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

[Magic Transistor Radio]

Yes, showing up at Monterey Pop in their striped shirts singing Barbra Ann would have been worse! The band probably could have used 3 months off to practice as well. Maybe from December til the festival. Improving their live show would have helped.

[Lee Marshall]

Probably would have been worse...although Sha Na Na went over well at Woodstock. 

[The Cincinnati Kid]

Maybe it's because I wasn't around back then, but I highly doubt showing up at Monterey would have had any positive impact on their popularity (assuming everything went well) aside from a few hippies in the area.  As others have said it was because of the long wait from Pet Sounds to the next album, and all of the excitement for SMiLE only to seemingly have it replaced at the last second with Smiley Smile.  America had moved on after that point. 

[jeffh]

The reason the Bb didn't sell in America is because of that other "bea" group. I think they were called The Beatles. Money wasn't unlimited, and the kids decided to spend it on that British Group.

[Debbie Keil-Leavitt]

I was at Monterey, and it would depend on "how" the Beach Boys would have shown up and performed as far as how they'd have been received. Monterey was the festival that was all peace and love.  The police had flowers on their helmets and motorcycles and the audience was very mellow and really receptive.  Hostility would have been the most uncool thing possible there. It was quite an experience just being there.

Now those of you who were fans at the time will remember (if you're too young to know the climate then, all you have to do is look at the vintage magazines from that period and you'd also see) that Brian was considered VERY cool during this period.  He was the genius in everyone's eyes.  Derek Taylor did a magnificent job with that PR during that period, just like he had done great PR for the Beatles, and the music proved him right.  If the band showed up doing quality versions of the new stuff, they'd have done well.  If band members were insisting on something else, then I understand why Brian pulled them from the festival. 

I have no idea what the band's plans were then, or how many of them were on board to do the new music as Brian likely would have wanted. I wasn't at the Ivar offices until '69 and certainly wasn't in on much of the business dealings even then. I'm just passing along the public mood and attitude towards Brian and the Beach Boys then, and the general mood of the festival.  "Fun, Fun, Fun" in striped shirts definitely would have confused the audience with this "retro too soon" presentation.  It would not have been cool.  "Surf's Up" would have had them out of their seats with those ethereal vocals and lyrics.

Sadly, Monterey was part of the woulda', shoulda', coulda' from that period.  How much of the problem was Brian smacking up against a wall of egos and blow back from some of the family and business people when he tried to get people onboard for a new direction, I really don't know, as I wasn't there.  I just saw the results when I arrived and have my own opinions as to what happened.  It's complicated, and we all know the value of a lot of opinions, so I'll leave it at that.

[Mr. Cohen]

The Beach Boys squandered the public's ears. Pet Sounds was a big image change that the public wasn't completely ready for, but then "Good Vibrations" won America over. Then BBs squandered that by releasing THREE noncommercial albums. Smiley Smile was way too weird for a pop group. Wild Honey was half-assed. Listen to "Darlin'". A great song at heart, but basing the arrangement around Brian's basic piano pluncking? And why do the horns during the second verse so weak and neutered? It just doesn't make sense, really. Brian finally gets his production act together for Friends, but the songs are proto-Love You in nature. I adore Friends, but I can easily see how it wasn't a hit. In a sense it was a really bold, risky move.

And really, 20/20 is just a mess, too, for that matter. "Do It Again", like "Darlin'", was at least a step in the right direction. People wanted awesome songs about love from the Beach Boys, but Brian increasingly wanted to write about world peace, being friends, and birds or water. And he wasn't arranging like before, either. He was really leaning on his piano as an easy crutch and the group wasn't getting the same sound quality on his recordings as they did in the group's heyday. I listen to "Do It Again" and wonder why it doesn't sound as awesome as what the Stones were doing. Compare it to "Honky Tonk Woman".

Really, only a couple BB songs did dramatically better in the UK. I think, probably, their was no negative stigma about the surf image in the UK to overcome. They looked at it as fun exotica, not representative of a lame, outdated lifestyle.

[clack]

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

Things changed very quickly in '67. For example, the reputations of the Mamas and the Papas or the Association as they stood at the beginning of '67 versus how their reputations stood by the end of the year. The Beach Boys were by no means alone.

