How were the Beach Boys recieved in the late 60s/70s?

[clack]

Take a look at a chart of the top singles of 1969 : the Archies, the Cowsills, the Fifth Dimension, Bobby Sherman, Tom Jones, Oliver, the Ventures -- even the Lettermen had a huge hit.

To repeat, the Beach Boys' problem was not that they were too unhip for top 40 radio.

[GhostyTMRS]

Take a look at a chart of the top singles of 1969 : the Archies, the Cowsills, the Fifth Dimension, Bobby Sherman, Tom Jones, Oliver, the Ventures -- even the Lettermen had a huge hit.

To repeat, the Beach Boys' problem was not that they were too unhip for top 40 radio.

Yeah, but if you want to be part of the hip rock scene in 1969 (and The Beach Boys did) that is NOT the crowd you want to be part of. In hindsight it's all great music, and much better than the "serious" stuff on FM at the time that now seems naive and juvenile in comparison, but we're talking perceptions in 1969...

[the captain]

Take a look at a chart of the top singles of 1969 : the Archies, the Cowsills, the Fifth Dimension, Bobby Sherman, Tom Jones, Oliver, the Ventures -- even the Lettermen had a huge hit.

To repeat, the Beach Boys' problem was not that they were too unhip for top 40 radio.

Yeah, but if you want to be part of the hip rock scene in 1969 (and The Beach Boys did) that is NOT the crowd you want to be part of. In hindsight it's all great music, and much better than the "serious" stuff on FM at the time that now seems naive and juvenile in comparison, but we're talking perceptions in 1969...

That's exactly right: chart-toppers and hipness are by no means synonymous, and are probably closer to antonymous. (I don't mean to value one over the other, just to note they're entirely different things.)

[clack]

Take a look at a chart of the top singles of 1969 : the Archies, the Cowsills, the Fifth Dimension, Bobby Sherman, Tom Jones, Oliver, the Ventures -- even the Lettermen had a huge hit.

To repeat, the Beach Boys' problem was not that they were too unhip for top 40 radio.

Yeah, but if you want to be part of the hip rock scene in 1969 (and The Beach Boys did) that is NOT the crowd you want to be part of. In hindsight it's all great music, and much better than the "serious" stuff on FM at the time that now seems naive and juvenile in comparison, but we're talking perceptions in 1969...

That's exactly right: chart-toppers and hipness are by no means synonymous, and are probably closer to antonymous. (I don't mean to value one over the other, just to note they're entirely different things.)

Ok ,then, but what are we discussing? The Beach Boys were dropped by AM top 40 radio for reasons unclear, arguably as early as 1968 with the underperformance of 'Do It Again' -- a subsequent classic and potential no.1 that only went to no. 20 nationally. AM radio cared nothing about the hipness of the acts that they played.

FM rock radio, on the other hand, did care about hipness or relevancy. And it was FM radio that played the Beach Boys when top 40 radio would not. So, hipness was not a problem for the band, except in their wilderness years (1968-1970).

[the captain]

Take a look at a chart of the top singles of 1969 : the Archies, the Cowsills, the Fifth Dimension, Bobby Sherman, Tom Jones, Oliver, the Ventures -- even the Lettermen had a huge hit.

To repeat, the Beach Boys' problem was not that they were too unhip for top 40 radio.

Yeah, but if you want to be part of the hip rock scene in 1969 (and The Beach Boys did) that is NOT the crowd you want to be part of. In hindsight it's all great music, and much better than the "serious" stuff on FM at the time that now seems naive and juvenile in comparison, but we're talking perceptions in 1969...

That's exactly right: chart-toppers and hipness are by no means synonymous, and are probably closer to antonymous. (I don't mean to value one over the other, just to note they're entirely different things.)

Ok ,then, but what are we discussing? The Beach Boys were dropped by AM top 40 radio for reasons unclear, arguably as early as 1968 with the underperformance of 'Do It Again' -- a subsequent classic and potential no.1 that only went to no. 20 nationally. AM radio cared nothing about the hipness of the acts that they played.

