What is the most devastating moment in the band's career?

[Howie Edelson]

I disagree, Clack.

You think if "Do It Again" had gone Top Three or if some smart DJ flipped a single over and took to "This Whole World" that would've cost them anything in the early-'70s?
I think it would've bridged the gap that found the band playing with occasional hostile fans clamoring for the hits.

[Kurosawa]

AGD's review of SiP

You should have seen the original version. Here it is, in full:

"This sucks".

Reminds me of the review that Shark Sandwich by Spinal Tap got. But Shark Sandwich is a better album than SIP if you ask me.

[Andrew G. Doe]

and last but certainly not least, Carl's premature death and the wretched situation we find ourselves in today: Mike Love controlling the rights to the band name...

[sigh]

The legal right to tour as The Beach Boys resides with BRI. They license Mike to do so. As a voting member of BRI he controls exactly 25% of the band name.

*sigh*
thanks so much for the clarification. again.  
we all know that Brian and Al wished to continue touring as Beach Boys in 2012 but Mike prevented it. Mike has somehow thwarted or bullied the other rightful members of BRI out of sharing the license, and if Carl were still with us... God rest his soul... we can all be fairly certain that would not be the current situation in which we find our favorite band.

I'm also pretty certain that if the situation changed, and if the BRI setup were not what it currently is, and if Brian, Al, and Carl's estate resisted... and Mike still went through all legal wranglings to get use of the band name - and was successful, against everyone elses' wishes... that the same ardent defenders would still be defending his use of the band name. Is that an off-base assumption?

Am I defending him using the franchise name (as voted by BRI) ? No. I'm pointing out that someone who should know better is once more making an incorrect statement about where the rights to the marquee name reside? Just as I'd point out if a similarly incorrect statement applied to any other band member.

[Andrew G. Doe]

If Michael is out with Bruce and touring as the Beach Boys, then somewhere or another there was a vote in 2012 to allow Michael to continue usage of the name.

Nope.

[Andrew G. Doe]

There were a few bad ones, most notably the deaths of Dennis and especially Carl, because of what he meant to the authenticity of the band. But the one most devastating moment to me, at least performance wise, was the live broadcast from Long Beach in 1981. One of the worst performances, if not the absolute worst, by the band, or any band for that matter. I watched in horror, no Carl, Brian attempting lead vocals on Don't Worry Baby and God Only Knows, that were just so awful. I thought I was watching the end of the band.

Just so. The absolute nadir.

[El Molé]

Have to politely disagree - 2012 was the last kick of a dying bull. Let's be honest, most of us expected something would happen. What happened in 1966-67 robbed the music world of not only possibly the best album ever released but also decades of music from one of the very, very few bona fide genii in the pop/rock field. Brian was never the same after Smile was scrapped. There were odd sparks and flarings of the flame, but compared to the upwards curve of 1963-66, it was dim stuff. Nothing compares. Nothing ever will.

That the band not only survived that but also came to produce music of genuine quality is hugely to their credit. But just imagine what could have been. The two saddest words in the English language: if only...

Fair enough. My opinion might be slightly coloured by the fact that I ended up missing the 2012 live shows entirely, with my son's birth coinciding with the RAH date. My only chance of ever seeing a full Beach Boys line-up gone, forever!

Same here, our sons must be pretty much the same age! I'd have loved to see them all together and would have made the trek to London (I might have JUST managed if they'd played in Manchester) but there was no way with the timings. And then they were gone...

Back to the original question, for me it's a tie between the abandonment of Smile, for the reasons AGD just mentioned, along with the mid-70s power shift to Mike after Endless Summer. Two times when they were making great music but were yanked backwards by cowardice/greed.

I could probably have made Manchester or somewhere else on any day but the 27th. As much as I can look back at that with disappointment (regret would be the wrong word, I was exactly where I should have been), I'm pleased to say that with almost no intentional indoctrination, my son's favorite song is "Beach Boys" (by which he means "Do It Again").

More generally I do think it's a shame that they didn't fit in a few more dates in England, even within a fixed term reunion scenario.