It's not discussed as often, but pop music in America changed just as drastically in '64 as in '67. Beginning of the year, you couldn't get much cooler than the Ripchords or Jan and Dean, by the end of the year they were washed up.

The Beach Boys made the transition in '64, but didn't in '67. The late 70's did in Dylan and the Stones. It happens to everyone.

[Debbie Keil-Leavitt]

The Beach Boys squandered the public's ears. Pet Sounds was a big image change that the public wasn't completely ready for, but then "Good Vibrations" won America over. Then BBs squandered that by releasing THREE noncommercial albums. Smiley Smile was way too weird for a pop group. Wild Honey was half-assed. Listen to "Darlin'". A great song at heart, but basing the arrangement around Brian's basic piano pluncking? And why do the horns during the second verse so weak and neutered? It just doesn't make sense, really. Brian finally gets his production act together for Friends, but the songs are proto-Love You in nature. I adore Friends, but I can easily see how it wasn't a hit. In a sense it was a really bold, risky move.

And really, 20/20 is just a mess, too, for that matter. "Do It Again", like "Darlin'", was at least a step in the right direction. People wanted awesome songs about love from the Beach Boys, but Brian increasingly wanted to write about world peace, being friends, and birds or water. And he wasn't arranging like before, either. He was really leaning on his piano as an easy crutch and the group wasn't getting the same sound quality on his recordings as they did in the group's heyday. I listen to "Do It Again" and wonder why it doesn't sound as awesome as what the Stones were doing. Compare it to "Honky Tonk Woman".

Really, only a couple BB songs did dramatically better in the UK. I think, probably, their was no negative stigma about the surf image in the UK to overcome. They looked at it as fun exotica, not representative of a lame, outdated lifestyle.

I would be more inclined to compare "Wild Honey" to McCartney's first solo album than I would compare "Do It Again" to the Stones.  Paul even made reference in his biography to the kind of disintegration that takes place when an artist has reached a peak and then takes a new direction.  Brian's peak, "Smile" was a cohesive and coherent work like "Sgt. Pepper" and his lyricist was every bit as clever as Lennon/McCartney, if possibly somewhat less commercial.  Would it have been over the fans' heads?   Maybe.  We'll never know.  "Do It Again" certainly doesn't strike me as any new direction Brian was taking.  

As far as "Pet Sounds'" reception, who knows how much was a bungled presentation by Capitol and some convenient accounting that was later corrected?  Keep in mind that the BBs were trying to start their own label, so we may never know what was going on with the promotion.  As you say, "Good Vibrations" certainly wasn't a dud in sales.

Like you, I personally loved "Friends" and so did Brian.  I feel a bit like he was gently soothing himself with that record as much as he was those of us who loved it.  Things had already gone south on Brian by then and to put it bluntly, he was in the game but "playing hurt."  Was he also pretty angry about the position he was in?  You'd have to ask him.  I certainly would have been.  20/20 also had some beautiful stuff.  Was Brian's heart in it?  Maybe parts of it, maybe not.  There are songs on all of those records I adore, in any case.

Clack did hit on something in that there is "a time" for everyone.  Teddy Kennedy even said that about his family in politics.  There are times when you click with the public and times when you don't.  On the other hand, if "Smile" had come out it would have been a real turning point.  It's reception then?  We'll never know, and as I said about Monterey Pop...I have my own opinions as to what got in the way.

[filledeplage]

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

Interesting that you mention what they were wearing. Carl had a 3/4 coat known as a "bench warmer." Everyone wore one. I thought Carl was so cute, wearing "my" coat!

But among all the other album covers competing for visual space in a record store, the green cover didn't "pop." Red catches the eye. That is why traffic lights and stop signs are red. Album artwork is huge. It's the book cover. And people do "judge the book by the cover." Who's the competition? The Stones, The Beatles, The Supremes.  Ricky Nelson. Dino, Desi and Billy.  Competing for the $3 from babysitting or an allowance. A kid's "disposable income."

Most primary (red, yellow and blue) colors, do catch the eye.  Eye popping psychedelic artwork was emerging.  Smiley is green. A year is almost a lifetime in music. Someone mentioned the other B band.

