The REAL reason certain BBs albums didnt sell in America...

[kookadams]

Why did Pet Sounds almost top the chart in the UK and barely top ten in the US? And the other albums that sold well in England but not here??? Has NOTHING to do with the music....has to do with poor marketing/promotion in the US, the fixation of vietnam and all the awful music thanks to the hippie bs...the BBs never made a weak album til after Holland..

[sockittome]

That's a very complicated subject, there.  Obviously, there's no one clear answer, but a number of reasons.  1966-1971 is my personal favorite BB's era, and in my fantasy world, those records should have been flying off the shelves.  America turned their back on the boys after they outgrew the surf 'n' cars phase.  Apparently Europe saw their music differently.

[Rocker]

I'm very unsure about this but I think I once heard that Pet Sounds sold much better than what was said in the 60s but that didn't come out until years later. If there's some truth to it maybe somebody can fill in here. I never quite understood what this was about.

[alf wiedersehen]

#10 on the charts in the US, #2 in the UK.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Like sockittome said above, there are a number of reasons. You could probably list a half a dozen good ones. Here's one: Brian Wilson had 8 lead vocals on Pet Sounds alone. In the ensuing 9 years (1967-1975), how many lead vocals did Brian have on Beach Boys' albums?

[sockittome]

#10 on the charts in the US, #2 in the UK.

This has got to be the most perplexing part of the story.  How can those figures be equated with failure, which is what many people make PS out to be sales-wise?  This is a relatively small dip from previous albums, and what band wouldn't be happy with a #10/#2 charting?

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

That's a very complicated subject, there.  Obviously, there's no one clear answer, but a number of reasons.  1966-1971 is my personal favorite BB's era, and in my fantasy world, those records should have been flying off the shelves.  America turned their back on the boys after they outgrew the surf 'n' cars phase.  Apparently Europe saw their music differently.

You are right-it's a complicated subject. My favorite era would go something like 65-72, but one part of an answer may be somewhat linked to the times and what was going down in America between late 66 up to the early to mid 70's. Nixon, Vietnam, racial tension, demonstrations, etc., Outings such as Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends, 20/20, and Sunflower, in spite of their merits(except SS) did not jive with the times. Kids were growing up, turning on, and had a wide range of "hip" music to accommodate their inner rage at the system. I cannot tell you the difficulty in being a huge fan back in those days and the hard bark one needed to shrug off the snide remarks made about your favorite band.

[kookadams]

Like sockittome said above, there are a number of reasons. You could probably list a half a dozen good ones. Here's one: Brian Wilson had 8 lead vocals on Pet Sounds alone. In the ensuing 9 years (1967-1975), how many lead vocals did Brian have on Beach Boys' albums?

true..

[Lee Marshall]

My favourite era ran from Little Deuce Coupe [which to me was the first GREAT BB's lp] to Holland.  That said I had to pause with my enthusiasm when both Party and Smiley Smile arrived.  I was usually impressed with the growth of the content in both musical and production quality and with the lyrical content.

I'd have been 14 when Pet Sounds was released.  2 of us in our ltlle pack bought it.  The rest listened to it and enjoyed it.  Who knows?  Maybe later in life they bought it too?  The marketing over 'ome/across the foam was pretty smart.  Over here it was pretty much reputation alone which sold the new allbum to existing fans.  All we knew was it was the new album and that it had Sloop John B on it.

It seems there were 3 things which hurt the group's perception with people I've spoken to about them years after the facts. (1) Those early surfin' and car tunes typecast the Beach Boys with a segment of the N. American population.  Subsequent hits didn't change that...not even Good Vibrations just 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 years later.  (2) Those dumb-ass 'outfits' they wore on stage dated the group into a laughing stock pit...so that while the initial 'In Concert' album was a HUGE seller it also presented the boys as fashion dinks. and (3) There were some people who just didn't like the nasal sound of the Mike Love leads and that turned them away.

