Why do you hate Mike Love?

[GhostyTMRS]

And my point is you're looking at this in a vaccum.

"sunk to the level that it did"? What level would that be? ....the norm?

Bob Dylan made a rap record for crying out loud. I WISH he had just appeared on Full House a couple of times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfi7ME_Y5Vs

I still think the cheese level would have not gotten to the same point that it did. I concede that some cheese of the era would surely still have happened, as evidenced by the links you've posted. At the very least, the ridiculous cheerleaders would not have happened.  

Hey, at least they were sexy. 

I'm waiting for one person here to say that Mike would have been the best person to get such creative control/power of the group if the outlined scenario was going to happen, and nobody's said Mike would be the best guy for that job.

Of course, he wouldn't be. Was someone here arguing that he would be? I think the point I and others were making was that it wouldn't have made much difference considering what others were considering "cool" at the time.
Besides, nothing any of the group does really diminishes their legacy at this point. The Beach Boys are revered for their recorded work from 1962 to about 1972. Same deal with the Rolling Stones by the way. I doubt anyone's going to call "Steel Wheels" a lost classic or The Who's "Endless Wire" a masterpiece. Whether it's The Beach Boys on Full House or McCartney trying to dance like Michael Jackson: all of that will just be trivia in the back pages of a book for die-hards to discover and have fun with. It's the stuff these guys made when they were a functioning recording unit that matters. When groups like The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Kinks, The Who, etc. captured the zeitgeist and rode it out. That music trumps everything. It's more powerful than a million cheerleaders jumping around on stage from 25 years ago.

I agree that the golden era music is and will be the most famous and remembered portion of the band's career. But that doesn't mean that blights don't diminish it. If even one fan is put off by ridiculous rubbish like the cheerleaders, which wouldn't have happened if Al or Carl were solely running the show, that's one fan too many.

I have to totally disagree with that. If that one fan is so shallow as to not know the difference between when The Beach Boys were actually THE Beach Boys, then that fan is probably too stupid to appreciate or understand the power of Brian's music.

Keep in mind that I became a HARDCORE Beach Boys fan during the period of which you speak. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the group that made Pet Sounds was a world away from the group that recorded "Problem Child" (and I like that song actually).  

And you keep forgetting that Al was considered the enemy at that time. If you had made this argument in 1990 you would've had scores of fans claiming you were an apologist for Al and then calling him every name in the book, citing him as one of the principle reasons right behind Mike that the band took a downfall. That ACTUALLY happened...a lot back then (except in "party line" calls rather than the internet...don't get me started).

[CenturyDeprived]

People talk as if the cheesy 80's-90's stuff was an anomaly : you know, Full House appearances, the cheerleaders defiling the high culture legacy of these grand artistes. C'mon, this is pop music, you don't get to stand on your dignity.

The 60's Beach Boys would have been delighted with regular appearances on, say, Gilligan's Island, and if they could have afforded them, the boys would not have been above including Shindig-style go-go dancers as part of their stage act.

Well, Gilligan's Island did in fact do a Beatles parody band, called The Mosquitoes. I wonder what the BB equivalent parody band would have been.  

If there is a guy who seems to lament the direction the band took, it seems to be Al. Even if his indirect comment lamenting not taking Dennis more seriously, I sense that he regrets siding with Mike when he did. I think Carl would feel the same way in hindsight. I think that while they may have gone along with (or grudgingly gone along with) certain choices, that their definition of dignity when it comes to the BBs, even if only in hindsight, is (or in Carl's case, would have been) quite a bit different than Mike's.

[guitarfool2002]

They all were the best choice and they all were in charge of each of the products.

Does that logic also apply to earlier years such as, say, 1967? If so, then was Mike also to blame for Smile not coming out that year?

[CenturyDeprived]

And my point is you're looking at this in a vaccum.

"sunk to the level that it did"? What level would that be? ....the norm?

Bob Dylan made a rap record for crying out loud. I WISH he had just appeared on Full House a couple of times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfi7ME_Y5Vs

I still think the cheese level would have not gotten to the same point that it did. I concede that some cheese of the era would surely still have happened, as evidenced by the links you've posted. At the very least, the ridiculous cheerleaders would not have happened.  

Hey, at least they were sexy.  

I'm waiting for one person here to say that Mike would have been the best person to get such creative control/power of the group if the outlined scenario was going to happen, and nobody's said Mike would be the best guy for that job.