They played Wembley the next night. Really, some people just don't try hard enough. 

You're right, of course. I could technically have made that and not missed the main event. Although my marriage might have then ended as messily as that tour did!

[jamesellaby]

Yeah, it seemed odd to me that the reunion tour was so limited over here when the UK has been a big part of Brian's touring plans.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Yeah, it seemed odd to me that the reunion tour was so limited over here when the UK has been a big part of Brian's touring plans.

That's always puzzled me. More shows in Japan, Australia, Germany... same number as in Spain and Italy.

[JK]

To use a word like "Devastating" , the only thing that comes to mind is Dennis' death.  Carl's death was equally tragic but Carl lived a good life, and was older when he passed.  Dennis died way too young, and was in a bad place when he died...

Exactly. The premature loss of human life is devastating. Anything else basically is "a pity".

[Lee Marshall]

The thing is though Howie...This Whole World had a very cool kind of Rock influenced feel to it too..  It wasn't just a Pop song.  Not in a traditional sense.  I don't dismiss those Association songs...or the Turtles.  I was [and am] a big fan.  But THAT material had a shelf life which is why those 2 vocal juggernauts also faded away.  The Monkees?  Their stuff, in my opinion, was 'just for the fun of it'.

Mikie mentioned Darlin'.  GREAT tune.  But...that was 11 months after Good Vibrations wrapped up it's stay on the Top 40...and it WASN'T the next logical progression.  The Wild Honey songs you mentioned are great tunes.  The other songs?  Not hits...although Breakaway tried.  1967 could have gone WAY better.  In fact it really should have.  We fans ultimately got lots more.  The general population?  They had little or no idea.  Along came free form FM radio as the 60s morphed into the 70s and only really smart show hosts gave us some Surf's Up, Carl and the Passions and Holland.

So...again discussing '67.  The missing ingredient was Smile.

[Howie Edelson]

You're absolutely right that we got more. I'm just talking in terms of "career."
What we got we got in spades -- and got for longer and better than most of the bands/artists gave.
AND we DID get Smile through the years as we could dig and find it.

I think the better title of this thread should be biggest REGRET: major hits and FM acceptance -- which history has somehow deemed was lost in connection with Monterrey. Not so: I never remember hearing Lou Rawls deep cuts on WNEW back in the day.

[Fire Wind]

Yeah, it seemed odd to me that the reunion tour was so limited over here when the UK has been a big part of Brian's touring plans.

That's always puzzled me. More shows in Japan, Australia, Germany... same number as in Spain and Italy.

Checking the tour dates, there's a gap from the previous date (Perth, 6th September) to the RAH show (27th September).  I know they probably had to reschedule the UK shows because of the Olympics (which was lucky for me - my son was born the day of the opening ceremony, so I would've probably missed any Beach Boys shows around then), but does anyone know what was going on in that gap?  Did they just go back to the US for a break?

[Autotune]

and last but certainly not least, Carl's premature death and the wretched situation we find ourselves in today: Mike Love controlling the rights to the band name...

[sigh]

The legal right to tour as The Beach Boys resides with BRI. They license Mike to do so. As a voting member of BRI he controls exactly 25% of the band name.

*sigh*
thanks so much for the clarification. again. 
we all know that Brian and Al wished to continue touring as Beach Boys in 2012 but Mike prevented it. Mike has somehow thwarted or bullied the other rightful members of BRI out of sharing the license, and if Carl were still with us... God rest his soul... we can all be fairly certain that would not be the current situation in which we find our favorite band.

I think Mike was genuinely into the C50 celebrations, unlike it's been said by some insiders (i.e. that he was lukewarm about it). His comments in interviews, his teary introduction of Cal Saga, his top-notch performances... all point towards it. He was fully involved. He addressed issues candidly and embraced his band partners. Something broke his heart along the way, rightly or wrongly.

[Andrew G. Doe]

thanks so much for the clarification. again. 
we all know that Brian and Al wished to continue touring as Beach Boys in 2012 but Mike prevented it. Mike has somehow thwarted or bullied the other rightful members of BRI out of sharing the license, and if Carl were still with us... God rest his soul... we can all be fairly certain that would not be the current situation in which we find our favorite band.

