Mike & Bruce's setlists appeal to broad range of fans...casual to hardcore

[Cam Mott]

I would put Brian's band and Mike & Bruce's Beach Boys on equal pegging, neither one is better than the other for different reasons.

Can you picture the Mike & Bruce show playing Smile? Or all of Pet Sounds? Brian's band is far better IMHO. Not that the M&B band is all duds - I like Randell Kirsch, he does nice work on some of Jeff Foskett's solo stuff too.

It is nice to see M&B get more serious about representing all the BB music, no doubt Brian's pushing the envelope helped propel that along.

But I'd be curious to hear what criteria you use to say the bands are equal.

And GV by Mike and Bruce is performed BETTER by them than Brian's band IMHO.

In your opinion, but not in musical terms...

The *MAJORITY* of fans who go to see Mike and Bruce's shows don't give a toss about musicianship and rarer material, hence the use of synthesisers.

That's probably the secret of their success, that and the name.
People who are watching them are just there for the party. But this doesn't do the BBs-legacy any justice.

In YOUR opinion, but not in musical terms...

I always enjoy the snarky disdain of the "discerning" Beach Boy fan for the "common" Beach Boy fan.

Yes, it has done so much damage to the legacy that they are still going after 40+ years as one of the world's best loved bands and their music is continually so popular with each new generation that they have an album almost continually on a Billboard chart.   

[Zander]

Yes, in MY opinion. As I said Rocker. But what do you mean "in musical terms"? Both Brian and Mike's versions of the song are performed in the same key, same vocal arrangement etc. If it sounds like Good Vibrations, it's performed like Good Vibrations then by God, it is GOOD VIBRATIONS! 

But Brian's lacks the energy of Mike & Bruce's performance, but hey, that's my opinion.

The Beach Boys legacy has not had any damage done to it through Mike and Bruce's performance. In fact, like Cam says new generations are discovering the music. Is that really a bad thing? I'm glad that I can still go and see Beach Boys music perfomed live by members who performed on the records.

[Sir Rob]

The Beach Boys legacy has not had any damage done to it through Mike and Bruce's performance. In fact, like Cam says new generations are discovering the music. Is that really a bad thing? I'm glad that I can still go and see Beach Boys music perfomed live by members who performed on the records.

I completely disagree.  And not just M&B but 'The Beach Boys' over the last 30 years.  I don't know how many times I meet people who are really dismissive of The Beach Boys because they just have this image of a rather tired surf nostalgia act in their minds.  Not that I've got anything against the early song catalogue (far from it!) but the group's treatment of these songs down the years has done nothing for their standing as great records.   

[Rocker]

Yes, in MY opinion. As I said Rocker. But what do you mean "in musical terms"? Both Brian and Mike's versions of the song are performed in the same key, same vocal arrangement etc. If it sounds like Good Vibrations, it's performed like Good Vibrations then by God, it is GOOD VIBRATIONS! 

But Brian's lacks the energy of Mike & Bruce's performance, but hey, that's my opinion.

The Beach Boys legacy has not had any damage done to it through Mike and Bruce's performance. In fact, like Cam says new generations are discovering the music. Is that really a bad thing? I'm glad that I can still go and see Beach Boys music perfomed live by members who performed on the records.

With "musical terms" I meant that Brian performs the whole record with every vocal on it while M&b have to left some vocals off and some other things that are not like on the record. I didn't say you can't like it, but from a musical point Brian's version is better alone for having the complete arrangement.

For the other thing, I agree with Sir Rob and he probably know what I mean. The beach Boys' legacy has been destroyed little by little since '78 I would say. Almost no one outside of us fans, takes them serious as a band with artistic innovations and succes. It's all about "Barbara Ann", and that wasn't even written by the BBs

[Zander]

The Beach Boys legacy has not had any damage done to it through Mike and Bruce's performance. In fact, like Cam says new generations are discovering the music. Is that really a bad thing? I'm glad that I can still go and see Beach Boys music perfomed live by members who performed on the records.

I completely disagree.  And not just M&B but 'The Beach Boys' over the last 30 years.  I don't know how many times I meet people who are really dismissive of The Beach Boys because they just have this image of a rather tired surf nostalgia act in their minds.  Not that I've got anything against the early song catalogue (far from it!) but the group's treatment of these songs down the years has done nothing for their standing as great records.   

