The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jun/17/mike-love-talks-beach-boys-50th-anniversary-brian-/ (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jun/17/mike-love-talks-beach-boys-50th-anniversary-brian-/)

Thoughts, anyone ?

If Brian has actually agreed to this then I'm all for it but only if Al and Dave are also involved.

Pretty thin on details, yet more than nada.

I'll believe it when Val books Lutterworth auditorium and lets us know officially...

If true, it would be nice to see, but as with anything in the Beach Boy universe, I'll believe it when I see it.

If it is well-planned out AND rehearsed it should bring a tear to many a BB fan's eyes.  I also want to see Al and David involved.

BBLB

Even if it was just Brian and Mike, I'd be obligated to see it.

If Brian's there and Al isn't, kinda lame.  (And I'd be way more interested if David was there as well)

I think Brian would be well served, as it might provide closure for him.

Ok, this article raises three questions:

1. Why do I get the feeling that if Brian reads this article, it will be the first time that he has heard about his having agreed to reunite?

2. What about Al? Will he be included? Without Al, there would be no oint to a "reunion".

3. Is it just me, or is Bruce starting to look like Regis Filbin?

If Brian did agree to this, don't you think it would be easy to pursuade David and Al?

I agree, I don't think Brian has even heard word one about his agreement.

Without Al and Dave (and Bruce), this wouldn't be a reunion...

Mike currently puts on a good show, Brian currently puts on a good show.

But adding Brian's voice to Mike's band and labelling it the Beach Boys would actually lessen the current good vocal blend for no real good reason.

A re-union show needs to be a proper re-union for it to have any real meaning. Once all the surviving Beach Boys are on stage together, the magic of that moment will, to my mind, transcend the performance. Sadly Mike and Brian have possibly the weakest two voices of the current survivors.

The 50th needs marking properly by the band or individually by the surviving members. Not a partial gathering, which will only serve to emphasise, and draw attention to, the disharmony of the last four decades.

To paraphrase Mike: If I had a nickel for every unrealized BB plan.......

Of course, we must also consider the possibility that Mike is playing with low cards and trying to call Brian's bluff.

Wee Helper -  ;D and maybe a  ::)

However, may I be cheeky here and let you all know that Beach Boys Britain is going to hold an event next year, in July 2011 to celebrate the 50th Anniversary of The Beach Boys.

Some details here of plans so far:

TO ALL BEACH BOYS FRIENDS, MUSICIAN FRIENDS AND LOVERS OF PEACE AND HARMONY

After a lovely and inspiring chat with my "Ideas Man" (aka James Crowther) and also after such a fantastic experience at this year's International Pop Overthrow Festival in Liverpool this year, we set our heads to work on what we could do for a Beach Boys Britain celebration, next year (2011) of 50 years of wonderful music and also celebrating that we know so many wonderful and talented musicians, Beach Boy historians and all generally good people. It NEEDS to be celebrated..and even those of us who have not seen eye to eye over the past few years for various reasons, could perhaps put aside the negativtiy and celebrate the POSITIVITY of this particular event.

So, having set the scene above, our idea is to get together as many of you as we can, for a day of fun and music, with all the people who have ever been connected by great music. Friendships were MADE with all this, in some cases we're asking that bygones BE bygones and a fresh "platter" presented for this, which could turn out to be a very special day, indeed.

An  event i s being planned for the weekend of July 9th and 10th 2011,  where great musicians and friends, old and new, would get together to perform not NECESSARILY Beach Boys Music, but the music that they make plus the music that inspired them to do what they do, in the first place. We would hope to tempt certain bands out of "retirement", just for this event or even just to come along for the fun of it and meet up with a lot of like-minded people.

OK - so it's going to (hopefully) be a big project - and one that I am most willing to work for, along with James and maybe one or two of you, even for old times sake and for the sake of the music? The one thing I would say is that since I would be the main co-ordinator, I would hope that this event could be staged in the Midlands of England (where I live!) which has its own "heart" significance..at The Wycliffe Rooms in Lutterworth - and is the home of so many great Beach Boys Britain events, where Jeffrey Foskett, Billy Hinsche, Alan Boyd, Trisha Campo, Stan Shapiro, Stevie Kalinich and our own Sean Macreavy and Andrew G. Doe have all graced the stage.

Suggestions, offers and thoughts most welcome... RSVP, hopefully in the affirmative...

We have had quite a lot of interest so far, by the way...

Mike implies at this stage that Brian will more or less sit in with the band for a few shows. Guess that cuts out the long serving band members joining in also.