Back when the license was non-exclusive, Alan tried, and failed, to bypass having one for purely financial reasons, and Brian elected not to bother. Mike was awarded a license because he adhered to the terms therein. No-one was bullied into doing anything by anyone. No-one has been thwarted, except in some agenda-driven minds.  If Alan had been less greedy, the years since then would have been very different. Shortly thereafter, the voting members of BRI awarded Mike an exclusive license which, to the best of my knowledge, no-one has since challenged, although who knows what the future holds.

[Cabinessenceking]

There are many ups and downs, Smile, Monterey, Jack Rieley, VDP, Endless Summer, 15 BOs.... there´s endless amounts of stuff that constitute their history, and I would never get rid of anything of it because that´s life! (OK the cover of Battlehymn of the Republic was really uneccessary  )

No, the one most devastating point was when they lost Dennis


I´m not talking directly about Dennis´death, but when they actually lost him. Did it start in 1974? 1977? 1980? 1983? I have no idea, but at some point he was no longer fit and capable and the result was that the Beach Boys could no longer make good music and continue. After they lost Dennis, the band became a travesty, a summer juke box, a purely money making entity, a group which had lost its way; it had lost its soul .

With Dennis´demise died the soul of the Beach Boys and anything positive since has been an anecdotal exception to the general decline and irrelevancy of the group as a creative unit. We still got treated to lovely vocs by Carl, the WOTS w/ Willie Nelson and that great 1993 box set tour, but as stated these were the exceptions, and none of it broke new ground in any way. At least Brian survives, but as was mentioned earlier, the split and demise of the Beach Boys name, brand and legacy are utterly tragic.

[CenturyDeprived]

and last but certainly not least, Carl's premature death and the wretched situation we find ourselves in today: Mike Love controlling the rights to the band name...

[sigh]

The legal right to tour as The Beach Boys resides with BRI. They license Mike to do so. As a voting member of BRI he controls exactly 25% of the band name.

*sigh*
thanks so much for the clarification. again. 
we all know that Brian and Al wished to continue touring as Beach Boys in 2012 but Mike prevented it. Mike has somehow thwarted or bullied the other rightful members of BRI out of sharing the license, and if Carl were still with us... God rest his soul... we can all be fairly certain that would not be the current situation in which we find our favorite band.

I think Mike was genuinely into the C50 celebrations, unlike it's been said by some insiders (i.e. that he was lukewarm about it). His comments in interviews, his teary introduction of Cal Saga, his top-notch performances... all point towards it. He was fully involved. He addressed issues candidly and embraced his band partners. Something broke his heart along the way, rightly or wrongly.

Let's not forget a very critical piece of evidence... during his teary introduction of Cal Saga (which was indeed genuinely emotional - I witnessed it just feet away, in person), Mike went out of his way to state, to a crowd of fans and some journalists surely in attendance, that Cal Saga would be joining the BBs "next summer" on tour. There's just got to be something to that. I can't think he would have publicly said something like that if it wasn't at least being actually considered in some way, even if just preliminarily.

Which leads to the biggest question (which maybe only the Cal Saga members could answer): was there any remote consideration that this would be Cal Saga touring with M&B? I just would find that scenario very hard to believe; maybe I'm wrong.

[CenturyDeprived]

After they lost Dennis, the band became a travesty, a summer juke box, a purely music making entity, a group which had lost its way; it had lost its soul .
 

Denny was the guy who seemed, by all accounts, to DEEPLY (and very much not quietly) resist and resent the quality degradation, and traveling jukebox trajectory that the band was headed down. Is it reasonable to assume that this was part (certainly not entirely, but part) of the reason for him and Mike having a deep falling out in the late 70s/early 80s?  Obviously Mike resenting Denny's drinking-related outbursts was a huge part of it... but was the falling out also in part because Denny resented what Denny may have viewed as Mike leading the charge to pull the band in a direction bereft of artistic integrity? Mind you, I'm not trying to start a debate about whether or not other bandmates went along with that direction too, or who is to "blame" for that... that's irrelevant to the question I'm asking.