But, my question is what happened between the release in 1966 and 1967, where were the "bean counters" who should have had it numerically down?  Where was the massive promotion? There were three solid singles: Sloop, WIBN, and GOK.  Paying for the LP got you the whole enchilada, whereas the singles only got you a few songs.  Pet Sounds was out on May 16, 1966.  Smiley came out September 18, 1967.

Was there a PS promo tour in 1966? Was there TV variety show promo tour hitting all the hosts, like Merv, Mike Douglas, the teen shows, etc.? Every week matters, when Cousin Brucie, on WABC, in NY, Arnie Ginsburg in Boston, are analyzing all those new songs with newcomers, jockeying for position in the weekly Top Ten Hit Parade? You are up one week, and down the next.

Without this promotion, and support, they may have lost hard-earned traction and momentum.

The work, itself, eventually "righted the ship."  

[Mr. Cohen]

I would be more inclined to compare "Wild Honey" to McCartney's first solo album than I would compare "Do It Again" to the Stones.

I get what you're saying. My point was just that "Do It Again" should've rocked more. The songwriting was right on with that song, but it sounds lo-fi compared to what the Stones were pumping out. I believe I actually got into a long discussion on here with Desper about this. Even listening to the mono version of "Honky Tonk Women", it really pops out of the speakers in comparison. Brian was going for a Spectorish vibe, perhaps (I don't know), but that time had long since passed. And personally, I don't think "Do It Again" sounds as good on my speakers as "Help Me Rhonda". It just isn't what you expect from the Beach Boys.

[Lee Marshall]

"Pet Sounds was out on May 16, 1966.  Smiley came out September 18, 1967. "

Pet Sounds was at least given a little fanfare when it was released...and it came hot on the heels of Sloop John Bs scaling the record and radio charts.
 Smiley Smile was pretty much snuck onto the record store shelves under cover of the night.  They included Good Vibrations because...well..they had to.  It deserved to be included on some kind of 12 inch presentation even if it was that awful excuse for a release.  Heroes and Villains had come and gone so there was NO flow from hit song to immediate lp release as had been the case virtually with every album which preceded that green bomb.  At that time I was [and remain] a died-in-the-wool Beach Boys fan.  I bought everything they released the moment it arrived in the stores,  I didn't even know Smiley Smile was 'out' until I accidently found it while renting a PA system  in a musical instruments store for a gig our little band was doing...in MID OCTOBER.  Great lp cover...artistically speaking.  The contents?  Laughable.  [in a very bad way]  Never had I been so disappointed with a BB's release.  In fact with the exception of Party...which struck me as a WTF throwaway release...I had always been pretty happy with the sounds and the progress.  It was if the 'boys' were maturing with me.  I was expecting something resembling the album we had all heard SO MUCH about...ie: Smile.

So...for me...as staunch a fan as any...I waited 17 months for a piece of rat sh*t.  [or a "bunt".]

As for wanting Do It Again to sound like a Stones song?  That was never going to happen.  Nothing the BBs ever did sounded remotely like a Stones song.  Do It Again was Mike driven.  He wanted to go back and do it again.  Given what was released in the fall of 67...I'd have wanted to go in that direction too.  The boys were sailing a ship with NO rudder.   As great an arranger as Brian was...and seems to be again...he has never been one to record and finish a ROCK song.  He never was great at getting a BIG drum sound.  But instrumentation and vocals?  Step aside world and learn how it's done.

I still maintain that Brian stepped away from touring and appearing live because the group and backing band could NOT deliver performances worthy of Brian's skill, his unique ear and his creative imagination.  They just couldn't.  Now he has a band who can...and he tours.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

"Pet Sounds was out on May 16, 1966.  Smiley came out September 18, 1967. "