Of course, he wouldn't be. Was someone here arguing that he would be? I think the point I and others were making was that it wouldn't have made much difference considering what others were considering "cool" at the time.
Besides, nothing any of the group does really diminishes their legacy at this point. The Beach Boys are revered for their recorded work from 1962 to about 1972. Same deal with the Rolling Stones by the way. I doubt anyone's going to call "Steel Wheels" a lost classic or The Who's "Endless Wire" a masterpiece. Whether it's The Beach Boys on Full House or McCartney trying to dance like Michael Jackson: all of that will just be trivia in the back pages of a book for die-hards to discover and have fun with. It's the stuff these guys made when they were a functioning recording unit that matters. When groups like The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Kinks, The Who, etc. captured the zeitgeist and rode it out. That music trumps everything. It's more powerful than a million cheerleaders jumping around on stage from 25 years ago.

I agree that the golden era music is and will be the most famous and remembered portion of the band's career. But that doesn't mean that blights don't diminish it. If even one fan is put off by ridiculous rubbish like the cheerleaders, which wouldn't have happened if Al or Carl were solely running the show, that's one fan too many.

I have to totally disagree with that. If that one fan is so shallow as to not know the difference between when The Beach Boys were actually THE Beach Boys, then that fan is probably too stupid to appreciate or understand the power of Brian's music.

Keep in mind that I became a HARDCORE Beach Boys fan during the period of which you speak. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the group that made Pet Sounds was a world away from the group that recorded "Problem Child" (and I like that song actually).  

And you keep forgetting that Al was considered the enemy at that time. If you had made this argument in 1990 you would've had scores of fans claiming you were an apologist for Al and then calling him every name in the book, citing him as one of the principle reasons right behind Mike that the band took a downfall. That ACTUALLY happened...a lot back then (except in "party line" calls rather than the internet...don't get me started).

I don't hate the song "Problem Child" either, with the exception of the "Na Na Na" stuff. I can tolerate a pretty large level of cheese with this band, far more than most. But everyone has their limits, and shouldn't be called "stupid" for being put off by a stage show with some ridiculous stuff going on. The shallow label might better be leveled at the person who masterminded the cheerleaders. A bandmate masterminding, and another bandmate grudgingly and/or passively going along with something (picking their battles) are two different things entirely. Not saying that makes anyone completely absolved of responsibility either.

Here's a question: how many times in the 80s/90s did Carl passively go along with creative band decisions to keep the peace, to not want to get into an emotionally draining situation, and how many times did Mike likely do the same? Does anyone really think Mike would ever passively and peacefully do something like that in that era? I highly doubt it.

In the case of allowing Landy to get an album credit might be an exception, but in terms of general decisions not involving Landy (Landy likely being THE only guy in the BB sphere at the time who could indirectly force Mike's hand at *anything*), you can bet that if someone was gonna give pushback and NOT be passive, it was gonna be Mike. Point being that this personality divide within the members is surely responsible, at least partly, for some of the creatively stinky stuff that happened.

And I'll go ahead and say it right now... if Al Jardine (and NOT Mike) gave the Hall of Fame Speech in 1988 on the level of embarrassment that Mike did, Al would either have been forced to apologize publicly, or he'd have been kicked out of the band. Mike gets away with so much not just because he's blood family, but because of the passive and/or dis-empowered personality types in the band at the time.

[guitarfool2002]

none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

Then how did they sell Capitol on the deal that got mentioned in the 1989 article I posted? Capitol was banking on the momentum that the band apparently could deliver after Kokomo, Mike seemed to have a similar "team" in place as what delivered Kokomo (minus Brian's involvement as he outlined in interviews from that time)...Bruce didn't want to become a traveling oldies revue but instead wanted to get radio airplay and have hits and great songs, again according to what he said as of May 1989...so what happened?

Capitol didn't pick up on the contract option that was Summer In Paradise, they wouldn't take it, hence the "Brother Entertainment" label. "Still Cruisin" doesn't seem to have become what it was being planned as according to that description as of May 1989. Lack of material? If Kokomo was the mandate, if as Mike suggested Brian needed the Beach Boys more than they needed him in the wake of Kokomo and BW88, why didn't it work?

Where was the material that would seem to have come from the same sources that generated the #1 hit Kokomo?

[GhostyTMRS]

And my point is you're looking at this in a vaccum.

"sunk to the level that it did"? What level would that be? ....the norm?

Bob Dylan made a rap record for crying out loud. I WISH he had just appeared on Full House a couple of times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfi7ME_Y5Vs

I still think the cheese level would have not gotten to the same point that it did. I concede that some cheese of the era would surely still have happened, as evidenced by the links you've posted. At the very least, the ridiculous cheerleaders would not have happened.  

Hey, at least they were sexy. 

I'm waiting for one person here to say that Mike would have been the best person to get such creative control/power of the group if the outlined scenario was going to happen, and nobody's said Mike would be the best guy for that job.