FM rock radio, on the other hand, did care about hipness or relevancy. And it was FM radio that played the Beach Boys when top 40 radio would not. So, hipness was not a problem for the band, except in their wilderness years (1968-1970).

I have no idea.  I was just commenting on the truth of that last post.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Take a look at a chart of the top singles of 1969 : the Archies, the Cowsills, the Fifth Dimension, Bobby Sherman, Tom Jones, Oliver, the Ventures -- even the Lettermen had a huge hit.

To repeat, the Beach Boys' problem was not that they were too unhip for top 40 radio.

Yeah, but if you want to be part of the hip rock scene in 1969 (and The Beach Boys did) that is NOT the crowd you want to be part of. In hindsight it's all great music, and much better than the "serious" stuff on FM at the time that now seems naive and juvenile in comparison, but we're talking perceptions in 1969...

That's exactly right: chart-toppers and hipness are by no means synonymous, and are probably closer to antonymous. (I don't mean to value one over the other, just to note they're entirely different things.)

Ok ,then, but what are we discussing? The Beach Boys were dropped by AM top 40 radio for reasons unclear, arguably as early as 1968 with the underperformance of 'Do It Again' -- a subsequent classic and potential no.1 that only went to no. 20 nationally. AM radio cared nothing about the hipness of the acts that they played.

FM rock radio, on the other hand, did care about hipness or relevancy. And it was FM radio that played the Beach Boys when top 40 radio would not. So, hipness was not a problem for the band, except in their wilderness years (1968-1970).

Yeah - it seems that if the music that the Beach Boys were making in the late 60s/early 70s was going to catch one with anyone, it would be a "hip crowd" but the problem was was that the hip crowd largely (though, I guess, not entirely) wrote the Beach Boys off because of the overall perception of the band, which was a lightweight novelty act. I think they probably caught on a little with albums like Surf's Up, but ultimately not enough to put them in the top 10 again.

[sockittome]

I think it's a fairly easy answer.  They missed the boat on the whole "summer of love" scene in '67, and then by the time '68 and '69 rolled around, their music was too sophisticated to fit in with the AM bubblegum trend.  In other words, they were in a commercial no man's land.

[clack]

I think it's a fairly easy answer.  They missed the boat on the whole "summer of love" scene in '67, and then by the time '68 and '69 rolled around, their music was too sophisticated to fit in with the AM bubblegum trend.  In other words, they were in a commercial no man's land.

So, 'Breakaway' was too sophisticated, but big hit singles by the Stones, Creedence, and Sly and the Family Stone were bubblegum? That doesn't make sense.

My speculation :

1) The Maharishi tour bombs, word spreads through the music industry that the Beach Boys are washed up. In consequence, their new singles are not added to radio playlists.

2) Meanwhile, the legend of SMiLE grows among music hipsters. The band releases 'Surfs Up', containing the most legendary of the lost cuts, along with several FM-friendly numbers. The lp makes a splash in the music press, and it gets played on FM progressive rock radio.

3) CATP and 'Holland' also get decent FM play, and the band establishes itself as a middle-of-the-bill progressive rock act.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

I'm only 37, so it's hard for me to understand the mind set of people back then. But I think one major flaw on a commercial level is that from Party to Holland, there wasn't a steady progression of a certain style of music. That doesn't bother me, but the masses have a hard time figuring them out.  I agree that around the world it was easier because they didn't have that surf/garage band label.  Pet Sounds was a bit of a departure, but it was still respected.  If they had released Smile and continued in that progression,  I think they could have won over the hip crowd,  also ditching the matching suits sooner would have helped.  Smiley Smile was extremely artsy, but I see how it could have a hard time finding an audience.  It wouldn't surprise me if many of you are like me in that SS, WH and Friends took me a while to get. It sounds corny at first listen, yet also nothing like what the core BB audience liked. Over time,  I have come to love these albums.  The music listening experience of these has nothing the do with hit singles, or being hip. It is not of the times,  but timeless.  

