D. Marks in Endless Harmony Doc

[the captain]

Re-watching for about the bazillionth time this documentary, in my opinion the best of the bunch of BBs related docs. But something occurred to me for the first time today. In the discussion of the birth of the band, the David Marks and Al Jardine interview segments, both obviously just clips of whatever further was said, seem to imply the "traditional" but untrue story of the Beach Boys: that Marks was some kind of temporary replacement for Jardine while he was away tending to academic affairs. David is quoted there as noting he was on the first five albums, but it's in passing, and before you know it, Al is back (according to the implied history of the documentary). So I wonder ... what else might their interviews in particular have said on the chronology or their respective roles in the early band, for example? Was the footage edited to be shoehorned into the traditional storyline?

[variable2]

Re-watching for about the bazillionth time this documentary, in my opinion the best of the bunch of BBs related docs. But something occurred to me for the first time today. In the discussion of the birth of the band, the David Marks and Al Jardine interview segments, both obviously just clips of whatever further was said, seem to imply the "traditional" but untrue story of the Beach Boys: that Marks was some kind of temporary replacement for Jardine while he was away tending to academic affairs. David is quoted there as noting he was on the first five albums, but it's in passing, and before you know it, Al is back (according to the implied history of the documentary). So I wonder ... what else might their interviews in particular have said on the chronology or their respective roles in the early band, for example? Was the footage edited to be shoehorned into the traditional storyline?

weren't those first albums made like within about a little over a year?

[Jon Stebbins]

Re-watching for about the bazillionth time this documentary, in my opinion the best of the bunch of BBs related docs. But something occurred to me for the first time today. In the discussion of the birth of the band, the David Marks and Al Jardine interview segments, both obviously just clips of whatever further was said, seem to imply the "traditional" but untrue story of the Beach Boys: that Marks was some kind of temporary replacement for Jardine while he was away tending to academic affairs. David is quoted there as noting he was on the first five albums, but it's in passing, and before you know it, Al is back (according to the implied history of the documentary). So I wonder ... what else might their interviews in particular have said on the chronology or their respective roles in the early band, for example? Was the footage edited to be shoehorned into the traditional storyline?

Those interviews were conducted in '97 or earlier, David did not get sober until '99. In short, he was a poor advocate for his part in the BB's story. Though he often pointed out he was on all those records he really didn't care much whether people actually heard him...and they usually paid little attention, or truncated the 62/63 truth and moved on to what they perceived as the more important parts of the BB's story. David was used to being labeled the way he was, because Murry started the trend in '64, It was pure spin to bury Dave...and Dave never fought it, it really stuck...and still does in a way. Those Hawaii home movies in American Band showing both Al and Dave in the band at the same time kind of shattered the accepted story for me. But people kept telling it wrong anyway...myself included. It was pure laziness because the evidence was all around. I had an easy time flipping the myth on its head once Dave became serious about defending his role...and started caring that people got it right. Carrie has been on him like a drill Sgt. for years, and Dave finally bought into the fact that history is important stuff.

The thing that nagged at me most, and still does...if the Beach Boys 1961 were really such an established entity, one that was firmly in place, one that made the "addition" of Dave Marks just a brief blip in the real lineup of founders etc... then why is there no photo of the band prior to David? Isn't the first thing a "band" does is take promo photos, especially one with a hit record, and a show biz dad. No photos of the pre-Dave band. Seems strange to me. Ah...but there must be press accounts from that era highlighting that lineup. None. No mention of the name Al Jardine in any BB's related press until after David had left the band...and certainly no mention of him while Dave was in the band even though there are plenty of photos that feature both Al and David playing away together. Yes the Surfin' recording session lineup did not include David, that is a fact, but as far as the Labor Day story, and the emphasis that Al was in the band in '61 and Dave was his 62/63 "fill-in" while he went back to school...none of that story appears in any press accounts until 1964... after Dave was gone. All press accounts of the BB's during their rise to fame refer to David as one of the original members of the group. Then in '64 it changes to Al was the original and Dave was the temp. The way Endless Harmony tells it is the way it was always told until a certain book came out in 2007.

[the captain]

The way Endless Harmony tells it is the way it was always told until a certain book came out in 2007.

That is totally what I was thinking, but I guess my question (which I think you at least somewhat answered by noting David's lack of interest or inability to promote himself depending on his own circumstances) was whether, if both guys were being interviewed as to the history of the group for this project, either of them had told a little more complete and accurate story than what made it to the finished product.

[Sheriff John Stone]

...but I guess my question was whether, if both guys were being interviewed as to the history of the group for this project, either of them had told a little more complete and accurate story than what made it to the finished product.