Of course, he wouldn't be. Was someone here arguing that he would be? I think the point I and others were making was that it wouldn't have made much difference considering what others were considering "cool" at the time.
Besides, nothing any of the group does really diminishes their legacy at this point. The Beach Boys are revered for their recorded work from 1962 to about 1972. Same deal with the Rolling Stones by the way. I doubt anyone's going to call "Steel Wheels" a lost classic or The Who's "Endless Wire" a masterpiece. Whether it's The Beach Boys on Full House or McCartney trying to dance like Michael Jackson: all of that will just be trivia in the back pages of a book for die-hards to discover and have fun with. It's the stuff these guys made when they were a functioning recording unit that matters. When groups like The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Kinks, The Who, etc. captured the zeitgeist and rode it out. That music trumps everything. It's more powerful than a million cheerleaders jumping around on stage from 25 years ago.

I agree that the golden era music is and will be the most famous and remembered portion of the band's career. But that doesn't mean that blights don't diminish it. If even one fan is put off by ridiculous rubbish like the cheerleaders, which wouldn't have happened if Al or Carl were solely running the show, that's one fan too many.

I have to totally disagree with that. If that one fan is so shallow as to not know the difference between when The Beach Boys were actually THE Beach Boys, then that fan is probably too stupid to appreciate or understand the power of Brian's music.

Keep in mind that I became a HARDCORE Beach Boys fan during the period of which you speak. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the group that made Pet Sounds was a world away from the group that recorded "Problem Child" (and I like that song actually).  

And you keep forgetting that Al was considered the enemy at that time. If you had made this argument in 1990 you would've had scores of fans claiming you were an apologist for Al and then calling him every name in the book, citing him as one of the principle reasons right behind Mike that the band took a downfall. That ACTUALLY happened...a lot back then (except in "party line" calls rather than the internet...don't get me started).

I don't hate the song "Problem Child" either, with the exception of the "Na Na Na" stuff. I can tolerate a pretty large level of cheese with this band, far more than most. But everyone has their limits, and shouldn't be called "stupid" for being put off by a stage show with some ridiculous stuff going on. The shallow label might better be leveled at the person who masterminded the cheerleaders. Masterminding and going along with something are two different things entirely. Not saying that makes anyone completely absolved of responsibility either.

We'll agree to disagree on that. That's like somebody today seeing that horrible all-star version of The Who's "Tommy" from the 1989's with Billy Idol and Patti Labelle on DVD and going "well, that's the Who. They must suck" without even the slightest knowledge of what the group was all about when the Who were firing on all cylinders. Somebody is allowed to have that opinion, of course, but it's certainly not an opinion I would respect or even take seriously...and I don't fault the band for that. That horrible all-star version of Tommy was quite popular at the time, got great reviews, etc. What were they supposed to do? Not please people at that moment and worry about how it would be perceived 25 years later?

And yet magically, all of the sins are forgiven and The Who are remembered for the best work. The same happened to The Beach Boys and it's as it should be.

[guitarfool2002]

If that one fan is so shallow as to not know the difference between when The Beach Boys were actually THE Beach Boys, then that fan is probably too stupid to appreciate or understand the power of Brian's music.

Could a lot of these "issues" come from fans who don't see a difference?

[CenturyDeprived]

And my point is you're looking at this in a vaccum.

"sunk to the level that it did"? What level would that be? ....the norm?

Bob Dylan made a rap record for crying out loud. I WISH he had just appeared on Full House a couple of times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfi7ME_Y5Vs

I still think the cheese level would have not gotten to the same point that it did. I concede that some cheese of the era would surely still have happened, as evidenced by the links you've posted. At the very least, the ridiculous cheerleaders would not have happened.  

Hey, at least they were sexy.  

I'm waiting for one person here to say that Mike would have been the best person to get such creative control/power of the group if the outlined scenario was going to happen, and nobody's said Mike would be the best guy for that job.

Of course, he wouldn't be. Was someone here arguing that he would be? I think the point I and others were making was that it wouldn't have made much difference considering what others were considering "cool" at the time.
Besides, nothing any of the group does really diminishes their legacy at this point. The Beach Boys are revered for their recorded work from 1962 to about 1972. Same deal with the Rolling Stones by the way. I doubt anyone's going to call "Steel Wheels" a lost classic or The Who's "Endless Wire" a masterpiece. Whether it's The Beach Boys on Full House or McCartney trying to dance like Michael Jackson: all of that will just be trivia in the back pages of a book for die-hards to discover and have fun with. It's the stuff these guys made when they were a functioning recording unit that matters. When groups like The Beach Boys, The Beatles, The Kinks, The Who, etc. captured the zeitgeist and rode it out. That music trumps everything. It's more powerful than a million cheerleaders jumping around on stage from 25 years ago.

