Setting the Record Straight, or revisionist history?

[brianc]

**Zappa released "We're Only in It for the Money", almost a whole album parodying and pissing on the flower power scene.**

It was ripe for parody. I think that album is insightful.

**I don't know if ten years later he'd be proud to being labeled as 'punk'. He'd probably laugh his ass off.**

Well, since no one labeled him a punk, not really sure what you are saying here.

**I don't get this 'Sinatra was punk', 'Brian Wilson was punk', Duke Ellington was punk' rotine. What does it mean, that they had integrity? Individualism? Talent?**

Wow, what an incredible stretch. Who said that about Sinatra? Brian Wilson? Or Duke Ellington? I only remember using the term "punk era" to denote a group of years defined by an explosion of homemade, garage and independent releases that were loosely lumped into a category called "punk." Okay, so that label doesn't work for you? I mean, if you don't like calling little chameleons actual lizards... I don't know what to tell you. Sometimes labels can help a little to express the point of the conversation. I'm not using "punk" as a jumping off point to brag or sound musically superior here. It was a time, and yes, for many people, it was maybe a more pure evocation of the times, musically, than, say, Boston, or an Eagles album that took five years to release, with a $2 million advance or something. There was a cultural divide. You might find Boston or Foreigner or Michael McDonald to be more valid than the Sex Pistols, and that's fine. I happen to be of the mindset that there is an off-the-beaten-path outlook... a think-outside-the-box aesthetic... that is more honest, immediate, and yes, valid. But I'm just one opinion, and subjective at that. The original point was that I don't think Mike Love was anywhere near that mindset in the year 1976-82, a.k.a. the "punk"/"new wave" years. Brian and Dennis were, perhaps, a bit closer in their raw honesty, especially with "POB" and "Love You." And just so it isn't confusing, I'm not calling those albums punk.

**I'm sure some people think that before 1976 you wouldn't join a band unless you knew 5498 chords, had a major recording contract on the line and a Rod Stewart hairdo.**

Certainly not me. I'm praising garage-bands from the '60s throughout this thread. Three-chord bands. But I have no problem saying that after Woodstock, classic rock became the modus operandi until punk bands started hitting. Then there is a paradigm shift.

**Then..... Punk saved rock'n'roll. Duh. Like the Beatles saved USA from Frankie Avalon and Fabian in 1964.**

Some people feel that way. Not everyone had Dick Dale & his Del-Tones in their own backyard. For those in the garage-surf scene of Los Angeles during 1963, the arrival of the Beatles killed their scene and their mojo. It was never as good for them as 1963. All depends on who you ask, and where they lived at the time.

**And what's the problem with Dean Torrence not digging Blondie or the Ramones? Did he also have to wear an uniform, as everyone alse? I thought punk was about individualism.**

Except that most WEREN'T wearing the punk uniform in 1977. Rodney was one of the first guys to play punk records on the radio on the West Coast, if not the first. And he liberally mixed his sets with '60s garage, Phil Spector, Brian Wilson and punk. It's not that Dean Torrence had to fall in line. He's entitled to his opinion. The problem is when you sound dismissive of the new thing that is in clubs, when, of course, Jan & Dean were having a big comeback between 1977-80. The attitude he portrayed on that radio show was condescending. Period.

[brianc]

Okay, let me put it a way that might be less polarizing, because this is starting to sound like I'm being a punk-rock snob.

For the record, there's lots of classic rock records that I love. The '70s was a great era for music, and diversity of taste is to be respected.

I'm only saying that, after the Beach Boys had their hippy period and they released "Endless Summer" to huge success, yes, all of the Beach Boys likely had a hand in saying that they should tour the old hits, and no excuses for those who were doing drugs or drinking too much or whatever. However, the point was that Mike Love seems to have become the biggest outspoken supporter of the "hits" path, for the tours and the overall sound of the band's then-new material. And to that, I was only saying that there was a cultural divide between the Beach Boys and that other side of social/political spectrum. Like, say, the city officials and the kids on the streets marching in the mid-'60s. Cultural divide. And to that end, I just think that Mike was far more culturally divided from that other contingent than, say, Brian or Dennis.

Dennis and Brian weren't a part of "punk-rock." But I don't think the cultural divide between their most artistic work of the late '70s is as drastic as Mike's. And, yeah, it's just my opin, but I think he was out-of-touch.

[the captain]

brianc, do you think you could use the "Quote" button when quoting? I hope this doesn't sound like I'm being rude, because I don't mean to. But it makes things easier to read. The asterisks don't really set apart quotes easily.

[Amy B.]

What about artistic legacy? Does Mike think about that at all? ABBA had a lot of hits, but doesn't rate as high art. Then there are bands that never got near the top of the charts but are respected for pushing the boundaries.