T'was those 3 things and poor choices made which hurt the Beach Boys.  Monterey?  The huge time-frame between Good Vibrations success and the release of the next single which over half a year later turned out to be Heroes and Villains.  The even bigger gap between Pet Sounds and the Smiley Smile release.  What was that 15 months w/o a new album?  In THAT era?  Smiley Smile INSTEAD of Smile?  Smiley Smile?  Really???  After THAT long a spell of inactivity the home run was very much needed...not the bunt.

There was enough stuff to keep going and Carl and Dennis added some know-how and Jack Rielly almost turned the ship around but ultimately after Holland [and after Jack] without a fully involved and committed Brian...it was hit or miss.  The damage was done.

But the tours were GREAT.

[Ron]

The reason the albums didn't sell is the same reason they DID sell. 

There's no reason somebody should record an album, and then millions of people buy it and worship it like we all do, all the time.  It's just a few guys making music, but yet everybody in the world builds them up to messiah level and we act like it's the best stuff we've ever heard, etc. 

It's a pop culture thing, it's the definition of pop culture.  No band can get anywhere near as big as the Beach Boys got in the early 60's without a huge swath of people buying their albums, going to their shows, and listening to their songs simply because everybody else is doing it, and it's cool.  It's the thing to do in those times. 

When the pendulum swings the other way, and the times change, and other things seem more important or more cool, those same fans (who may have been TRUE fans and truly enjoyed the music) may not buy as much or attend as much, or listen as much.  It's what pop-culture is all about.  They had their time... actually they had their time, SEVERAL times.  Every band goes through this, but hardly any are as resilient as the Beach Boys were with it.

Like others said, it didn't help much that the band's management (including the band members) made some poor choices, their entire career.

It didn't happen in England as severely because they're less inclined to sway with pop culture.  America lives and dies on it. 

[sockittome]

So was the promotion of the albums different in the UK, or was it all due to the public response?

[Andrew G. Doe]

I'm very unsure about this but I think I once heard that Pet Sounds sold much better than what was said in the 60s but that didn't come out until years later. If there's some truth to it maybe somebody can fill in here. I never quite understood what this was about.

When the accounting that resulted in PS being awarded a platinum disc was being done, it was discovered that it had sold enough to go gold in the summer of 1967... but as Capitol never requested an audit, it wasn't ratified as such.

Also, not all albums that sold poorly in the US did better in the UK: in fact some that sold well in the US didn't sell AT ALL in the UK - of the seven albums released in the UK 1962-65, only one (LDC) charted at all - granted, the British album chart back then was only a Top 20, but even so...

[Rocker]

I'm very unsure about this but I think I once heard that Pet Sounds sold much better than what was said in the 60s but that didn't come out until years later. If there's some truth to it maybe somebody can fill in here. I never quite understood what this was about.

When the accounting that resulted in PS being awarded a platinum disc was being done, it was discovered that it had sold enough to go gold in the summer of 1967... but as Capitol never requested an audit, it wasn't ratified as such.

Thanks! That's what I thought about but I never can remember it exactly....
So it was a steady seller after reaching it's highest chart placing I guess?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Entered the charts May 28th at #106, dropped out February 25th - a 39 week run. During that time, it was in the Top 40 for 21 weeks and in the Top 20 for 12 weeks. One week at #10.

By comparison, the first Best Of... charted for a total of 35 weeks, of which 18 were spent in the Top 40 (non-consecutivve), 9 in the Top 20 and 6 in the Top 10.

Given that Best Of... was certified gold on April 12th 1967 (because Capitol asked for and funded an audit), a summer award for Pet Sounds is unquestionable.

[Micha]

Entered the charts May 28th at #106, dropped out February 25th - a 39 week run. During that time, it was in the Top 40 for 21 weeks and in the Top 20 for 12 weeks. One week at #10.

By comparison, the first Best Of... charted for a total of 35 weeks, of which 18 were spent in the Top 40 (non-consecutivve), 9 in the Top 20 and 6 in the Top 10.

Given that Best Of... was certified gold on April 12th 1967 (because Capitol asked for and funded an audit), a summer award for Pet Sounds is unquestionable.

Obviously they've been so certain in their opinion that Pet Sounds wouldn't sell, they didn't even bother to check how it did! Unbelievable!

the BBs never made a weak album til after Holland..