Pet Sounds was at least given a little fanfare when it was released...and it came hot on the heels of Sloop John Bs scaling the record and radio charts.
 Smiley Smile was pretty much snuck onto the record store shelves under cover of the night.  They included Good Vibrations because...well..they had to.  It deserved to be included on some kind of 12 inch presentation even if it was that awful excuse for a release.  Heroes and Villains had come and gone so there was NO flow from hit song to immediate lp release as had been the case virtually with every album which preceded that green bomb.  At that time I was [and remain] a died-in-the-wool Beach Boys fan.  I bought everything they released the moment it arrived in the stores,  I didn't even know Smiley Smile was 'out' until I accidently found it while renting a PA system  in a musical instruments store for a gig our little band was doing...in MID OCTOBER.  Great lp cover...artistically speaking.  The contents?  Laughable.  [in a very bad way]  Never had I been so disappointed with a BB's release.  In fact with the exception of Party...which struck me as a WTF throwaway release...I had always been pretty happy with the sounds and the progress.  It was if the 'boys' were maturing with me.  I was expecting something resembling the album we had all heard SO MUCH about...ie: Smile.

So...for me...as staunch a fan as any...I waited 17 months for a piece of rat sh*t.  [or a "bunt".]

As for wanting Do It Again to sound like a Stones song?  That was never going to happen.  Nothing the BBs ever did sounded remotely like a Stones song.  Do It Again was Mike driven.  He wanted to go back and do it again.  Given what was released in the fall of 67...I'd have wanted to go in that direction too.  The boys were sailing a ship with NO rudder.   As great an arranger as Brian was...and seems to be again...he has never been one to record and finish a ROCK song.  He never was great at getting a BIG drum sound.  But instrumentation and vocals?  Step aside world and learn how it's done.

I still maintain that Brian stepped away from touring and appearing live because the group and backing band could NOT deliver performances worthy of Brian's skill, his unique ear and his creative imagination.  They just couldn't.  Now he has a band who can...and he tours.

Add Some, I went through the same exact thing you did with Smile/Smiley Smile. Totally agree with your post with the exception of nothing remotely sounds like a Stones song. My first reaction to "Mess of Help" was that they were trying very hard to copy their sound. A bit of tweaking here and there could have produced a nice hit, but the stations wouldn't play it.

[Lee Marshall]

Ah yes OSD...Brian was perhaps less involved at that juncture?  More Jack influenced maybe?  Still...as cool a rocker as that Carl and the Passions song IS...it ain't the Stones.   It's the Beach Boys just expanding their own horizons.  I guess it would be kinda like sayin' the Stones were trying to sound like the Beach Boys during their We Love You/Dandelion phase.

[Micha]

And he wasn't arranging like before, either. He was really leaning on his piano as an easy crutch and the group wasn't getting the same sound quality on his recordings as they did in the group's heyday.

This is what I've been thinking about the post-SMiLE Brian for a long time but failed to put it in words as striking as yours.

Wild Honey was half-assed. Listen to "Darlin'". A great song at heart, but basing the arrangement around Brian's basic piano pluncking? And why do the horns during the second verse so weak and neutered?.

With the same arrangement, recorded in a professional studio, Brian plucking a grand piano instead of that old upright, IMHO Darlin' would have sounded as great as Brians 1965-65 productions. About the horns... I don't think you'd find any more neutered horns/trumpets/trombones than on TLGIOK, so that would probably not have been any better on Darlin'. And personally, I agree with your statement about the Wild Honey album. If it sounded like "Old Man Sunshine" production wise, whoa, that would have been something!

Brian finally gets his production act together for Friends

I agree with this on the song, but not on the album. I recently bought the new vinyl print of the Friends album, heard it with kind of fresh ears, and found that most of the album has production value on the backing tracks on the level of the Party album. Just compare the bass playing with SD/SN or Pet Sounds, you might get what I mean.

I listen to "Do It Again" and wonder why it doesn't sound as awesome as what the Stones were doing. Compare it to "Honky Tonk Woman".

As 1968 songs, I'd rather compare it with "Jumpin' Jack Flash" and "Revolution" (single). It does sound pedestrian compared to them, but at least not as dull as 1967's "Hello Goodbye".

[shelter]

Why did Pet Sounds almost top the chart in the UK and barely top ten in the US?