But Rob, that's the problem of them calling themselves the Beach Boys from day one. They are constantly linked to the beach, surfing, sun etc and they're hardly boys anymore. Are you saying the name has been detrimental to their career? If they'd been called the Pendletones, they may have had more respect from the start of their career like the Beatles had respect, because their name didn't relate to anything...?

When I tell people I like the Beach Boys, I get laughed at. I get the usual "you'll be saying the Bay City Rollers are good next etc" But when you LISTEN to the music, there's so much more to it. I've turned at least 5 people I now on to the Beach boys after intial humiliation by them, and now they've apologised for being so dismissive!

I think they've been faithful to the legacy, what more can they do? Would we prefer that they just mime to the record? Ok, so the cheerleader years weren't great, but it didn't harm the songs! It was the cheesiness around them which now, thank God, has been brushed aside...

[Zander]

With "musical terms" I meant that Brian performs the whole record with every vocal on it while M&b have to left some vocals off and some other things that are not like on the record. I didn't say you can't like it, but from a musical point Brian's version is better alone for having the complete arrangement.

I'd have to go back and listen to both versions again, but if M  & B did, I didn't notice. But this goes back to my point that M & B band is a lot smaller than Brian's, and therefore they have to work harder at getting good performances across. But Brian is now performing the Tony Asher lyrics with the Hawaiin chant thing in the middle, which as nice as they are, they aren't and never will be as good as Mike's lyrics IMO.

We could go on forever saying Mike's performance of one song has this added vocal that Brian's doesn't etc and visa versa. But the point is, they are both good at what they do! In different aspects of their shows.

I hope I didn't sound petty in the last post Rocker, I quite like this debate! 

[Sir Rob]

The Beach Boys legacy has not had any damage done to it through Mike and Bruce's performance. In fact, like Cam says new generations are discovering the music. Is that really a bad thing? I'm glad that I can still go and see Beach Boys music perfomed live by members who performed on the records.

I completely disagree.  And not just M&B but 'The Beach Boys' over the last 30 years.  I don't know how many times I meet people who are really dismissive of The Beach Boys because they just have this image of a rather tired surf nostalgia act in their minds.  Not that I've got anything against the early song catalogue (far from it!) but the group's treatment of these songs down the years has done nothing for their standing as great records.   

But Rob, that's the problem of them calling themselves the Beach Boys from day one. They are constantly linked to the beach, surfing, sun etc and they're hardly boys anymore. Are you saying the name has been detrimental to their career? If they'd been called the Pendletones, they may have had more respect from the start of their career like the Beatles had respect, because their name didn't relate to anything...?

When I tell people I like the Beach Boys, I get laughed at. I get the usual "you'll be saying the Bay City Rollers are good next etc" But when you LISTEN to the music, there's so much more to it. I've turned at least 5 people I now on to the Beach boys after intial humiliation by them, and now they've apologised for being so dismissive!

I think they've been faithful to the legacy, what more can they do? Would we prefer that they just mime to the record? Ok, so the cheerleader years weren't great, but it didn't harm the songs! It was the cheesiness around them wish now, thank God, has been brushed aside...

Funny that you mention The Bay City Rollers.  Because that's what someone said to me recently "I rate the Beach Boys somewhere below The Bay City Rollers".  And that's the sort of thing one hears all the time.

I agree the name and early image have not done the group any favours in the long run but you can't put all the blame on those things alone.  The band chose to pursue a short sighted and narrowly 'commercial' nostalgia strategy based on that image.  

If the the cheesiness and cheerleaders etc didn't harm the songs (by which you can only mean the reputation of the songs)  - why be glad those aspects have (to some extent - I'm far from convinced it's total!) been swept aside?

[Zander]

Sorry, what I meant that just because there are cheerleaders bouncing around the stage the quality of the actual song doesn't diminish. It still is a good song. I cringe at the fact that the band have been reduced to have young, dancing girls in leotards dancing around to add a "new dimension" to the shows. They weren't needed in the first place!

[Jim McShane]

Not that they would, but Mike and Bruce have the capability to perform Pet Sounds and Smile to an excellent standard if they had Brian's resources (i.e. the Stockholm String & Horns). Why couldn't they? Even without strings and horns they performed at least 5 songs from Pet Sounds, and they've performed Heroes & Villains and Good Vibrations from Smile.