That's subject to opinion, though. There is a number of albums I find weak in that era. And I don't mean the Party album that many people loath.

[kookadams]

I'm very unsure about this but I think I once heard that Pet Sounds sold much better than what was said in the 60s but that didn't come out until years later. If there's some truth to it maybe somebody can fill in here. I never quite understood what this was about.

When the accounting that resulted in PS being awarded a platinum disc was being done, it was discovered that it had sold enough to go gold in the summer of 1967... but as Capitol never requested an audit, it wasn't ratified as such.

Also, not all albums that sold poorly in the US did better in the UK: in fact some that sold well in the US didn't sell AT ALL in the UK - of the seven albums released in the UK 1962-65, only one (LDC) charted at all - granted, the British album chart back then was only a Top 20, but even so...

thats insane! So capitol pretty much dropped the ball on PS in the US for no legit reason,  the sales were made but not reported correctly?? Didnt that cost them an insane amount of money and notoriety?

[beatnickle]

 In my opinion the Beach Boys were hurt by their name....... the Beach Boys and all the baggage that came with it ( clean cut, square striped shirts etc)  .   To the average person it conjured up something passe and square. What if they were called something such as  " Hawthorne " or even "The Wilsons"  Having the word " boys " in your name or "kids"  is gonna be a drag once you are men.
 Plus a lot of their music was actually too subtle or sophisticated for the average ear.

[filledeplage]

I'm very unsure about this but I think I once heard that Pet Sounds sold much better than what was said in the 60s but that didn't come out until years later. If there's some truth to it maybe somebody can fill in here. I never quite understood what this was about.

When the accounting that resulted in PS being awarded a platinum disc was being done, it was discovered that it had sold enough to go gold in the summer of 1967... but as Capitol never requested an audit, it wasn't ratified as such.

Also, not all albums that sold poorly in the US did better in the UK: in fact some that sold well in the US didn't sell AT ALL in the UK - of the seven albums released in the UK 1962-65, only one (LDC) charted at all - granted, the British album chart back then was only a Top 20, but even so...

Andrew - I'm glad to read that it was platinum-worthy in 1967.  Thanks.  Looking back, it makes perfect sense.  There were three singles (I'm excluding Caroline No) that were solid, including that side B (GOK) and always cheaper to buy a $3.00 LP, if there were multiple singles, at $1.00 each.

But,it smacks of colossal incompetence to not have that audit in place.  But something is wrong. If they were producing them, and selling them, no one noticed the profits? That is just not credible, and a huge disconnect as between the sales and the non-promotion. If (I'm wearing my "other hat") there was an "agreement" to not promote the BB's newer work, to their detriment (BB's) it might have been intentional, to advance the work of "others" under contract.  

At that time, who would have known this marginalization of the work, could have been happening.  But the facts do speak for themselves.  And those idiots, releasing GH pack-ups, as the BB's are impressed that they are on their way out, as their best work was developing and emerging.  I'm looking up at my old $3.00 Pet Sounds, and it still aggravates me.

Guess they call that sabotage.  Thrown under the bus by those who were in the position to be advancing their work.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I'm very unsure about this but I think I once heard that Pet Sounds sold much better than what was said in the 60s but that didn't come out until years later. If there's some truth to it maybe somebody can fill in here. I never quite understood what this was about.

When the accounting that resulted in PS being awarded a platinum disc was being done, it was discovered that it had sold enough to go gold in the summer of 1967... but as Capitol never requested an audit, it wasn't ratified as such.

Also, not all albums that sold poorly in the US did better in the UK: in fact some that sold well in the US didn't sell AT ALL in the UK - of the seven albums released in the UK 1962-65, only one (LDC) charted at all - granted, the British album chart back then was only a Top 20, but even so...

Andrew - I'm glad to read that it was platinum-worthy in 1967.  Thanks.  

Some advice - if you want to be taken seriously here, and not invoke my ire at the same time, try reading what I actually posted correctly. I said that by summer 1967, the album had sold enough to go gold, not platinum. I realise English isn't your first language but even allowing for that, there's a considerable difference - if only visually - between "gold" and "platinum".