I agree that the golden era music is and will be the most famous and remembered portion of the band's career. But that doesn't mean that blights don't diminish it. If even one fan is put off by ridiculous rubbish like the cheerleaders, which wouldn't have happened if Al or Carl were solely running the show, that's one fan too many.

I have to totally disagree with that. If that one fan is so shallow as to not know the difference between when The Beach Boys were actually THE Beach Boys, then that fan is probably too stupid to appreciate or understand the power of Brian's music.

Keep in mind that I became a HARDCORE Beach Boys fan during the period of which you speak. It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the group that made Pet Sounds was a world away from the group that recorded "Problem Child" (and I like that song actually).  

And you keep forgetting that Al was considered the enemy at that time. If you had made this argument in 1990 you would've had scores of fans claiming you were an apologist for Al and then calling him every name in the book, citing him as one of the principle reasons right behind Mike that the band took a downfall. That ACTUALLY happened...a lot back then (except in "party line" calls rather than the internet...don't get me started).

I don't hate the song "Problem Child" either, with the exception of the "Na Na Na" stuff. I can tolerate a pretty large level of cheese with this band, far more than most. But everyone has their limits, and shouldn't be called "stupid" for being put off by a stage show with some ridiculous stuff going on. The shallow label might better be leveled at the person who masterminded the cheerleaders. Masterminding and going along with something are two different things entirely. Not saying that makes anyone completely absolved of responsibility either.

We'll agree to disagree on that. That's like somebody today seeing that horrible all-star version of The Who's "Tommy" from the 1989's with Billy Idol and Patti Labelle on DVD and going "well, that's the Who. They must suck" without even the slightest knowledge of what the group was all about when the Who were firing on all cylinders. Somebody is allowed to have that opinion, of course, but it's certainly not an opinion I would respect or even take seriously...and I don't fault the band for that. That horrible all-star version of Tommy was quite popular at the time, got great reviews, etc. What were they supposed to do? Not please people at that moment and worry about how it would be perceived 25 years later?

And yet magically, all of the sins are forgiven and The Who are remembered for the best work. The same happened to The Beach Boys and it's as it should be.

In terms of bands that were once at the highest potential for greatness and then became a laughing stock (and partially recovered from it), the BBs still have that stigma greatly, and are lamentably not taken as seriously as they should be, despite still being among the greats. It is partly the fault of all of them, but not the blame is not equal, nor will the vast majority of fans/historians for generations to come ever believe it's something to quantify as equal blame, for the simple reason that it's just not true. One doesn't have to hate the man (I don't) to see this is the case.

[guitarfool2002]

The same happened to The Beach Boys and it's as it should be.

But did the same thing happen? I shared my experiences and opinions on these years 89-97, specifically when Summer In Paradise was overstuffed into the same record store bins as Pet Sounds, with one eventually ending up overstuffed in the cutout bins. And also having a time when both Stars & Stripes AND a Pet Sounds Sessions teaser on the *Sub Pop* label were considered the latest Beach Boys releases. How jarring of a comparison is that? Like I said, it felt like Superman versus Bizarro, Jekyll and Hyde, or on an 80's perspective Michael Knight and KITT versus his goatee'd doppelganger Garth and his semi-truck KARR.  

Two sides of the same coin...all in the racks labeled "Beach Boys". How many fans really did draw that line?

[CenturyDeprived]

The same happened to The Beach Boys and it's as it should be.

But did the same thing happen? I shared my experiences and opinions on these years 89-97, specifically when Summer In Paradise was overstuffed into the same record store bins as Pet Sounds, with one eventually ending up overstuffed in the cutout bins. And also having a time when both Stars & Stripes AND a Pet Sounds Sessions teaser on the *Sub Pop* label were considered the latest Beach Boys releases. How jarring of a comparison is that? Like I said, it felt like Superman versus Bizarro, Jekyll and Hyde, or on an 80's perspective Michael Knight and KITT versus his goatee'd doppelganger Garth and his semi-truck KARR.  

Two sides of the same coin...all in the racks labeled "Beach Boys". How many fans really did draw that line?

Well maybe if Mike had been in sole control, perhaps we wouldn't have had the pesky problem of Pet Sounds Sessions or SMiLE Sessions being released in their current form, and then consumers wouldn't have had that awkward brand confusion thing to worry about when browsing through the latest releases in the bins.  Talk about a missed opportunity for brand identification unity.  

[CenturyDeprived]

Al is still a Beach Boy.

I bet he really felt like a valued Beach Boy and founding member in 1998.