[HeyJude]

thanks so much for the clarification. again.  
we all know that Brian and Al wished to continue touring as Beach Boys in 2012 but Mike prevented it. Mike has somehow thwarted or bullied the other rightful members of BRI out of sharing the license, and if Carl were still with us... God rest his soul... we can all be fairly certain that would not be the current situation in which we find our favorite band.

Back when the license was non-exclusive, Alan tried, and failed, to bypass having one for purely financial reasons, and Brian elected not to bother. Mike was awarded a license because he adhered to the terms therein. No-one was bullied into doing anything by anyone. No-one has been thwarted, except in some agenda-driven minds.  If Alan had been less greedy, the years since then would have been very different. Shortly thereafter, the voting members of BRI awarded Mike an exclusive license which, to the best of my knowledge, no-one has since challenged, although who knows what the future holds.

Al trying to go out in as Family & Friends was a big clusterf*** and he should have had better managers and lawyers and advisors. But that whole timeframe, going back to when Carl was still around, and running up through the granting of Mike's exclusive license, is about FAR more than a greedy Al Jardine.

I would also disagree on why Mike was awarded the license. I would say the opposite. He adhered to the terms because he was granted the license. *Why* he was granted the license is not so simple as "Al was greedy, and everybody else thought Mike was the best guy for the job." Those things may have been true as well. But there was certainly political and corporate maneuvering, leverage, apathy, ill will, etc. involved as well. Nothing illegal. But far from a simple equation. Was any of it bullying? I guess it depends on one's definition. Does pursuing leverage in a corporate set-up ever constitute bullying? I dunno.

Sort of like a Supreme Court ruling of 7-2 may be a simple vote, but have a whole s***-ton of backstory and politics involved.

[bossaroo]

thanks so much for the clarification. again. 
we all know that Brian and Al wished to continue touring as Beach Boys in 2012 but Mike prevented it. Mike has somehow thwarted or bullied the other rightful members of BRI out of sharing the license, and if Carl were still with us... God rest his soul... we can all be fairly certain that would not be the current situation in which we find our favorite band.

Back when the license was non-exclusive, Alan tried, and failed, to bypass having one for purely financial reasons, and Brian elected not to bother. Mike was awarded a license because he adhered to the terms therein. No-one was bullied into doing anything by anyone. No-one has been thwarted, except in some agenda-driven minds.  If Alan had been less greedy, the years since then would have been very different. Shortly thereafter, the voting members of BRI awarded Mike an exclusive license which, to the best of my knowledge, no-one has since challenged, although who knows what the future holds.

as I said, and as everyone here knows, Brian and Al wished to continue touring as Beach Boys beyond 2012 which as founding members they should have every right to do. Mike prevented it from happening. my dictionary defines thwart as: to prevent someone from accomplishing something; to oppose. Mike has exhibited bully-like behavior and tactics in the past. it wouldn't surprise me at all if Brian voted giving him the license indefinitely just to get Mike (and his legal team) off his back.

[HeyJude]

I think Mike was genuinely into the C50 celebrations, unlike it's been said by some insiders (i.e. that he was lukewarm about it). His comments in interviews, his teary introduction of Cal Saga, his top-notch performances... all point towards it. He was fully involved. He addressed issues candidly and embraced his band partners. Something broke his heart along the way, rightly or wrongly.

There are certainly some dichotomies. Mike's a good front man, and can put a good face on (and no, I don't mean that negatively at all). But if he hated the entire thing, I don't think he could have come across as "into" it as he seemed to be.

At the same time, I don't think he was 100% into it for the longhaul only to be upended by some hugely unexpected event.

I think he may have started out skeptical (and happy with how things were, doing his own thing his way), and then was convinced by a tasty offer to do the project, and then rather than some big epic thing "breaking his heart", his pre-tour skepticism was confirmed at some point during the tour.