Didn't Alan Boyd direct that documentary? He lurks/posts here; maybe he could shed some light on that question.

[Jon Stebbins]

The way Endless Harmony tells it is the way it was always told until a certain book came out in 2007.

That is totally what I was thinking, but I guess my question (which I think you at least somewhat answered by noting David's lack of interest or inability to promote himself depending on his own circumstances) was whether, if both guys were being interviewed as to the history of the group for this project, either of them had told a little more complete and accurate story than what made it to the finished product.

Al tends to like the first version of the story unless you press him. I must say he's been a good friend to Dave, but he's not really straight on his facts. He'll tell you he was on the SUSA LP for instance, just not pictured, but the facts don't back that up. And yeah...Dave hadn't gotten serious about it yet when EH was happening. Its easy to learn the following... David was making music with the Wilsons before Al was, but he was a little kid compared to Mike and Al, the big guys cut him out for a few months when they made a record and played a few gigs, Carl got him back in when they needed to seriously rock up the sound...and then they became famous. Al came back mid-fame to occasionally replace Brian on the road, and was utilized in the studio as well starting with the third LP. Unbeknownst to the press there were essentially 6 BB's on the 3rd and 4th LPs. Dave left after the 4th LP was mastered. Al took the "official" 5th position over. That's the early history.

[Jon Stebbins]

Gotta add that I think Alan Boyd did the best he could with the time allowed on EH. He made a great doc., the definitive BB's doc. as of 2010. He couldn't get bogged down teaching the world about the first two years of the group. In fact I participated in a BB's doc. (2004's Wouldnt It Be Nice for BBC TV) which does not even mention the words David Marks in it. I don't think a film about the BB's could get away with that anymore without looking real bad, but 5 years ago was a different story, and the director decided explaining the Dave/Al shift was too time consuming.

[c-man]

The way Endless Harmony tells it is the way it was always told until a certain book came out in 2007.

That certain book is so good, that right now I'm in the middle of reading it again, three years later!  Damn good book.

[Zander]

When David Marks attend the Stomp Convention in London (2005) I asked whether he felt he'd been short changed in the Endless Harmony documentary as his screen time and the reference to his time in the band lasted approx 30 secs. He said no and that he was just privileged to be a part of the band  / American musical history and that he couldn't believe that people still cared about the Beach Boys. He really didn't understand the significance of the group becuase he was so close to it.

Why doesn't someone at Stomp release the footage of the guestes they have!??  

I'd buy it...

[Howie Edelson]

What I would love to know is what exactly was the line-up for the "Mexico City vacation" party that the band remembers. What, was Al playing the double bass that his mom rented??? David was across the street yet DIDN'T perform??? NOT ONE photo from that huge party where the cops were called was taken? Has anyone else ever REALLY confirmed that the legendary house party was indeed a "party" and not a rehearsal with some friends? Wouldn't THAT be the first BB gig???

[Sheriff John Stone]

....he (David) was just privileged to be a part of the band / American musical history and that he couldn't believe that people still cared about the Beach Boys. He really didn't understand the significance of the group becuase he was so close to it.

 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

What I would love to know is what exactly was the line-up for the "Mexico City vacation" party that the band remembers. What, was Al playing the double bass that his mom rented??? David was across the street yet DIDN'T perform??? NOT ONE photo from that huge party where the cops were called was taken? Has anyone else ever REALLY confirmed that the legendary house party was indeed a "party" and not a rehearsal with some friends? Wouldn't THAT be the first BB gig???

oooh...good one~!

[Andrew G. Doe]

What I would love to know is what exactly was the line-up for the "Mexico City vacation" party that the band remembers. What, was Al playing the double bass that his mom rented??? David was across the street yet DIDN'T perform??? NOT ONE photo from that huge party where the cops were called was taken? Has anyone else ever REALLY confirmed that the legendary house party was indeed a "party" and not a rehearsal with some friends? Wouldn't THAT be the first BB gig???

oooh...good one~!

The 'Mexico weekend' has pretty consistently been reported as a rehearsal. Line up was 'classic' BB - Brian/Carl/Dennis/Mike/Alan.

[Howie Edelson]

Andrew -- I don't buy the story. At least not as it's been sold/told over the past 50 years. In the historically inaccurate "pre-Dave, Al-era" -- this was in no way a BAND. In fact in 1961, the only true part of the BB's that WAS a band was Carl and David. David was a far bigger part of the "group" than Al ever was (save for the Morgan sessions due to Al's relationship with them, the renting of the bass, David's age, etc.) As Stebbins recently said -- at all of the other Morgan sessions, their instrumentation seems nil.