I also think the Beach Boys were recpected by the hip audience twice in their careers.  In both cases,  they blew it. First was following Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations.  But when Smile was ditched and they waited too long to release the follow up single,  which was watered down from the original,  and continued to wear striped shirts in 67, they blew it. The second time was in 71. This short period preceding Endless Summer,  they got respect from the underground and Rolling Stone especially with Surfs Up and Holland.  But with the oldies selling so well in 74, I'm not sure it would've been possible to continue that direction.  But the guys that wanted to keep moving forward artistically into the late 70s weren't organized because of drug issues.  

So Jack Reiley made a point about the image being their own fault to a large degree.

[guitarfool2002]

Magic Transistor Radio has some good points there. For one, it's up for debate of course, but the image of the band that was touring behind the #1 single Good Vibrations did not match either the music itself or the scene from which it originated. This scene was ahead of the curve by at least half a year or even a year. The things going on in LA in 1966 were ahead of the more widespread recognition and attempted labeling of it which was to center around the so-called "summer of love", which naturally wasn't even called that in 1967. There were festivals in LA before Monterey like the Human Be-In, like the Fantasy Fair - templates for what would soon explode. There were kids on the Strip protesting and rallying around something as basic as a curfew, which led to Pandora's Box and the so-called "Riots On Sunset Strip".

Hell, The Monkees even wrote and released several songs with references to it, and millions of fans at the time probably had no idea. Nesmith's "Daily Nightly" was directly addressing the mass media's total ignorance on what was happening and why it was happening.

I'll argue and defend any day the notion that Brian Wilson either by default or by the kind of music and scene he was making and involved in was a major part. Name several LA bands - Love, Byrds, Doors...what they were doing in LA had a far bigger effect than some would even know because many of those activities and records never "hit" outside of LA, yet kids would line up around the block to see Love. Arthur Lee and the band were celebrities around LA, it eventually went to their heads too much, yet if they walked around Chicago or any other major city I doubt they'd be recognized. David Crosby was like the young mayor of Los Angeles in some circles, he knew everyone. The Doors, once they stopped chasing Love's shadow, were the same. Major live act, terrific debut album, and freakin' Jose Feliciano outsold them with their own song.

Then there is Brian Wilson - nothing but respect from those peers, nothing but respect from the music business peers. To the point where Pet Sounds could have sold less than it did, but those in the know *knew* what was happening. Good Vibrations - he crystalized in that one record a scene which had been bubbling under the mainstream radar for at least a year, the fact it was a number one was like opening a door to what was happening in LA, on the Strip, etc...

Then look what followed.

Basically, I agree. The group for a variety of reasons simple blew it, and squandered it. Good Vibrations was massive, it crossed over between the underground who knew, and the kids who liked a groovy record with a killer sound and hook.

Then you get the scene of Dennis Wilson, in the middle of all this, returning from a tour and confessing almost in tears how bad it was to have been taking heat for the striped shirts and the overall look. Doesn't that also illustrate a part of why all this was happening? Dennis Wilson near tears over being heckled or mocked or whatever it was over the outfits they were wearing.

And the fact that there was never a mind-blowing follow-up to Good Vibrations was devastating, but as Brian himself has said, how could anyone top that?

Whew...

[GhostyTMRS]

This is probably blasphemous but I think if the group had released a rocking version of "Heroes & Villains" like the way they performed it live in 72-73, I could imagine that track taking off in a big way. I'm always reminded of the story Bruce told about going out to a club and the DJ putting on "Heroes & Villains" and the crowd getting all excited and running to the dance floor. When the track slowed down immediately, they all left. He said "That's when I knew we blew it with that record".

Again, I love the 45 version of "Heroes & Villains" but the live version maintains the artistic integrity but adds a solid backbeat to it that I can't help but think might've made it more commercially successful.

[guitarfool2002]

This is probably blasphemous but I think if the group had released a rocking version of "Heroes & Villains" like the way they performed it live in 72-73, I could imagine that track taking off in a big way. I'm always reminded of the story Bruce told about going out to a club and the DJ putting on "Heroes & Villains" and the crowd getting all excited and running to the dance floor. When the track slowed down immediately, they all left. He said "That's when I knew we blew it with that record".