Yeah. Pretty lame as mentioned plus announced far to early I think. I would hold off going to a show this year on the possibility of a bigger deal next.

Mike's "official" announcement is now being reported as an actual fact:

If the ever reliable "Fraudulent News" says so, it MUST be true:
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/06/21/brian-wilson-rejoin-beach-boys-th-anniversary-tour/

It's also been picked up here:
http://www.spinner.com/2010/06/21/brian-wilson-rejoining-beach-boys/
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/entertainment/music/Brian-Wilson-May-Rejoin-Beach-Boys-for-50th-Anniversary-Tour-96831274.html
http://www.live4ever.uk.com/2010/06/brian-wilson-to-rejoin-the-beach-boys-next-year/
http://www.gibson.com/en%2Dus/Lifestyle/News/beach%2Dboys%2D0621/

All of these reports go back to the Las Vegas Sun interview w/ Mike; none has done any additional reporting, as far as I can tell.  As we all know, the LV Sun is THE source for official BB information.

Until there's an official press release/press conference, I'm not buying it.  I find it hard to believe that an "official" BB event like this would first be announced in an otherwise uneventful interview w/ the Las Vegas Sun.  I think Mike's announcement was more like a trial balloon (or Mike's wishful thinking) to get the wags talking and drum up some interest.  It appears this non-announcement announcement has done the trick.  W/ something this big there would be a carefully orchestrated announcement and press release, press conference, photo op, etc. like the 40th anniversary celebration of Pet Sounds on top of the Capital building. 

While I'm not saying that it definitely won't happen, I'm just not convinced by the facts that we have so far.

How about going to see the Beach Boys and not wanting to hear other people singing the songs making for a glorified tribute concert?

Meh.

They should all just gather at Al's barn and film themselves running through old songs and maybe a couple new ones and maybe go clean up horse sh*t, and then later in the evening erect a stage and play a couple sets for a local audience!

Brian's site has a statement on this:
http://www.brianwilson.com/news/index.html

Anyone find it weird that Mike himself would deny the claim on Brian's official site that he claimed true elsewhere?

Damn. Was really hoping they do a one off show

From the BW board, as copied from another message board

Jun 22, 2010
Statement on the Beach Boys 50th Anniversary
As The Beach Boys approach 2011-2012 touring season, which will mark their 50th anniversary as a band, speculation continues to grow among fans and media as to reunion possibilities among all the original surviving members. In response to recent stories Mike Love had the following comments: "The Beach Boys continue to tour approximately 150 shows a year in multiple countries. At this time there are no plans for my cousin Brian to rejoin the tour. He has new solo projects on the horizon and I wish him love and success. We have had some discussions of writing and possibly recording together, but nothing has been planned. I, as I¹m sure he is, am proud and honored that The Beach Boys music has endured these 50 years, but felt the need to clarify that there are no current 'reunion' tour plans."
__________________

All Mike has said in this latest statement is that Brian isn't joining them this year. In fact, he's added something, that is the news about discussing writing & recording.

Of any of the band, Mike is probably the most legal-savvy. I seriously doubt he'd say what he did without there being some basis in fact. We'll see, and in the meantime, we have what I hope will be a seriously good BW album to occupy our time.  ;D

Bit late in on this one so maybe this is old news but just noticed this report:

http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/2010/06/22/14474811-wenn-story.html

I'd be wary with that. That's the first I've seen Al mentioned.

No doubt SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN for the 50th next year.

Another best of "50 Summers of Good Vibrations", Al  finally releases 'Postcard', or we see a joint David/Al tour.

Bottom line, there's money to be made.

and of course Brian, On HIS OWN site, has said absolutely nothing
WTF?

This IS an official statement on Brian's site

http://www.brianwilson.com/news/index.html

Jun 22, 2010
Statement on the Beach Boys 50th Anniversary
As The Beach Boys approach 2011-2012 touring season, which will mark their 50th anniversary as a band, speculation continues to grow among fans and media as to reunion possibilities among all the original surviving members. In response to recent stories Mike Love had the following comments: "The Beach Boys continue to tour approximately 150 shows a year in multiple countries. At this time there are no plans for my cousin Brian to rejoin the tour. He has new solo projects on the horizon and I wish him love and success. We have had some discussions of writing and possibly recording together, but nothing has been planned. I, as I¹m sure he is, am proud and honored that The Beach Boys music has endured these 50 years, but felt the need to clarify that there are no current 'reunion' tour plans."