The Beatles and Beach Boys did both (and GV is an example of a song that did both). Mike often talks about the hits, but he never talks about the artistic legacy... does he? Let's say Pet Sounds had only gone to number 60 or something. Would he dismiss it completely? Would Brian?

[brianc]

Who knows what people think about artistic legacy. I guess my feeling is that we have one life to live. We are defined by what we leave behind. Artistic legacy isn't a solution to any man's probelms. But, then again, neither is money, fame or validation. Invariably, what we are left with is our integrity. Or, whatever... I'm being philosophical and going way off point. But artistic integrity is something a lot of us want in life, and admire in others. Some people I know find it pointless, and respect those who worked hard and made money. Mike Love HAS worked hard.

There's a lyric that I heard recently that said a lot to me: "What do I want to leave behind? Friends who'll miss me, work well done... one true love and one good song."

[the captain]

An artist with no commercial success, in most cases, will leave nothing behind because he'll have been a tree falling in the woods with no one to hear him.

(Being devil's advocate, obviously, to an extent.)

[brianc]

History is written about the winners.

[Sheriff John Stone]

What about artistic legacy? Does Mike think about that at all?

That's the most perplexing aspect of Mike Love, for me anyway. Mike is an intelligent, worldly, somewhat sophisticated man. And while I believe he knew/knows the value of "art" in music, I don't believe he has near the appreciation of it that he should. He STILL doesn't "get" SMiLE.

Just a quick thing on the punk issue.... I always thought Mike Love - along with Dennis Wilson and David Marks WERE punk in the early 60's. They had attitude. They were cocky, and I say that affectionately. "Surfin' Safari", "The Shift", "Summertime Blues", "Surfer's Rule", and "Little Deuce Coupe" had that hedonistic spin. Look at the songs that the Ramones and the other "young" groups covered on some of those tribute albums.

Anyway, you couldn't really expect a 40-something Mike Love to follow the punk rock trend of the mid/late 70's. He had children who were old enough to do that. He wanted to make Beach Boys music. That's all he knew. You can say a lot of things about Mike Love - some did and many more will - but you have to admit, the guy was true to what he believed in.

[Amy B.]

An artist with no commercial success, in most cases, will leave nothing behind because he'll have been a tree falling in the woods with no one to hear him.

(Being devil's advocate, obviously, to an extent.)

This is a simplification. First of all, what does "no commercial success" mean? Sure, if only 10 people hear your music, you'll evaporate. But if 50,000 people hear it (as opposed to 2 million), there's a chance those records will still be in the family for new generations to discover, particularly if the music is so good that it resonates decades later. To complicate things further, if you record your music, you always have a chance for an artistic legacy, even if the music flopped to begin with.

This is making my brain hurt. All I meant was to ask if Mike could look back and say, "Hey, that song flopped, but I still think it's great because of the production/harmonies/whatever, and people appreciate it now, decades later, so it's not a failure."

[brianc]

Anyway, you couldn't really expect a 40-something Mike Love to follow the punk rock trend of the mid/late 70's.


Right, exactly. No one could expect that. Only that the cultural divide was there. And truthfully, it was a philosophical shift for not only Mike, but a lot of people who were supportive of the counter-culture just a few years before that. I guess what I'm saying is that I admire people who stayed with it, despite the pull to become "less idealistic" as you get older, whatever that means.

[brianc]

I cannot figure this quote thing out. So sorry.

[brianc]

Re-posted that too.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Anyway, you couldn't really expect a 40-something Mike Love to follow the punk rock trend of the mid/late 70's.


I guess what I'm saying is that I admire people who stayed with it, despite the pull to become "less idealistic" as you get older, whatever that means.

Can you name a couple of them?

[Summer_Days]

Not to get far off-topic, but brianc, try using that Quote button on the top right-hand corner of the user's post you want to quote.  There will be brackets around quoted text.

[lance]

An artist with no commercial success, in most cases, will leave nothing behind because he'll have been a tree falling in the woods with no one to hear him.

(Being devil's advocate, obviously, to an extent.)

This is a simplification. First of all, what does "no commercial success" mean? Sure, if only 10 people hear your music, you'll evaporate. But if 50,000 people hear it (as opposed to 2 million), there's a chance those records will still be in the family for new generations to discover, particularly if the music is so good that it resonates decades later. To complicate things further, if you record your music, you always have a chance for an artistic legacy, even if the music flopped to begin with.

This is making my brain hurt. All I meant was to ask if Mike could look back and say, "Hey, that song flopped, but I still think it's great because of the production/harmonies/whatever, and people appreciate it now, decades later, so it's not a failure."

Exactly.

And the funny thing is, if they did that, theyd sell more records, I think. It is either a terrible narrow unimaginative  way of looking at their work or it is spiteful. Or perhaps they, Brian and particular, really need that sort of thing in order to validate themselves? In which case, its very sad.

[Dancing Bear]

Did he also have to wear an uniform, as everyone alse? I thought punk was about individualism.