RE: This "rehearsal/party" -- something has always smelled fishy. This "line-up" at this rehearsal, with Al presumably on double bass and Carl on guitar -- what was Brian playing -- DRUMS??? At that point HE was the closest thing to being the band's drummer. There's something in all of this that I just don't buy. Folks go away and a "rock band" is born. Yeah, not THOSE guys. There may be a shred of truth in all of this, but as to where I'm not exactly sure. But Murry puprosefully keeping this era blurry in 1964 benefited him due to the fact that David was on the Capitol contract and his "vendetta" against the Marks family was still in full swing.

[tpesky]

Sometimes things can be that simple, spur of the moment when you are in your late teens and it was  a simpler time. It is difficult sometimes for more experienced people nearly 50 years later to always rationalize things like that young people do and make sense of/accept them. People do irrational things and there is not always a way to get statistics or exact accounts because we are human, we do things that don't make sense.  There is a very fine line between historical accuracy and overanalysis. I am a historian/social scientist to the core, but we (historians) have a fault in trying to understand what happened through diaries (which don't always tell the whole picture, cause who writes down every last thing in a diary even though it appears that way) , people's memories (which in NO ONE's case are perfect, they are all malleable), or photographs which never tell a whole story.
I believe in trying to uncover the truth for sure but I think sometimes we get to a point in history and it is has happened lots of times where in trying to correct myths or innaccuracies we have thousands and thousands of written analyis pages  trying to cover one day/one month/one year in history and thats overkill. It is not what we want either because the facts get blurred in that way too without us even realizing it.  Almost like too much of a good thing? Going from 1 extreme to the other.

I have the utmost respect for Beach Boys historians and all historians and love the job they do, just trying to offer another angle to looking at things.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Andrew -- I don't buy the story. At least not as it's been sold/told over the past 50 years. In the historically inaccurate "pre-Dave, Al-era" -- this was in no way a BAND. In fact in 1961, the only true part of the BB's that WAS a band was Carl and David. David was a far bigger part of the "group" than Al ever was (save for the Morgan sessions due to Al's relationship with them, the renting of the bass, David's age, etc.) As Stebbins recently said -- at all of the other Morgan sessions, their instrumentation seems nil.

RE: This "rehearsal/party" -- something has always smelled fishy. This "line-up" at this rehearsal, with Al presumably on double bass and Carl on guitar -- what was Brian playing -- DRUMS??? At that point HE was the closest thing to being the band's drummer. There's something in all of this that I just don't buy. Folks go away and a "rock band" is born. Yeah, not THOSE guys. There may be a shred of truth in all of this, but as to where I'm not exactly sure. But Murry puprosefully keeping this era blurry in 1964 benefited him due to the fact that David was on the Capitol contract and his "vendetta" against the Marks family was still in full swing.

Hence my use of quotes - something else that's always bothered me is, where did the Labor Day weekend timing originate ? I've never seen any of those involved refer to that holiday specifically. Even the guy who Murry & Audree took away on the weekend didn't mention it was Labor Day. Most odd.

[Howie Edelson]

I agree with you Andrew.

Tpesky: In no way do I find this topic to be "overanalysis" (e.g. see any number of "SMiLE" topics on this board...) This is pure and simple mythbusting. And I pitch in on it simply because I call bullsh it. There are a lot of "facts" about the band -- from the foundation on up -- that are skewed, or untrue. Despite what many people feel and believe, the "spin" on this band did not start with Derek Taylor and/or David Leaf. In 2010 it's fair to say that the spin on this band pretty much started BEFORE there was even a band.

As a Beatles historian I would never take the basic facts given (even with Carl squinting his eyes and tilting his head back and telling me it was "a lotta people" there that night) and run with it as fact. I apply the same logic to being a Beach Boys historian.

Yes, it is a lot of years ago (e.g. Al now conveniently tells David's story of Elmer Marks separating Dennis and Murry as his own...) So I realize that memories do get hazy. But pre-1963 Beach Boys is still an active puzzle waiting to be sorted out. Personally, I feel that when the facts behind these myths are all brought to light, the TRUTH will be far more fascinating and inspiring than what has been passed off as the "real" history of the group.

[tpesky]

Howie you bring up very good points and for certain Smile falls under that category I was talking about!

[bgas]

I agree with you Andrew.

Tpesky: In no way do I find this topic to be "overanalysis" (e.g. see any number of "SMiLE" topics on this board...) This is pure and simple mythbusting. And I pitch in on it simply because I call bullsh it. There are a lot of "facts" about the band -- from the foundation on up -- that are skewed, or untrue. Despite what many people feel and believe, the "spin" on this band did not start with Derek Taylor and/or David Leaf. In 2010 it's fair to say that the spin on this band pretty much started BEFORE there was even a band.