Again, I love the 45 version of "Heroes & Villains" but the live version maintains the artistic integrity but adds a solid backbeat to it that I can't help but think might've made it more commercially successful.

I felt the same way, when I first saw one of the live clips, may have been the early 70's Central Park when they did Heroes, the beat was simply rockin' and the crowd was jumping up and down. It had that *groove* when they did it live that way, and Good Vibrations also slowed down but underneath it still had the same pulse, and you could keep moving to the same pulse and beat, basically even though it slowed down. Genius.

But the 45rpm Heroes, as cool as it was, it did in fact lose the dancers. And a lot of folks still wanted to dance to the Beach Boys, even though the cool-hip listeners were getting off on FM playing 20 minutes straight of Ravi or Quicksilver. 

[tpesky]

I agree about H and V. But that's not the only time the BB should have released a more live sounding version. The studio versions in the late 60s--70s -early 80s lacked something, like they were timid. I think Marcella, Sail on Sailor, and KTSA to name a few would have been more well received had they sounded like the live versions.

[Jason Penick]

Take a look at a chart of the top singles of 1969 : the Archies, the Cowsills, the Fifth Dimension, Bobby Sherman, Tom Jones, Oliver, the Ventures -- even the Lettermen had a huge hit.

To repeat, the Beach Boys' problem was not that they were too unhip for top 40 radio.

I might argue that several of the artists you mentioned-- Fifth Dimension, Tom Jones, Oliver, Lettermen -- were traditional MOR/ Adult Contemporary acts that scored hits that were so big that they crossed over to the pop charts. The Beach Boys, due to their surfer/ rock 'n' roll image, never were MOR staples, even though in retrospect some of their late 60s/early 70s music might have fit pretty well on those stations.

Likewise, stuff like the Archies and Bobby Sherman were part of a new wave of music geared at pre-teens. The 10-12 year olds who powered that scene coveted new acts that were geared more directly at their demographic. The shelf life of teen idol and bubblegum pop acts had always been minute, and trend conscious youngsters only had time for the latest fad.

So essentially the Beach Boys by 1968 were not popular with teens, pre-teens or adults, likely because their music was neither heavy rock, bubblegum nor particularly suitable for old fogies. They just sort of slipped between the established genres.

Also, rock 'n' roll artists having a shelf life of more than a handful of years was practically unheard of prior to the Beatles and Stones. None of the Beach Boys' forebearers or peers (Chuck Berry, Jan and Dean, Little Richard, Fats Domino, you name it) were able to maintain on the charts during this period except for the mighty Elvis, and even he had his troubles. Even the Byrds, as great as they were, were unable to keep their commercial momentum going more than a year or two.

[Cyncie]

We constantly lament the fact that The Beach Boys didn't stay relevant and became "unhip", but I think we lose sight of the fact that many of the groups that were hugely popular in the early 60's were victims of the British Invasion and weren't even around by the time Brian produced Pet Sounds. They became old news a lot more quickly than the 'Boys. The Beach Boys not only weathered that storm, but were one of the few groups to give The Beatles some competition on the charts. In the late 60's/early 70's they struggled to find a place in a rapidly changing music scene and, yes, the striped shirts had become passé.  But by the mid 70's it all came around full circle and  they were "hip" again, due to the nostalgia craze and Endless Summer. I believe the real breakdown occurred when they weren't able to find a way to capitalize on that resurgence in a way that allowed them to celebrate their previous successes and yet still go forward with new, creative material that would get airplay.

[clack]

Yes, it was a tremendous accomplishment to not only weather the British Invasion, but to come through it bigger than ever, even while the genre the Beach Boys created -- vocal surf and hot rod music -- died under the British onslaught. A 1967 SMiLE release and Monterrey appearance might have bought them a year or so in the hipness/relevancy sweepstakes. Maybe they could have then been viewed to be roughly as hip as Donovan, say, or the Mamas and the Papas, or Eric Burden and the Animals -- that is, marginally hip. Beatles, Stones, or Hendrix levels of hipness were never in the cards.