[GhostyTMRS]

If that one fan is so shallow as to not know the difference between when The Beach Boys were actually THE Beach Boys, then that fan is probably too stupid to appreciate or understand the power of Brian's music.

Could a lot of these "issues" come from fans who don't see a difference?

I don't know how anyone who claims to be a fan of The Beach Boys COULDN'T tell the difference.

A group who had a principle leader and that cranked out several albums a year, had consistent chart success, were considered peers by similar acts around the same age, played live shows as a self-contained unit -vs- a leader who's not around, a band that puts out an album once every 5 or 10 years, two of the main guys are now dead, trying to compete with acts 20 years younger and on and on it goes..... I'd say that's a pretty huge difference.  

[guitarfool2002]

I was thinking about something Ghosty had said about the "classic" bands in this same era, and I remember it crystal clear because it was also smack-dab in the middle of when I was most into a lot of these classic bands via what used to be a truly great radio station in Philly that sadly flew off the rails and was never the same after 92-93.

Were there any bands or artists that for lack of a better phrase "escaped unscathed" from this period?

I had been getting into Bowie as well around this time. Picked up that ChangesBowie hits collection disc to get the familiar tunes on one album. Fame '90 was a sick joke. Awful. I wanted the original. Aerosmith re-released Sweet Emotion for MTV with a slick and sexy video to match...and horrible digital effects added to give it a modern sound. Why? It sucked. McCartney's modernized remake of PS/Love Me Do...unlistenable. I saw him on the Flower In The Dirt tour, I loved seeing a Beatle live but the album, I just don't listen to it and really didn't when it was current either.

But Bowie, back to him...the ultimate musical chameleon, genre-bending and crossover innovator. That show "ABC In Concert" that would be on late night, Bowie was going to be on with Tin Machine. Cool, I thought, i hadn't heard Tin Machine's whole album but knew Hunt and Tony Sales were playing, Reeves Gabrels, Bowie, how could it miss? That performance they aired on ABC live on an airstrip somewhere was one of the worst things I ever saw or heard. How did the guy who made Heroes and Young Americans and Starman end up here? So I had experiences like that with my favorite artists regularly as well.

[GhostyTMRS]

The same happened to The Beach Boys and it's as it should be.

But did the same thing happen? I shared my experiences and opinions on these years 89-97, specifically when Summer In Paradise was overstuffed into the same record store bins as Pet Sounds, with one eventually ending up overstuffed in the cutout bins. And also having a time when both Stars & Stripes AND a Pet Sounds Sessions teaser on the *Sub Pop* label were considered the latest Beach Boys releases. How jarring of a comparison is that? Like I said, it felt like Superman versus Bizarro, Jekyll and Hyde, or on an 80's perspective Michael Knight and KITT versus his goatee'd doppelganger Garth and his semi-truck KARR.  

Two sides of the same coin...all in the racks labeled "Beach Boys". How many fans really did draw that line?

This'll probably sound cold but it's not my intention: I had no trouble differentiating at all what Beach Boys product to cherish (of course, I bought everything no matter what it was but still..). By 1989 I had the catalog memorized and if there was a repackage or an archival release I wasn't aware of when I walked into the record store I at least had the shorthand of "Oh, they're young on the cover. This'll probably be good" on my side.  

[GhostyTMRS]

I was thinking about something Ghosty had said about the "classic" bands in this same era, and I remember it crystal clear because it was also smack-dab in the middle of when I was most into a lot of these classic bands via what used to be a truly great radio station in Philly that sadly flew off the rails and was never the same after 92-93.

Were there any bands or artists that for lack of a better phrase "escaped unscathed" from this period?

I had been getting into Bowie as well around this time. Picked up that ChangesBowie hits collection disc to get the familiar tunes on one album. Fame '90 was a sick joke. Awful. I wanted the original. Aerosmith re-released Sweet Emotion for MTV with a slick and sexy video to match...and horrible digital effects added to give it a modern sound. Why? It sucked. McCartney's modernized remake of PS/Love Me Do...unlistenable. I saw him on the Flower In The Dirt tour, I loved seeing a Beatle live but the album, I just don't listen to it and really didn't when it was current either.

But Bowie, back to him...the ultimate musical chameleon, genre-bending and crossover innovator. That show "ABC In Concert" that would be on late night, Bowie was going to be on with Tin Machine. Cool, I thought, i hadn't heard Tin Machine's whole album but knew Hunt and Tony Sales were playing, Reeves Gabrels, Bowie, how could it miss? That performance they aired on ABC live on an airstrip somewhere was one of the worst things I ever saw or heard. How did the guy who made Heroes and Young Americans and Starman end up here? So I had experiences like that with my favorite artists regularly as well.