I think the fact that The Beach Boys were far less successful in the UK en Europe than they were in the US before 1966 might have a lot to do with their success in Europe from 1966 onwards. To give you an idea: 'Sloop John B' was only their third top 10 hit in the UK and Germany and their very first (!) in The Netherlands. The Beach Boys were much less burdened by prejudice and by their old image in Europe than they were in the US. Europe might be a little bit more open minded than the US are to begin with, but I'm sure that it didn't hurt the sales of the 1966-1973 albums that Europe just wasn't really overtly familiar with the sun & fun hits.

[Cabinessenceking]

Ultimately the group was dependent on their distinct sound and on the creative skills of its songwriter.

The problem is primarily with Brian; he had a big ego.

Brian had gone from cutting edge to cutting edge. He had always pushed the envelope and progressed the groups sound with the times while still making it sound like the Beach Boys.

[Surfin' USA - Fun, Fun, Fun, I Get Around, Help Me Rhonda, California Girls, Wouldn't It Be Nice, Good Vibrations] were all a seemingly progressive style which went from the surf rock to the baroque pop, but each stage was linked to the previous. The gradual step was not that significant.

However Brian's artistic ambitions were becoming huge. He wanted to be best: both critically, artistically and commericially. He had come to expect success no matter what he did. Pet Sounds was him pushing in a new direction which he thought would receive all of this. It partially did, but he wanted to wow audiences more with the followup Smile. He teamed up with another big ego; Van Dyke Parks. They collaborated under the premise that 'you are the best, so am I. together we can do anything'. Both of them wanted to be at the pinnacle. For well known reasons this relationship broke down and Smile collapsed once Brian couldn't hold onto his mojo.

Heroes and Villains was doomed to fail. Regardless of what version would come out it did not fit into the 'distinct sound' all the previous hits had contained. It was simply far out and disconnected with the publics perception of their sound.

[Mr. Cohen]

I agree with this on the song, but not on the album. I recently bought the new vinyl print of the Friends album, heard it with kind of fresh ears, and found that most of the album has production value on the backing tracks on the level of the Party album. Just compare the bass playing with SD/SN or Pet Sounds, you might get what I mean.

I agree that Friends wasn't as good of a production as Pet Sounds or even SD/SN. BUT it's way better than Wild Honey. The production sounds competent and professional.

[Mr. Cohen]

With the same arrangement, recorded in a professional studio, Brian plucking a grand piano instead of that old upright, IMHO Darlin' would have sounded as great as Brians 1965-65 productions.

That would've been better, yes. But after listening to James Jamerson's Motown work, I can't help but feel that Brian's pretty rudimentary piano playing on the song held it back. I don't actually know who plays bass on "Darlin'", but it's in Jamerson's style (at least in the verse, when the bass mercifully has a little freedom), and to my ears it sounds restrained by Brian's own bass notes.

[Lee Marshall]

"Heroes and Villains was doomed to fail. Regardless of what version would come out it did not fit into the 'distinct sound' all the previous hits had contained. It was simply far out and disconnected with the publics perception of their sound."

Heroes and Villains peaked at #5 in Toronto.  It was in the top 10 for just 2 weeks.  I guess that would be seen by some as a failure after Good Vibrations but really?  A pretty decent showing in the summer of 1967 for a song with no drums...no lead guitar...none of the typical basics of a hit song.  The version released was also, in retrospect, kind of 'off'.

Wild Honey really was the opposite of the Smile [not smiley smile] production values.  Just a back to basics, inexpensive, quick little production done, I guess, just to get  the group back working in the studio again.  I like Friends and did from the get-go.  It was the first Beach Boys' album I had to buy a 2nd time due to wearing it out...on vinyl.  Subsequently I had to buy a 2nd cd as well.

Except for Transcendental Meditation...which doesn't really fit...I still like the album plenty.  Little Bird was a real eye opener back then.  Dennis?  Wow!!!

[DonnyL]

My opinion is there is something "different" about the Beach Boys to the average "serious" music listener. I've never been able to put my finger on it ... I've often tried to win over skeptics with the good stuff, but it sometimes goes right over their heads. I feel like the upper-range vocals, harmonies and complex/ethereal backing tracks are just *not* rock-n-roll enough for some people. I think the very thing that makes Brian's and the group's music stand head and shoulders above anything else to some people like us serious fans, are the very things that make them a little weird for the average music listener.