It was not until about 1971 that the breach between pre-1967 commercial pop and counter-culture rock began to be closed, Carole King's 'Tapestry' being an important landmark in that regard. The Beach Boys were no longer an ideological enemy.

10 years later there would be another popular music breach -- once-hip bands like the Stones and Pink Floyd became embarrassing dinosaurs for a few years, before the ideological divide closed once again.

[Cyncie]

Yes, it was a tremendous accomplishment to not only weather the British Invasion, but to come through it bigger than ever, even while the genre the Beach Boys created -- vocal surf and hot rod music -- died under the British onslaught. A 1967 SMiLE release and Monterrey appearance might have bought them a year or so in the hipness/relevancy sweepstakes. Maybe they could have then been viewed to be roughly as hip as Donovan, say, or the Mamas and the Papas, or Eric Burden and the Animals -- that is, marginally hip. Beatles, Stones, or Hendrix levels of hipness were never in the cards.

It was not until about 1971 that the breach between pre-1967 commercial pop and counter-culture rock began to be closed, Carole King's 'Tapestry' being an important landmark in that regard. The Beach Boys were no longer an ideological enemy.

10 years later there would be another popular music breach -- once-hip bands like the Stones and Pink Floyd became embarrassing dinosaurs for a few years, before the ideological divide closed once again.

Agreed. It's all cyclical. A group bursts on the scene with a new sound, and they become the next big thing. With time, a new group with a different sound comes along, and the old sound is… old. Then, a new generation discovers that first group and they become new again. The Boys did okay. They weathered the British invasion, evolved away from surf and car songs to continue making hits, influenced a new style of music, and are still bringing in large audiences of mixed ages in concerts.  They weren't political when "message music" was the driving force behind "hipness." But, years down the road, how many people are going to Country Joe and the Fish concerts to bop along to the "I Feel Like I'm Fixin' to Die Rag?"

[Magic Transistor Radio]

- once-hip bands like the Stones and Pink Floyd became embarrassing dinosaurs for a few years, before the ideological divide closed once again.

When did Pink Floyd become embarrassing?

I also want to state that there is a difference between commercial sales and hip. I think the Beach Boys were hipper and more respected in 73 than 76. Why did RnR Music hit big?  Because people weren't taking them seriously any way.  Endless Summer and Spirit of America defined them at the time.  People just wanted fun, fun, fun from them. 

[Orange Crate Art]

- once-hip bands like the Stones and Pink Floyd became embarrassing dinosaurs for a few years, before the ideological divide closed once again.

When did Pink Floyd become embarrassing?

Punk had something to do with that. Johnny Rotten used to wear an "I Hate Pink Floyd" T shirt.

[Niko]

It wasn't just Pink Floyd - any kind of prog rock was sneered at by the punk rock movement. 2 minutes was about the average time of a punk song, while it wasn't uncommon for a prog band to average 20+ minutes per song.

Floyd fared pretty well relative to other bands of the time...bands like ELP did not do so well.

[kookadams]

The BBs never became  "unhip" or less relevang, the context of musical appreciation just wasng active in the US at that time, europe and elswhere it was .then mid 70s came back in america.

[Gertie J.]

never ? 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Highly disagree. ..the band would disagree as well,

[NHC]

I never got into the whole "hip" or "unhip" thing in the 60's.  I either liked the music or I didn't.  But then I've never been who anyone would mistake for a trend-follower much less a trend-setter.

[clack]

I never got into the whole "hip" or "unhip" thing in the 60's.  I either liked the music or I didn't.  But then I've never been who anyone would mistake for a trend-follower much less a trend-setter.

In theory, there was mainstream, commercial music ( the Beach Boys ), and then there was "underground" rock (the Grateful Dead, say).

In practice, the underground bands wanted hits, and the mainstream acts wanted to be counter-culture -- see Sammy Davis in his Nehru jacket and love beads, or Mike Love's ridiculous hippie beard circa 1970. As a cultural war, it was all a bit phony.