What I've heard them play is "dumbed down" simpler versions. And Brian and his band play all of Pet Sounds w/o the Strings & Horns extremely well. Look at the Pet Sounds Live DVD. M&B don't have anybody in the band who can come close to the musicianship of Probyn Gregory, Scott Bennett, or Paul Mertens - let alone Darian... Performing a simplified GV and that mess that Mike passes off as H&V is a LONG way from playing Smile in its entirety.

And GV by Mike and Bruce is performed BETTER by them than Brian's band IMHO.

Wow, you are entitled to your opinion. Maybe you like the ML lyrics better and that's why. But heck, even Sir George Martin called out Brian's band for being able to perform GV the way it's supposed to be done.

The *MAJORITY* of fans who go to see Mike and Bruce's shows don't give a toss about musicianship and rarer material,

I wouldn't claim to know the percentages, but that's quite a statement. Maybe that's why some call the M&B show the traveling jukebox...

Mike and Bruce's band has less musicians and less resources, and yet they play over 50 Beach Boys tunes over a two hour period to an excellent standard. They are good at what they do, as is Brian. So surely, their band must have to put in a lot of hard work and have exceptional musical ability to equally match the standard of Brian's 12 man band?

First off, Brian only has 10 in his band. Second, what's stopping M&B from increasing the size of their band if they want to tackle more difficult material and do it properly? Third, while I don't think the M&B band is talentless by any means, why do you suppose Brian's group is so widely acclaimed by critics and fellow musicians alike? Come on, be honest - if you were a performer who would you rather have behind you?

[Cam Mott]

With "musical terms" I meant that Brian performs the whole record with every vocal on it while M&b have to left some vocals off and some other things that are not like on the record. I didn't say you can't like it, but from a musical point Brian's version is better alone for having the complete arrangement.

For the other thing, I agree with Sir Rob and he probably know what I mean. The beach Boys' legacy has been destroyed little by little since '78 I would say. Almost no one outside of us fans, takes them serious as a band with artistic innovations and succes. It's all about "Barbara Ann", and that wasn't even written by the BBs

How is the complete arrangement for recording better in musical terms in a live performance than the arrangement to suit the band performing live?

Please demonstrate how the legacy has been destroyed.

[Dancing Bear]

Wow, you are entitled to your opinion. Maybe you like the ML lyrics better and that's why. But heck, even Sir George Martin called out Brian's band for being able to perform GV the way it's supposed to be done.

I don't think GV is supposed to have comatose lead vocals as we hear in Brian's Band version. This Martin dude don't know sh*t.    

[Mark H.]

I'll second every point made by Mr. McShane. 

I think the legacy has been primarily damaged buy a lengthy public display of pettiness and litigation.  Secondly...the very fact that you have Brian's band, Al's band, and the M&B show is statement enough...there really isn't a "Beach Boys" anymore.  Mike can call his band whatever he chooses...but it just doesn't seem to have the artistic legitimacy to carry the BB name - none of the individual bands do.

[the captain]

I really can't believe that, on a purely musical level, anyone with a good ear would believe the travelling Beach Boys band is remotely close to as good as Brian Wilson's band. I'm not saying that to take away from the travelling Beach Boys, either. They are professional musicians who make a (very good) living touring and playing that material, so they aren't worthless, musically speaking. But Wilson's band is simply ridiculous. The only criticism I can recall ever hearing is that they sound too note-perfect, as if they're recreating recordings. ("Lacking the soul of the originals," is what I've heard, although I think that is a bullshit criticism, especially in that case.)

The travelling Beach Boys band, on the other hand, really is just a different experience. It's fine for people who are into what they do, and I am sure there are different reasons for seeing them. Some people are hardcore fans who will attend any Beach Boys-related show; some are interested in the fun 'n' sun show; some honestly couldn't tell the difference between the original Beach Boys, the current ones and me playing a toy piano belting out the tunes, so it doesn't matter anyway.

There are obviously markets for both bands (and more besides), so I don't think it is too big a deal. The only problems, I think, are those that people have regarding what they consider the bands' legacies, shady business or whatever else. As for me, I'm not interested. I'll see any Brian show that comes my way because of his band (much more than because of him, actually, as he's easily the worst member of his band). I won't ever see the touring Beach Boys.

[Jim McShane]

Wow, you are entitled to your opinion. Maybe you like the ML lyrics better and that's why. But heck, even Sir George Martin called out Brian's band for being able to perform GV the way it's supposed to be done.