Ugh. I am a HUGE Bowie fan and you and I could probably commiserate for hours about this. I don't know what it was about the 80's/early 90's  that screwed a lot of these guys up. The plummet was just so quick and painful. I do, however, like a couple of tunes from Tin Machine 2. It was most of "Black Tie White Noise" that almost did me in.

Moreover, what happened in the late 90's that a lot of these guys restored their reputations somewhat? Was it really the success of the old catalog on CD that sent them scurrying into the past to rediscover what people liked about them in the first place (my theory) or was it simple a case of "Nothing else has worked. Screw it. I'll just emulate myself and hope I can cruise to a nice retirement package"?

    

[GhostyTMRS]

I also think these acts we've mentioned are aware of the decline. I'm reminded of how The Rolling Stones "Forty Licks" compilation was sequenced out of chronological order so that it masked just how bad things got (and I don't think the Stones ever recovered....I actually like more songs on SIP than I do songs on the Stones albums Dirty Work, Bridges To Babylon and A Bigger Bang combined....and they don't even have the luxury of a twilight-years "That's Why God Made The Radio" to make it a little easier).

Bowie's recent greatest hits package actually goes backwards, starting with the most recent material and working it's way back to his glory days, so that it just keeps getting better by the end! 

[guitarfool2002]

I was thinking about something Ghosty had said about the "classic" bands in this same era, and I remember it crystal clear because it was also smack-dab in the middle of when I was most into a lot of these classic bands via what used to be a truly great radio station in Philly that sadly flew off the rails and was never the same after 92-93.

Were there any bands or artists that for lack of a better phrase "escaped unscathed" from this period?

I had been getting into Bowie as well around this time. Picked up that ChangesBowie hits collection disc to get the familiar tunes on one album. Fame '90 was a sick joke. Awful. I wanted the original. Aerosmith re-released Sweet Emotion for MTV with a slick and sexy video to match...and horrible digital effects added to give it a modern sound. Why? It sucked. McCartney's modernized remake of PS/Love Me Do...unlistenable. I saw him on the Flower In The Dirt tour, I loved seeing a Beatle live but the album, I just don't listen to it and really didn't when it was current either.

But Bowie, back to him...the ultimate musical chameleon, genre-bending and crossover innovator. That show "ABC In Concert" that would be on late night, Bowie was going to be on with Tin Machine. Cool, I thought, i hadn't heard Tin Machine's whole album but knew Hunt and Tony Sales were playing, Reeves Gabrels, Bowie, how could it miss? That performance they aired on ABC live on an airstrip somewhere was one of the worst things I ever saw or heard. How did the guy who made Heroes and Young Americans and Starman end up here? So I had experiences like that with my favorite artists regularly as well.

Ugh. I am a HUGE Bowie fan and you and I could probably commiserate for hours about this. I don't know what it was about the 80's/early 90's  that screwed a lot of these guys up. The plummet was just so quick and painful. I do, however, like a couple of tunes from Tin Machine 2. It was most of "Black Tie White Noise" that almost did me in.

Moreover, what happened in the late 90's that a lot of these guys restored their reputations somewhat? Was it really the success of the old catalog on CD that sent them scurrying into the past to rediscover what people liked about them in the first place (my theory) or was it simple a case of "Nothing else has worked. Screw it. I'll just emulate myself and hope I can cruise to a nice retirement package"?

    

I do agree, the reasons why they did it is up for debate but a lot of them did redeem themselves. I think the availability and interest in the back catalogs especially as labels started putting out more and more on CD did play a part in these artists returning to their roots. Again back to McCartney, his MTV Unplugged performance seemed to redeem him because it felt natural and real to hear him doing those songs stripped down as he did. I thought that performance was terrific, I got the "limited" release to replace my VHS and uncut video bootlegs and I listened to it all the time. It felt right after Flowers In The Dirt, which felt forced and unnatural. Then he did a live radio syndication broadcast where he played 20 Flight Rock and other great tunes but also did things like "Biker Like An Icon" which were pretty forgettable, with his other new original album from 93 or so...some of it is a blur. But he did redeem himself at least for me as a fan almost right away when he did Unplugged.

Clapton...I was very big into 60's Clapton being a guitar player learning the ropes. Cream, the Beano album - essential stuff. But Clapton in the late 80's and early 90's? Journeyman? Sucked. That horrendous Strat-through-rackmount overprocessed tone, I never liked it, yet it was the same guy who played Crossroads in 68. Clapton later in the 90's started playing blues again, although Unplugged was both a semi-redemption and a detour too. By that time I wasn't really interested all that much, but it was miles ahead of that slick "Pretending" stuff he was putting out. Why did he go back to blues?