I also feel that Brian's music has an innocence and vulnerability that really speaks to me that is absent in most other music. I know this is going to sound strange, but the only other music I have found something like this in are the songs of Mister Rogers, which I also really love. I think the works of both men offer comfort and healing.

And thanks Debbie for adding your thoughts once again ... I always find a lot of insight in your posts.

[robmhendrick]

The reason the Bb didn't sell in America is because of that other "bea" group. I think they were called The Beatles. Money wasn't unlimited, and the kids decided to spend it on that British Group.

Is that why the Beach Boys had 3 number one hits and many top 40 hits while the Beatles were a band? Is that why several other groups were highly successful in the late 60s? I understand that money is limited,  but I don't think that was the downfall. 

[drbeachboy]

Growing up in those times, to me it seemed to be mostly a perception problem. They didn't look hip, act hip, sound hip (instrumentally). The Beach Boys are not edgy and that is really what most "hip" people were into. On AM radio they weren't bubble gum enough for younger fans, weren't poppy enough for the older non-hippy folks. This is why Jack Rieley was so successful, he changed the perception of the band. Took them to the young people by playing the college circuit. Letting them see and hear what the Beach Boys were all about at that point and time. He gave them a bit of edginess and promoted the Smile myth. But this is a cycle that many good artists go through throughout their careers. Sinatra is the first one that comes to mind. Even a band like Chicago had to through it in the late 70's and early 80's before they got their second wind in the mid to late 80's. 

[clack]

Folks seem to view late '60's Beach Boys as being some sort of failure -- their concerts weren't drawing, their records weren't selling, they were no longer seen as cutting edge.

But if you view them in the context of some of the other bands of the era -- say, the Dave Clark 5, Herman's Hermits, the Monkees -- all of them as commercially successful as the Beach Boys, and all of them done by 1970, then you might say that the late 60's were a triumph for the Boys. Against the odds, they survived when so many of their peers lost their record deals and disbanded.

[drbeachboy]

Folks seem to view late '60's Beach Boys as being some sort of failure -- their concerts weren't drawing, their records weren't selling, they were no longer seen as cutting edge.

But if you view them in the context of some of the other bands of the era -- say, the Dave Clark 5, Herman's Hermits, the Monkees -- all of them as commercially successful as the Beach Boys, and all of them done by 1970, then you might say that the late 60's were a triumph for the Boys. Against the odds, they survived when so many of their peers lost their record deals and disbanded.

Well, we're talking strickly in the U.S., but the reason they were able to stay together was:
1. They were family
2. They still had a big fanbase outside of the U.S.
3. Mo Ostin loved them and took a chance on them by signing them to Reprise.
4. They had a manager and a plan to regain their popularity in U.S. after 1970

[Lee Marshall]

Folks seem to view late '60's Beach Boys as being some sort of failure -- their concerts weren't drawing, their records weren't selling, they were no longer seen as cutting edge.

Again...they went for 16 months...17 if you weren't really, REALLY on your TOES...'cause there was NO hit song heralding the arrival of a NEW Beach Boys album.  Heroes and Villains had already come and gone and there was NO follow up.  Why?  Because Smiley Smile didn't contain anything worthy of single release.  [and precious little worthy of release period...but that is only *MY* opinion.]  This album was ever-so-quietly snuck out onto the record store shelves.  No fanfare.  No promotion of note.  No one singing its praises.  It was just..."Shhhh...it is here.  We don't know what to say.  It's got Good Vibrations on it.  Gulp!!!"

Everthing else they did in the 60s was taking them in the right direction...although it was a bit of a trip, stumble, fall, get up and keep on truckin' kind of post Smile daze. which found them re-emerging with Sunflower, Surf's Up, Carl and the Passions, Holland and a fanatastic live album which all added up to signal North America and the world that one of the BEST live acts of the entire decade was ready to get 'er done.  [and they did...in spite of themselves]

The talent and body of work prevailed until 'stupid' finally took over.  [everyone contributing to some degree to help give stupid the power to reign supreme.]

The Beach Boys put the general public to sleep for too long.  By the time they were ready to roll again...the general public had moved on to the flavours of the day.