I don't think GV is supposed to have comatose lead vocals as we hear in Brian's Band version. This Martin dude don't know merda.    

Yeah! What makes him think he's qualified to open his mouth?? 

[Aegir]

If given the opprotunity to see either Mike & Bruce, or Brian, I would definitely opt for Mike & Bruce. I'm not going to be spending all that extra money just to see some fanboys and a lead singer whose worst musical attribute is his singing. sh*t, at least plug in his keyboard. People call the touring Beach Boys a tribute band.. Brian's band is much moreso a tribute band than Mike & Bruce. Sure, it's annoying when Mike does that creepy wave to the girls in the audience, or when the girls come on stage and Scott Totten is a thin layer of clothing away from full-on intercourse with someone half the time, and yes, I would prefer to hear Brian singing the high parts than some random no one, but half the time BRIAN DOESN'T EVEN SING HIS OWN PARTS! He sings Mike's!

I've never seen Al's show, but I'd imagine that would be the best of the three, memberwise. Ed Carter, Billy Hinsche, Bobby Figueroa and the Jardine brothers are all excellent musicians. And when Brian's daughters were in the band, that's two Wilsons.

Bottom line: If you want to see some ubernerd who's obsessed with the Beach Boys, don't pay $50. Look in the mirror. If you want to see what's left of the Beach Boys, see Al or Mike & Bruce.

[Mark H.]

I'm an obsessed ubernerd...I'll spend the $50 thank you very much.  But let's be honest...Mike couldn't sell tickets without the Beach Boys franchise name.  It it were the Mike Love Band all you would hear are the crickets chirpping....he would like end up about where Al is now. 

Stating that Brian is currently the "worst" musician in his band is hardly an insult.  I imagine Bob Dylan is the worst musician in his band and always has been.

edit for spelling

[the captain]

I'm with you, Mark H. And it isn't $50 to see what's left of the Beach Boys. f***, it isn't to SEE much of anything. It's to HEAR the best musical performance of Beach Boys material. I don't care that Brian sings Mike's parts, or, as I said earlier, that he is easily the worst member of his own band. His band is BRILLIANT. Every one of them is an absolutely wonderful musician. Their singing and playing is absolutely spot-on. The Beach Boys' band isn't. It is really that simple. If you like them, fine. If you want to see them, fine. If you think it's more original members, original members who are better, etc., fine, but they aren't a better band.

I guarantee you this: if Mike were given Brian's band at the same price of his own (or, at least if he could have before they became Brian's band), he'd have jumped at the chance to use them.

[Amy B.]

How is the complete arrangement for recording better in musical terms in a live performance than the arrangement to suit the band performing live?

Please demonstrate how the legacy has been destroyed.

I've never seen the BBs live (except on TV). But having grown up in the 80s, myself and my friends NEVER took the Beach Boys seriously, and that was based on what we saw of them on TV. They looked like an oldies band. They played surfing and car songs. I enjoyed the surfing and car songs, but the BBs themselves in their 40s didn't strike me as innovators ,and when I saw the striped shirts pictures, I figured they were discovered by the label and instructed to sing other people's songs, a la New Kids on the Block. And that in the 80s they were still riding that very commercial wave.
When I heard Pet Sounds at age 15, I was surprised. When I heard H&V at age 22, I was flabergasted. Never, ever, ever knew that the Beach Boys had done anything like that. And I didn't even realize that they were responsible for their own material until I read the liner notes of Pet Sounds.

[Jason]

Al's band is the best of the three out there - his voice is the best, his backing musicians are exemplary, and he has Matt doing the falsettos! Gimme Al's band over Mike and Bruce and Brian's band any day of the week.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Mike and Bruce's recent set lists are the best I've ever seen/heard by any major rock band.

Also, The Beach Boys' legacy HAS been affected by Mike and Bruce's decision to keep touring. But it's not so much because of the songs they perform or how they perform them. It's just the fact that they're a rock and roll band, still doing it after 45 years, and now as senior citizens.

How many rock and roll bands have toured for 45+ years, singing basically the same core of songs, over and over. And again, I'm not knocking them for it. They have become a bit of a joke, but in a non-hurtful way. I think people joke about The Beach Boys affectionately. I mean, even Mike Love jokes about their age and longevity at concerts. People are still happy to have them around.