Eh, I don't even know why anyone would want a reunion tour/concert/cd. I think Brian is happy doing what he is doing now: just writing music and hopefully enjoying life. I can't imagine wanting to be thrust back into a band with a person who has spent the last couple decades suing you.

A 50th anniversary 'SMiLE Boxset' would be incredible. That is all I want.

I will admit Smile never did it for me, but The Beach Boys are so much more than Smile, that needs to be celebrated beyond a Smile box set.

This smacks of Mike having to eat humble pie to me. Reads to me like Brian's people read the Las Vegas Sun piece, didn't like it, and insisted on Mike composing a climb down.

This is what Mike originally said (or what he was quoted as having said, and there's been no claim that he was misrepresented):

"We began in the fall of 1961, and our first tour was in 1962, and it’s been nonstop since then. Now we’re gearing up for the 50th anniversary, and Brian Wilson, who has been working on some unfinished Gershwin music project, will rejoin us. I’m sad that Carl Wilson passed away 11, 12 years ago from the same lung cancer problem that claimed the life of George Harrison. That was not a fun time for us. But I am happy that now my son Christian is in the group. Yes, the lineup has changed over the years, but it’s been pretty consistent the past several years. “

The clear implication there is that Brian would be joining them on stage. Mike was talking about the touring history and then about the touring band. This version of the Beach Boys, remember, doesn't record as such; it's purely a touring band with members who also do other things under their own names or under other names but not under the Beach Boys' name.

Now he says: "At this time there are no plans for my cousin Brian to rejoin the tour... but {I} felt the need to clarify that there are no current 'reunion' tour plans."

I read it as a slap on the wrist for Mike.  That it's posted on the BW site (as I'm guessing BW's people insisted) is as though he's been told to stand in front of class and say "Sorry, I told a porkie". It also seems to serve as a reminder to Mike that if they'd posted this message on the Beach Boys Band site it would have had very little exposure. At least the fact that they've posted Mike's retraction on the BW page says that they are speaking – if the denial had been in Brian's words only, it would have seemed to have added even further distance.

Just my interpretation... feel free to flame!

I see no contradictions between the two pieces- in the original interview, Mike clearly stated that Brian would be joining them for the 50th anniversary, in 2011, whereas in the second he's underlining that there are "currently" no plans for Brian to rejoin them "at present". i.e for 2010. Some folk on the Bloo assumed he was trying to get Brian to join him this summer... like that's going to happen with a brand new album to promote ? Yeah, I can just see Brian's people, and Disney, agreeing to that.

There will be some sort of reunion, of this I'm sure. Yes, we're talking The Beach Boys here and their long history of corporate & managerial stupidity, but this is a 50th anniversary, a rare, rare thing in rock. Even they wouldn't f*** this one up.

Aha... would you be willing to bet that pint on this?  :lol

and the thing is, that as obsessives, we're gonna pick through these statements until Dec 31, 2011...

"We have had some discussions of writing and possibly recording together, but nothing has been planned..."

Could be read as:

Mike: "Hey Brian, wanna write some stuff together like the old days?"

Brian: "No." (slams down phone)

Errrrrr... no.  ::)

I predict a 50th anniversary tour...in 2012 or 2013.

I want it too, but it's not the 50th anniversary of SMiLE, it's the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the band.

I think Mike is, as always, trying to look like the nice guy by putting it out there that he'd be the one to initiate the whole thing, so IF it doesn't happen, no one can blame him. After all these years, he continues to hang on Brian and the Wilson's coat tails.

I'll be happy if they all live to the 50th and then take it as it comes.  Remember, we have absolutely NO say in what happens in this matter.

I'm not exactly sure what single date would constitute the 50th anniversary, is it in September 61?

Well... take your pick:

mid August - Brian, Carl, Mike, Dennis and quite possibly David accompany Alan to audition for Hite Morgan. Dennis informs Morgan Mike & Brian have written a song about surfing (they haven't).

late August - music room rehearsals according to Brian in Teen Set #1

September 2-4 - the legendary Labor Day weekend rehearsals

September 15 - audition/demo session for Hite Morgan at his house (as The Pendletones)

October 3 - 1st Morgan session at World Pacific

mid November - "Surfin'/Luau" released on Candix 331 (first appearence of the words "Beach Boys")

December 23 - first documented gig, during the interval of a Dick Dale show at the Rendezvous Ballroom

They've always tended to "jump the gun" on their anniversaries.

Give or take 10 or 15 months, who cares?   Next Spring/Summer is it!