Moving on... Best Of... may have, at best, equaled the sales of Pet Sounds but it sure as hell turned in a much bigger profit, as the tracks were already "paid for": all Capitol had to do was choose the tracks (with a pin, apparently), pull the masters from the vaults, band it, do some speedy artwork and hey presto - an album ! Pet Sounds incurred additional recording and mastering costs.

[Custom Machine]

Some advice - if you want to be taken seriously here, and not invoke my ire at the same time, try reading what I actually posted correctly. I said that by summer 1967, the album had sold enough to go gold, not platinum. I realise English isn't your first language ...

Ouch!  Talk about getting skewered for a simple mistake!  And I think fille will be surprised to learn that English isn't her first language.

[filledeplage]

I'm very unsure about this but I think I once heard that Pet Sounds sold much better than what was said in the 60s but that didn't come out until years later. If there's some truth to it maybe somebody can fill in here. I never quite understood what this was about.

When the accounting that resulted in PS being awarded a platinum disc was being done, it was discovered that it had sold enough to go gold in the summer of 1967... but as Capitol never requested an audit, it wasn't ratified as such.

Also, not all albums that sold poorly in the US did better in the UK: in fact some that sold well in the US didn't sell AT ALL in the UK - of the seven albums released in the UK 1962-65, only one (LDC) charted at all - granted, the British album chart back then was only a Top 20, but even so...

Andrew - I'm glad to read that it was platinum-worthy in 1967.  Thanks.  

Some advice - if you want to be taken seriously here, and not invoke my ire at the same time, try reading what I actually posted correctly. I said that by summer 1967, the album had sold enough to go gold, not platinum. I realise English isn't your first language but even allowing for that, there's a considerable difference - if only visually - between "gold" and "platinum".

Moving on... Best Of... may have, at best, equaled the sales of Pet Sounds but it sure as hell turned in a much bigger profit, as the tracks were already "paid for": all Capitol had to do was choose the tracks (with a pin, apparently), pull the masters from the vaults, band it, do some speedy artwork and hey presto - an album ! Pet Sounds incurred additional recording and mastering costs.

Andrew - my bad in substituting one precious metal for another.  As far as I'm concerned it is "de minimus." The point is lost in the nitpicking. That raises my ire.  Isn't it the concept in discussion as opposed to the form. And while we are nitpicking, someplace on this board, you wrote "Surfin U.S.A.." and we consider the period in an abbreviation sufficient for punctuation. A little tolerance might be in order. None of us is perfect.  This isn't a Warriner's English class.  

The point is that, according to your earlier post, Pet Sounds did better than ever acknowledged.  And that seems vexatious, to me, given those years.  

And, linguistically, I realize, that the British spoke and wrote English, before the Americanized version of English evolved. We aren't here for that, last time I checked.

"Gold" and "platinum" are numerical values in the industry, metaphorically speaking, as well as precious metals. Best of vol. I, was released less than two months post Pet Sounds.  Hardly a vote of confidence.  

[Magic Transistor Radio]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Beach Boys highly respected in the states through the end of 66, if not a few months into 67? Wasn't there a lot of anticipation for Smile at the time by the hip crowd of the time? Was Pet Sounds album of the year, or was that just in the UK? And the number one vocal group or just in the UK? I still believe a lot of their image was squarely on themselves. Had Smile been finished and released in the spring of 67 and they stopped wearing matching uniforms on stage it would have made a world of difference. What they wore on the cover of Pet Sounds or Smile era photos would have been good enough to help keep them hip along with Smile. That's my theory and I'm sticking with it

[Andrew G. Doe]

This is a gross oversimplification, and merely my semi-informed opinion, but the BBs fate was sealed in summer 1967 for the following reasons:

lack of Smile...

dropping out of Monterey Pop...

Sgt. Pepper...

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I'm of the belief that had they playes Monterrey with their live ability at that specific date, it may have done even more harm. Once they added auxiliary members though they were golden.

[Andrew G. Doe]

You're very probably right.