The Rolling Stones are starting to get the same things said about them, about how old they look, about Mick Jagger still singing "Satisfaction" as an old man, about them still being alive! Frank Sinatra went through the same thing. People used to say that he was going to die on the stage. I'm trying to think of other acts who are comparable to The Beach Boys in age and popularity who are still around. There aren't many. So maybe The Beach Boys - and Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Ray Davies, The Who - are breaking new ground. And someday people won't joke about old guys still playing rock and roll!

[Jim McShane]

If given the opprotunity to see either Mike & Bruce, or Brian, I would definitely opt for Mike & Bruce. I'm not going to be spending all that extra money just to see some fanboys and a lead singer whose worst musical attribute is his singing. merda, at least plug in his keyboard.

Fanboys? Man, if that's all you can give that band credit for I think you're badly mistaken. And remember, many of them had no tie to Brian at all before 1999. Scott Bennett, Taylor, Paul, Bob, and Jim were all from Chicago, not LA. Hardly fanboys.

BTW, is there something wrong with really liking the music you play and the person who wrote it?

Sometimes Brian doesn't sing so well. But often his singing is still quite good, and he knows his limitations in most cases. As Luther pointed out, in a band with virtuoso musicians and incredible vocalists it means Brian is the weakest performer on stage.

half the time BRIAN DOESN'T EVEN SING HIS OWN PARTS! He sings Mike's!

Who sings Brian's parts with the M&B show? Who sings Carl's parts? Who sings Dennis's parts? At least Brian wrote or co-wrote most of the songs he sings on stage.

If you want to see what's left of the Beach Boys, see Al or Mike & Bruce.

Mark hit it right on the head. Mike would be playing 100 seat lounges with the "Mike Love Band". I guess what you say is true though, if you go see the M&B show that's what the "Beach Boys" have become. Sad...

[Jim McShane]

Mike and Bruce's recent set lists are the best I've ever seen/heard by any major rock band.

You consider them better than Brian's Smile show set lists? Or the Pet Sounds tour setlists?

[Amy B.]

[Sometimes Brian doesn't sing so well. But often his singing is still quite good, and he knows his limitations in most cases. As Luther pointed out, in a band with virtuoso musicians and incredible vocalists it means Brian is the weakest performer on stage.

[

The other thing is that Brian doesn't wear an ear monitor, does he? With only one good ear, it doesn't seem like he could. I agree that Brian is the weakest performer on stage, but that whole band (Brian included) is able to perform Smile night after night. That takes a lot.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Mike and Bruce's recent set lists are the best I've ever seen/heard by any major rock band.

You consider them better than Brian's Smile show set lists? Or the Pet Sounds tour setlists?

Jim, that answer could create 43 more pages of debate It's all a matter of numbers. For 99% of the world's listening public, Mike and Bruce's set list would be preferable. For the other 1% (and you know who you are), Brian's would be more desireable.

I'm not dodging your question. After seeing the Beach Boys in concert over 30 times from 1978-1998, Brian's Pet Sounds and SMiLE shows were quite welcomed.  But now that I've digested them, I can honestly say that it's hard to choose. They both have something different to offer. It's not easy to pass up Mike & Bruce's 40 or 50+ song list - whether I'm in that 1% or not.

[Rocker]

With "musical terms" I meant that Brian performs the whole record with every vocal on it while M&b have to left some vocals off and some other things that are not like on the record. I didn't say you can't like it, but from a musical point Brian's version is better alone for having the complete arrangement.

For the other thing, I agree with Sir Rob and he probably know what I mean. The beach Boys' legacy has been destroyed little by little since '78 I would say. Almost no one outside of us fans, takes them serious as a band with artistic innovations and succes. It's all about "Barbara Ann", and that wasn't even written by the BBs

How is the complete arrangement for recording better in musical terms in a live performance than the arrangement to suit the band performing live?

Please demonstrate how the legacy has been destroyed.

I guess it was already answered in this thread. For example, for awhile people were looking with awe at what the BBs did, now they laugh at them. They were the band that did "Pet Sounds" and "Good vibrations" and change the music-world, nowadays they are the surf-oldie-band that did "Kokomo". They are looked at the same way the "Surfaris" are, only that the BBs had alot more to offer, if you know what I mean.


@Zander : It's allright. I like these discussions too.