off my butt what people's opinion is here. I see the "Yes" crowd is leading in the poll and that's fine. If it weren't, that's fine too! Nothing changes over the outcome.

[Jon Stebbins]

And do we know for a fact that David wasn't on any of the demo tracks that Murry submitted to Capitol? Surfin' Safari/409/Lonely Sea/Shut Down/Their Hearts Were Full Of Spring, April 1962?  Just wondrin'.

Dave joined in Feb. '62 according to some of the legal paperwork that is on file in the boys archive, it's hard to confirm a BB's gig that he played until March, but its a good possibility his first gig was actually in late Feb, hence the date on the filed paperwork. And it's been very clearly established that he played on the demos that were recorded at Western in April '62 and that got them signed to Capitol. That lineup was Brian, Dennis, Carl, Mike and David. The songs they recorded are the ones you listed above, and the same "demos" of Surfin Safari and 409 were the versions released as the Capitol hit single that June. Dave wasn't on any of the Hite Morgan stuff, but he's definitely on the first recordings they made at Western...also on the Gary Usher demos recorded around the same time.

[TimmyC]

So I see a few here are still differentiating "Founding" and "original" members. So in your own words (disregarding how it's defined in dictionaries on the Internet) please tell us the difference between the two!

Someone will make something up to their liking, to be sure.

Exactly. With no facts or other substantiation. Just to have something to argue about, I guess. Nothing else in the world to do at the moment. If it smacked 'em square in the face they would still argue no about it. Doc, you can't tell someone something that they don't want to hear.

Jeez. Sorry. I was definitely not arguing, just giving an opinion. I think you can make a distinction but it's not important especially if you're going to get angry about it.

I'm not angry at all! Sorry I came off that way. No, there's no reason at all to get mad about this topic. I don't think it's really controversial, and it's no skin off my butt what people's opinion is here. I see the "Yes" crowd is leading in the poll and that's fine. If it weren't, that's fine too! Nothing changes over the outcome.

haha - yes, there is plenty of other stuff to get worked up over in BB world!!

[monicker]

So I see a few here are still differentiating "Founding" and "original" members. So in your own words (disregarding how it's defined in dictionaries on the Internet) please tell us the difference between the two!

Someone will make something up to their liking, to be sure.

Exactly. With no facts or other substantiation. Just to have something to argue about, I guess. Nothing else in the world to do at the moment. If it smacked 'em square in the face they would still argue no about it. Doc, you can't tell someone something that they don't want to hear.

Surely you must realize that you're doing the exact same thing you're complaining about others doing.

[Mikie]

Nope. Didn't realize that, Monikers. I ain't mad at nobody. No reason to be. Everybody has their opinions. Board would be boring if everybody agreed. I didn't argue - I just encouraged members of the board to differentiate between "Original" and "Founding Member".

I know you've very sensitive, Monicker. I'll try to be even more diplomatic and nicer than I already am when posting to make you happy.

[shelter]

Dave joined in Feb. '62

Doesn't the fact that he joined automatically mean that he wasn't a founding member?

[Rocky Raccoon]

Dave joined in Feb. '62

Doesn't the fact that he joined automatically mean that he wasn't a founding member?

Everybody has to join at some point.  It's not like the other five guys were magically in the band at the same time.

[TimmyC]

Dave joined in Feb. '62

Doesn't the fact that he joined automatically mean that he wasn't a founding member?

Everybody has to join at some point.  It's not like the other five guys were magically in the band at the same time.

Yeah, but wasn't it really Brian, Dennis, Carl and Mike who decided to form a band and Al and Dave joined after that decision was already made?