Of course I'd love to see them doing something together. The articles show that there is interest in the media and public for a reunion. But, as somebody mentioned before, we're talking about the Beach Boys. Right now I don't think that there will be anything bigger that that one member will sit in the jury for "American Idol".... Yeah, it's the Beach Boys....

They obviously didn't do their homework. They claim there are 3 surviving original Beach Boys, when there are four!

Technically, "three surviving original Beach Boys" is correct - Brian, Michael, and Al. David replaced Al; Bruce obviously didn't come until 1965.

Eh, depends on how you define 'original' - according to Capitol files, David is an original.. and he was rehearsing with them before Alan pitched in.

Oooooh...Jon?

Dave is an "original" according to Mike and Brian and Al, I guess they'd know. Also original according to Capitol legalities and the Calif. State Landmark. Not orig. according to the lifetime Grammy and not at first...but, kind of rehabilitated to orig. by R&R Hall Of Fame, but not all the way...or something like that. He wasn't on Surfin' and didn't play the first three or four gigs. So, some might argue that he was not a founder, but that gets blurry when you learn that he was already there learning songs from Brian, rehearsing with... and creating a BB's guitar style with Carl in 1958/59...before Al was involved. I look at it like this - There was a musical happening, Brian and his friends Mike and Al sang great, and Carl and his friend David played cool guitar. These things were germinating almost simultaneously, but separately. One day Dennis lit a fuse under their butts. The older guys got to choose who participated in the first session/gigs...Dave was 12 and stayed home ...but the younger guys had already created an instrumental style that the older guys dug...except for Al who did not at first. He left, making room for the kid who was kind of already there anyway. If Dave isn't a starter, then he's a sixth man who started in the preseason...sat out a few games...and then started again when the team started winning big.

It's not just you.  But boy, I'm surprised at how few people pick up on this.

Yeah, that is pretty disgusting. Sounds like he is saying saying "We're as good as the beatles, we even die the same way". Let the Beach Boys stand on their own merits, you don't need the Beatles to boost the Beach Boys status.

Anyways, back to the reunion... I like the idea of the old boys hangin out and harmonising together on film. Maybe recorded to tape as well. I can picture a CD release even of the boys/men/grandpa's doing a classy set around the piano consisting of beach boys songs, some favourite covers, some four freshman tunes... sung only by the beach boys (no backup musicians/vocalists) and done in a way that suits their current age. If done right, it could be a popular album (for the over 50s market). As long as they try and aim for the oldies market. Don't want to make anyone cringe, but I'm thinking of the success of such hits as the Rod Stewart "great amercian songbook" style (or whatever he did). But somehow the beach boys tend to miss the mark.

In recent years, Mike and Al have both announced David on stage (and in print) as an "original Beach Boy," so do you know something they don't?  

Besides, David didn't replace Al...Al was the bass player and sang, while David played guitar and didn't sing that much.  When Al left, Brian took over on bass and they added an electric guitar player and changed the sound of the band from a folk-oriented acoustic band, to a rock & roll garage band.  Al returned to replace Brian on bass, not David...and David and Al toured and recorded together for a little over 6 months.  The point is, they both had two very different roles in the Beach Boys and to say one replaced the other totally discounts their individual musical contributions.

What we need is one of Pete Frame's family trees for The Beach Boys. I'll have a word with him - be a nice 50th anniversay project.

Carrie, a question, not unrelated to what I've just said: when Alan went back to Hite Morgan mid-August 1961 and took Mike, Dennis, Carl & Brian with him, did David go along too ? I've never heard anything either way, but as David had been playing with Carl & Brian for some time by that point, I'd assume so.

Found this on brianwilson.com:

Jun 22, 2010
Statement on the Beach Boys 50th Anniversary
As The Beach Boys approach 2011-2012 touring season, which will mark their 50th anniversary as a band, speculation continues to grow among fans and media as to reunion possibilities among all the original surviving members. In response to recent stories Mike Love had the following comments: "The Beach Boys continue to tour approximately 150 shows a year in multiple countries. At this time there are no plans for my cousin Brian to rejoin the tour.  He has new solo projects on the horizon and I wish him love and success.  We have had some discussions of writing and possibly recording together, but nothing has been planned.  I, as I¹m sure he is, am proud and honored that The Beach Boys music has endured these 50 years, but felt the need to clarify that there are no current 'reunion' tour plans."

What would be the most definite date for the Beach Boys becoming a band? I ask because whatever date that is would be a likely focal point for any given anniversary.

I'd say December 8, the day the Surfin' single was released. That gives our hopefulness at least till December 8, 2011 to hope for.