Neil Young...same era, my God how good was that SNL performance with Steve Jordan on drums? One of the best performances ever shown on TV. Freedom, great album, Ragged Glory not as good but it still was solid. Arc/Weld...live electric Neil, pretty good. Then the Dylan tribute show with Booker T and the MG's, terrific. Harvest Moon, Unplugged...solid acoustic Neil all around.

Then what happened? Neil was like the opposite of the pack, i guess as he's often been. After some early 80's confusion, he actually thrived in the late 80's and 90's while his peers were making some pretty bad music (and choices), then when the others started to redeem themselves, we got Mirror Ball and Pearl Jam and other stuff I also don't listen to or even hear at all anymore. I guess his redemption was ten years or so earlier than the rest!

[Andrew G. Doe]

It's a sad day ( most every day lately) when the thread at the top of the page has hate for ANY of the members of the BBs a a title. This is just wrong. 

as to the what-ifs, if that's all there is to talk about, it'd be better just not

My take is that, if it's not trolling (which this blatantly is), it's because some folk feel impelled to say something, anything, and travel the road most easily taken. I mentioned a while back that this forum should be divided into two main sections (if it wasn't already), General Beach Boys and I Hate Mike Love: I was joking, of course, but now, I'm thinking maybe I was on to something.

[guitarfool2002]

Getting back to The Beach Boys in this same era, I'll restate again that too much weight was placed on doing another Kokomo when there were opportunities available during a relatively short period of time to do something memorable or unique. They were chasing and trying to repeat a fluke hit, it wasn't even lightning in a bottle with Kokomo, it was more like a Big Mac that doesn't stay hot for long once you sit down at the table to eat it.

Capitol wanted a follow up to the point where they offered an option-based deal to the band for new releases, and they didn't pick up the option with the album of new material the band offered. Bruce wanted to get hit original Beach Boys songs on the radio and not become a touring oldies act, somehow those plans turned out just the opposite for him. I even have an article where it's said Mike could be spending less time on the road and more time recording and working up new Beach Boys songs, that fell by the wayside too. 

It also hit me that the staging of the live shows at least up to 1995 when i can speak from experience seemed to be trying to appeal to the audiences that bought Kokomo in 88. Look at the stage design, the dancing girls, the whole bit...including Stamos' involvement...isn't that the template set in place by the Kokomo video? Seven years or so after that video hit MTV, it looked for all the world like they were trying to recreate that video's look and vibe on stage.

Doesn't that feel like the song's success was taken as a mandate rather than a stroke of showbiz luck, and that attempts to recapture or even recreate that kind of appeal got a little long in the tooth by even 1995?

[CenturyDeprived]

Getting back to The Beach Boys in this same era, I'll restate again that too much weight was placed on doing another Kokomo when there were opportunities available during a relatively short period of time to do something memorable or unique. They were chasing and trying to repeat a fluke hit, it wasn't even lightning in a bottle with Kokomo, it was more like a Big Mac that doesn't stay hot for long once you sit down at the table to eat it.

Capitol wanted a follow up to the point where they offered an option-based deal to the band for new releases, and they didn't pick up the option with the album of new material the band offered. Bruce wanted to get hit original Beach Boys songs on the radio and not become a touring oldies act, somehow those plans turned out just the opposite for him. I even have an article where it's said Mike could be spending less time on the road and more time recording and working up new Beach Boys songs, that fell by the wayside too.  

It also hit me that the staging of the live shows at least up to 1995 when i can speak from experience seemed to be trying to appeal to the audiences that bought Kokomo in 88. Look at the stage design, the dancing girls, the whole bit...including Stamos' involvement...isn't that the template set in place by the Kokomo video? Seven years or so after that video hit MTV, it looked for all the world like they were trying to recreate that video's look and vibe on stage.

Doesn't that feel like the song's success was taken as a mandate rather than a stroke of showbiz luck, and that attempts to recapture or even recreate that kind of appeal got a little long in the tooth by even 1995?

It's no wonder that after 3/4 of a decade of this, that "equally-blame-sharing" members of the band not named Mike Love developed "attitude problems" caused by deep frustration of rehashing this stale formula. I like the song Kokomo, I dig it and non-ironically enjoy it, but in hindsight, its fluke success empowered Mike to endlessly spread endless Kokomo-ness across the fruited plain, leading to the crappiness of the 90s, and IMO despite its success, the negatives which came along for the ride outweighed the positives. I cannot think of any examples of an empowered Mike ultimately being a positive attribute for this band. More Stamos and less Jardine is a good thing to who?