As a Beatles historian I would never take the basic facts given (even with Carl squinting his eyes and tilting his head back and telling me it was "a lotta people" there that night) and run with it as fact. I apply the same logic to being a Beach Boys historian.

Yes, it is a lot of years ago (e.g. Al now conveniently tells David's story of Elmer Marks separating Dennis and Murry as his own...) So I realize that memories do get hazy. But pre-1963 Beach Boys is still an active puzzle waiting to be sorted out. Personally, I feel that when the facts behind these myths are all brought to light, the TRUTH will be far more fascinating and inspiring than what has been passed off as the "real" history of the group.

Given that theory, are you actively pursuing the truth? 
Seems Dave wasn't at the rehearsal, or he would have alrady said so. That leaves Al, Brian and Mike, and maybe some neighbors if any can be found now.
How can we get them to talk? Lock them up and hypnotize them? 

What about the CATP/Pendletons hooha? More Murry bla bla bla?
Seems to me, that until they recorded the Surfin Demos, there was no band at all, so there was no band name; and until the record came out, it would have been the same thing, unless there were some appearance that no-one has chronicled, as the Pendletons. What would they have played? Whose instruments would they have borrowed for the jobs? 
 Of course there is that November 3rd, 1962 appearance, at the Hawthorne High School Canteen Dance.
But why would they have played as the Pendletons almost 11 months after they started using the name The Beach Boys?  ( see the media section)

[Andrew G. Doe]

I agree with you Andrew.

Tpesky: In no way do I find this topic to be "overanalysis" (e.g. see any number of "SMiLE" topics on this board...) This is pure and simple mythbusting. And I pitch in on it simply because I call bullsh it. There are a lot of "facts" about the band -- from the foundation on up -- that are skewed, or untrue. Despite what many people feel and believe, the "spin" on this band did not start with Derek Taylor and/or David Leaf. In 2010 it's fair to say that the spin on this band pretty much started BEFORE there was even a band.

As a Beatles historian I would never take the basic facts given (even with Carl squinting his eyes and tilting his head back and telling me it was "a lotta people" there that night) and run with it as fact. I apply the same logic to being a Beach Boys historian.

Yes, it is a lot of years ago (e.g. Al now conveniently tells David's story of Elmer Marks separating Dennis and Murry as his own...) So I realize that memories do get hazy. But pre-1963 Beach Boys is still an active puzzle waiting to be sorted out. Personally, I feel that when the facts behind these myths are all brought to light, the TRUTH will be far more fascinating and inspiring than what has been passed off as the "real" history of the group.

Given that theory, are you actively pursuing the truth?  
Seems Dave wasn't at the rehearsal, or he would have alrady said so. That leaves Al, Brian and Mike, and maybe some neighbors if any can be found now.
How can we get them to talk? Lock them up and hypnotize them?  

What about the CATP/Pendletons hooha? More Murry bla bla bla?
Seems to me, that until they recorded the Surfin Demos, there was no band at all, so there was no band name; and until the record came out, it would have been the same thing, unless there were some appearance that no-one has chronicled, as the Pendletons. What would they have played? Whose instruments would they have borrowed for the jobs?  
 Of course there is that November 3rd, 1962 appearance, at the Hawthorne High School Canteen Dance.
But why would they have played as the Pendletons almost 11 months after they started using the name The Beach Boys?  ( see the media section)

Carl & The Passions was the name Brian gave one of his highschool assembly 'bands', as a (joke) threat to Carl, who didn't want to be in it. The Pendletones was the name they went under while cutting the 1st Morgan session: the Candix A&R hated it and thunk up a new name - The Surfers. "Surfin'" came awfully, awfully close to being released as by The Surfers, as is evidenced by the matrix inscription and the existence of an acetate with "The Surfers" typewritten on the label... then crossed out and a handwritten "Beach Boys" substituted. As far as is known, they never played live as The Pendletones (there was a rumor of an 11/61 HH pep rally appearence: I ran it by someone who was there at the time. Didn't happen), nor were there any pre 12/23/61 shows as The Beach Boys.

[Zander]

....he (David) was just privileged to be a part of the band / American musical history and that he couldn't believe that people still cared about the Beach Boys. He really didn't understand the significance of the group becuase he was so close to it.

 

It is true Sheriff. Anyone else there would verify it, this was before the Landmark unveiling / the Capitol reunion etc. He wasn't undermining the group by saying that, he was just pleasantly surprised...