These guys are good at directly contradicting themselves though. You have Mike talking about CalSaga opening "next year", when by that point Mike *probably* had already booked post-reunion shows for his own band. You have Al saying they're reuniting "one last time", yet also telling Charlie Rose he envisioned touring every other year (or whatever it was), while insiders (and fans for that matter) seem to feel Al naively thought the reunion would or could be permanent.

[Howie Edelson]

I don't think that Alan Jardine was being greedy in the least.
Al Jardine was treated like sh it and publicly humiliated at a tremendous professional and and personal cost and and with great malice.

[Mike's Beard]

After they lost Dennis, the band became a travesty, a summer juke box, a purely music making entity, a group which had lost its way; it had lost its soul .
 

Denny was the guy who seemed, by all accounts, to DEEPLY (and very much not quietly) resist and resent the quality degradation, and traveling jukebox trajectory that the band was headed down. Is it reasonable to assume that this was part (certainly not entirely, but part) of the reason for him and Mike having a deep falling out in the late 70s/early 80s?  Obviously Mike resenting Denny's drinking-related outbursts was a huge part of it... but was the falling out also in part because Denny resented what Denny may have viewed as Mike leading the charge to pull the band in a direction bereft of artistic integrity? Mind you, I'm not trying to start a debate about whether or not other bandmates went along with that direction too, or who is to "blame" for that... that's irrelevant to the question I'm asking.

It did take the band a lot longer to become the 'travelling jukebox' than many seem to think. In the 78/79 they were still playing stuff such as Feel Flows, Everyone's In Love With You and All This is That at concerts. Every new album got a healthy showing on the road but with fans not reacting much to new material very little lasted. I think they only really became a travelling jukebox after the fail of KTSA and stopped making new material for years. By that point Dennis was too far in the hole to make a positive difference anyways.

[CenturyDeprived]

I don't think that Alan Jardine was being greedy in the least.
Al Jardine was treated like sh it and publicly humiliated at a tremendous professional and and personal cost and and with great malice.

And after all that, he STILL came to Mike's ELLA Awards.
Al is a mensch. Would the reverse scenario would have happened in a million years?

[Mikie]

Mikie mentioned Darlin'.  GREAT tune.  But...that was 11 months after Good Vibrations wrapped up it's stay on the Top 40...and it WASN'T the next logical progression.  The Wild Honey songs you mentioned are great tunes. 

And nobody here mentioned it, Lee. Howie is hung up on the Monkees and Turtles (justifiably so) but Darlin' was no slouch! It was a contenda!

The thing that kills me (and the band) was the release of the "Gettin' Hungry/Devoted To You" single after "Heroes & Villains". What the hell were they thinking?! If there was ever a singles momentum killer it was that one. Not only was Smiley Smile the momentum killer album in '67, "Gettin' Hungry" helped the band start into a downward spiral. Then the Darlin' and Wild Honey singles, but the damage was already done until Do It Again came along. Album Rock was already in vogue in 'late '67 and '68 anyway. Bad choices all around.

[CenturyDeprived]

Mikie mentioned Darlin'.  GREAT tune.  But...that was 11 months after Good Vibrations wrapped up it's stay on the Top 40...and it WASN'T the next logical progression.  The Wild Honey songs you mentioned are great tunes. 

And nobody here mentioned it, Lee. Howie is hung up on the Monkees and Turtles (justifiably so) but Darlin' was no slouch! It was a contenda!

The thing that kills me (and the band) was the release of the "Gettin' Hungry/Devoted To You" single after "Heroes & Villains". What the hell were they thinking?! If there was ever a singles momentum killer it was that one. Not only was Smiley Smile the momentum killer album in '67, "Gettin' Hungry" helped the band start into a downward spiral. Then the Darlin' and Wild Honey singles, but the damage was already done until Do It Again came along. Album Rock was already in vogue in 'late '67 and '68 anyway. Bad choices all around.

The secondary question to the WTF moment of that  "Gettin' Hungry/Devoted To You" single being released after "Heroes & Villains", is why it was credited as "Brian and Mike"? There had to be reason(s) for that.