Won't even Mike's defenders concede that if Mike perhaps had a bit more humbleness about Kokomo, and hadn't gotten so fixated on trying to rehash the Kokomo formula for so many years after, that it might have been a better thing for the band, in hindsight? Even if the other bandmembers went along with it, you can bet your bottom dollar that Mike was the biggest cheerleader for it, as evidenced by his (and his alone) constant reminders to the world about the song's existence.

The problem is, you can tell from all the interviews he gives about the song, he name-drops the song and its success like a drug. The rush of ego-boosting empowerment that it gave him (not just the band, but him specifically, being the only BB member credited as a songwriter on the song) was insatiable to him... and while it's understandable that any musician would get their rocks off to have a #1 hit... it did the band zero favors creativity-wise. Not that anyone will ever know, but I think there's a chance we'd have had better material that SIP released if Kokomo had not existed.

[Mike's Beard]

none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

Then how did they sell Capitol on the deal that got mentioned in the 1989 article I posted? Capitol was banking on the momentum that the band apparently could deliver after Kokomo, Mike seemed to have a similar "team" in place as what delivered Kokomo (minus Brian's involvement as he outlined in interviews from that time)...Bruce didn't want to become a traveling oldies revue but instead wanted to get radio airplay and have hits and great songs, again according to what he said as of May 1989...so what happened?

Capitol didn't pick up on the contract option that was Summer In Paradise, they wouldn't take it, hence the "Brother Entertainment" label. "Still Cruisin" doesn't seem to have become what it was being planned as according to that description as of May 1989. Lack of material? If Kokomo was the mandate, if as Mike suggested Brian needed the Beach Boys more than they needed him in the wake of Kokomo and BW88, why didn't it work?

Where was the material that would seem to have come from the same sources that generated the #1 hit Kokomo?

As I said none of them had the chops to single handedly make a great album. They'd struggled to make really good albums for years even with all band members contributing.

[CenturyDeprived]

none of them had the chops to make a great album by themselves by that point.

Then how did they sell Capitol on the deal that got mentioned in the 1989 article I posted? Capitol was banking on the momentum that the band apparently could deliver after Kokomo, Mike seemed to have a similar "team" in place as what delivered Kokomo (minus Brian's involvement as he outlined in interviews from that time)...Bruce didn't want to become a traveling oldies revue but instead wanted to get radio airplay and have hits and great songs, again according to what he said as of May 1989...so what happened?

Capitol didn't pick up on the contract option that was Summer In Paradise, they wouldn't take it, hence the "Brother Entertainment" label. "Still Cruisin" doesn't seem to have become what it was being planned as according to that description as of May 1989. Lack of material? If Kokomo was the mandate, if as Mike suggested Brian needed the Beach Boys more than they needed him in the wake of Kokomo and BW88, why didn't it work?

Where was the material that would seem to have come from the same sources that generated the #1 hit Kokomo?

As I said none of them had the chops to single handedly make a great album. They'd struggled to make really good albums for years even with all band members contributing.

All the more reason why it was absurd for SIP to have been made in its current form with Al being banished to the corner, kept away from most sessions (let alone writing), and Carl barely on it at all. The powerplay was more important than the art.

[Mike's Beard]

Or maybe Carl and Al (never the most prolific of songwriters) just had nada?

[CenturyDeprived]

Or maybe Carl and Al (never the most prolific of songwriters) just had nada?

What about the long-gestating Don't Fight the Sea? I don't think banished Jardine had much of a chance getting that on SIP, do you? It would have improved any BB album around that time, however.

Plus, I recall Mike talking smack about how many songs not written by Mike were on Still Cruisin'. I'm not sure that he wanted anybody else's input on SIP but his own (and Terry's, plus a small touch of like-minded Bruce). Yet he got so upset about not getting to write songs the exact way of his choosing on TWGMTR, despite how SIP was controlled by him, with Al in the corner wearing the BB dunce cap. Sounds fair and not the slightest bit hypocritical to me  

[Mike's Beard]

Or maybe Carl and Al (never the most prolific of songwriters) just had nada?

What about the long-gestating Don't Fight the Sea? I don't think banished Jardine had much of a chance getting that on SIP, do you? It would have improved any BB album around that time, however.

Plus, I recall Mike talking smack about how many songs not written by Mike were on Still Cruisin'. I'm not sure that he wanted anybody else's input on SIP but his own (and Terry's, plus a small touch of like-minded Bruce). Yet he got so upset about not getting to write songs the exact way of his choosing on TWGMTR, despite how SIP was controlled by him, with Al in the corner wearing the BB dunce cap. Sounds fair and not the slightest bit hypocritical to me  

If Don't Fight the Sea (which Al didn't bother to finish) didn't make it onto KTSA, BB85 or Still Crusin' I can't see him fighting for it to be on SIP.