One of my favorite all-time quotes actually plays in very nicely here. It's a Zappa quote from a live 1968 show--I think the Royal Albert Hall. Someone yells something about "take off that uniform," presumably because Zappa was wearing an army jacket, as he did sometimes. The crowd roars, and Zappa calmly says something to the effect of "Don't kid yourself, everyone in here is wearing a uniform." Seems apt to the conversation for a few reasons.

Oh yeah, I had that quote in mind.

[Dancing Bear]

**Zappa released "We're Only in It for the Money", almost a whole album parodying and pissing on the flower power scene.**

It was ripe for parody. I think that album is insightful.

Exactly. Scenes are scenes, always ripe for parody.

I guess I just think that analyzing things through a punk filter does a disservice to the artist, the individual. Not everyone felt like sounding urgent in the late 70s, what's wrong with that? In the end, the Boston album or Never Mind the Bollocks are just dudes recording music in a studio to be sold in stores.

What does it have todo with Mike, Brian and Dennis? Nothing. If Brian wasn't writing songs as good as 'Till I Die' in 1977, it had more to do with the fact that he had already released something like 150 songs in 16 years than a cultural divide with some blokes in CBGB or London.

[KokoMoses]

IMHO The Beach Boys belong nowhere near any argument about punk rock, this-n-that!

They are simply the greatest, most unique, "rock" band the world has ever produced. They are their own catagory, end of story. They pretty much gave birth to The Ramones: the second greatest band of all time. That's all the punk cred anyone could ever need.

[Dancing Bear]

What about artistic legacy? Does Mike think about that at all? ABBA had a lot of hits, but doesn't rate as high art. Then there are bands that never got near the top of the charts but are respected for pushing the boundaries.

The Beatles and Beach Boys did both (and GV is an example of a song that did both). Mike often talks about the hits, but he never talks about the artistic legacy... does he? Let's say Pet Sounds had only gone to number 60 or something. Would he dismiss it completely? Would Brian?

I'm sure Mike isn't as one-dimensional as he sounds in interviews. He's 'the Beach Boy who worries about the pratical stuff', that's the role he appointed himself. We know why he felt and feels like that, his dad's business going bankrupt and the pressure he felt when he was suddenly homeless and with a baby on the way.

Maybe when he's interviewd, no one asks him if he wrote Big Sur on guitar or piano and why he changed the rhythmn to 3/4 when he rerecorded the song for Holland. But he certainly doesn't make an effort to move the interviews in that direction either.

[KokoMoses]

Well, that kind of thing probably never even enters Mike's head after 40 years of being treated like a talentless leech. Just imagine the effect this kind of thing can have on an individual.

Everyone should listen to those Beach Boys Podcasts! Mike is very different on these. Almost warm. They ask about specific songs and Mike seems almost like a different person as he's talking about how great Feel Flows is, for example.

It's funny. Me and a friend were trying real hard to make a documentary about Mike a few years ago. The idea was to get as in depth with him as possible and ask him all the questions no one has ever asked him and to treat him like an important member of the band and not just an obstacle. We talked to Elliot Lott and apparently him and Mike both thought it was a wonderful idea, but we never heard back from them. Shame, because it would have been great. He would've been given a real opportunity to help his reputation. But I doubt he even cares at this point. The Dominic Piores of the world would have eaten this movie up, if not just to yell at the screen.

[lance]

Funny, my opinion on this thread was largely formed because I had just listened to the Warmth of the Sun podcasts. I thought that he concentrated far too much on the commercial side of t hings, as if their relative flop had sent them down a notch in his opinion, especially the ones he didn't really write. I thought, for example he was a little hard on "Friends." Oddly, not so hard on "Don't Go Near the Water", although that too was an relative flop. I thought they all could have been far more supportive of some of that material. And it would serve them well in the long run.
 

[KokoMoses]

But at least they were being asked good questions and weren't just being fed flames to fan regarding lawsuits and "Mike's an asshole" related stuff!

[brianc]

Eric,

I would have loved seeing that documentary. It sounds like a great idea.

Again, for the record, I didn't and don't wish that the Beach Boys had been "punk." I'm only saying that, creatively, after "Love You," it feels like they creatively rested on their laurels. They are allowed to do that. It was just a little more cool to see them evolving, whatever form they chose to. "MIU" through "Summer in Paradise" just seemed like more of a devolution. That's all I'm saying.

Brevity is the soul of man's wit. I seem to be severely lacking in that area.

[Quincy]

The BB were just the BB BB BB BB..never anything else..get over it..very simple

[brianc]

Right.

Except that that over-simplification forgets to factor in the part about the music changing so much that members of the Beach Boys didn't even recognize their own band at times.

I don't see what's so threatening about this conversation. It's not like we're changing anything here. Like it or not, Brian Wilson is already accepted as a bonifide cult artist.