Historically, the band mark it as December 31st, long thought to be their first ever gig (actually, it was their 3rd)

"Surfin'/Luau" marks the first appearance of the name Beach Boys, and that was released mid-November on Candix 331.

First recording session was October 3rd

I myself would date it to the legendary (and quite possibly apocryphal) Labor Day weekend rehearsal sessions

Back in 1963/4, Brian said it all started back in late August 1961.

I know others push the date back, very plausibly, into the late 50s

So, take your pick.

Yeah, it's a bit of a gray area...I've always looked at David Marks as something of the "Pete Best" of the group.  He was there at the beginning, and even contributed to the sound.  And since he was present on several of the earlier albums, I have no qualms in identifying him as an original member.  It's just unfortunate that overall his tenure with the group was as brief as it was.  Still, should anything come out of this 50th anniversary, I would expect him to be involved.  

And no, Mrs. Marks, this was not in anyway intended as a knock against the guy.  ;-)

A statement guaranteed to have Mr. Stebbins running around the room punching sundry inanimate object and kicking small dogs.  ;D

David played in a band that released five singles on a major label: of those ten songs, three were Top 10 hits, two were Top 20 hits, two were Top 30 hits and two also made the Hot 100. David also played on four chart albums that peaked at #2, #4, #7 and #32.

Pete Best... did none of these. In fact, he never even recorded with the others as The Beatles.

PLus Best was a mediocre drummer, and that's if I'm being extra kind.

Anybody who thinks of Dave as the "Pete Best" of the Beach Boys has a complete lack of logic or no grasp of the facts, whether or not it was meant as a knock...its just plain a poor comparison. As AGD stated the Beach Boys with Dave Marks went from a local curiosity to the biggest band in the U.S. with a string of hit records that are still regarded as classics...they were the top American Rock group...4 hit LPs...playing sold-out arenas...then he quit. The Beatles with Pete Best were a club band with no hit records...then he was fired. I just don't get the similarity.

you can argue the point endlessly, which has been done very well...


and yet the comparison will always remain.

Then, we must strive to change this perception, and here seems as good a place to start as any.  :)

Oh, lord.   ::)  Ok I will clarify - Sure, there are obvious differences between the two; Marks certainly had more to contribute to the Beach Boys than Best did the Beatles.  But can anyone deny that both of them had involvement in the creation of their respective bands?  And, regardless of the reasons, is anyone willing to dispute that both musicians' tenures in said bands were extremely short?  Yes there are differences, but you can most certainly draw comparisons between them.  

Again, this was not intended as a knock against David Marks.  But let's not blow things out of proportion.  In their near-50 year career, David Marks was active with them for a little over one year (not factoring in the post-Carl Wilson days when the band had long since succumbed to the oldies circuit).  That was hardly enough time for him (or for that matter, *any* of the band members) to come into his own.  Hell, he was barely a teenager at the time!

And isn't it a bit absurd to call Pete Best a "mediocre drummer" when Ringo Starr is considered to be "the luckiest guy in the world"?   :lol  

 

I've also heard that term applied to one Graham Nash.  :)

Awwww...unfair.  At least Nash could sing in tune.   :lol

Again, saying it is or isn't a "knock" is irrelevant. Its just a poor comparison. Dave was "active" with the Wilson musically starting in 1958, that's five years to end of his tenure...not really that short. Four LPs. Not one single, or one tour...but the pre=Beach Boys through their rise to fame is the U.S. Also, saying the perception will always be there...because...um...some people insist on making a poor comparison...is not a reason, its just laziness. Learn, and you will know there is no real similarity other than the shallow knee jerk reaction, which everyone had when they didn't know better. Examine the facts, Pete Best never had a whiff of national fame or major success, David was there when the BB's happened, he was also there before, and he joined up again for awhile after. Best was fired, David quit. Best played on nothing, Marks played on classics. Tell me again why there is a similarity?

How is it that of all the conversations to have on a message board, THIS ONE keeps popping up??? First of all, Pete Best isn't even considered a Beatles CO-FOUNDER. Although he drummed with them for a solid year, he literally did nothing that anybody else couldn't do (and did on countless nights). He played no role in their musical development, kept decent bar band amateur time, and went on to be the weak link at both their Decca and EMI auditions. He was DUMPED. Never got on record, never got on an LP sleeve, never got on the charts.

NONE of the above pertains to David Marks.

I understand that people need to categorize him, and it's difficult to, but saying he's the "Pete Best" is an insult. Truly. For several reasons; David was the best musician in The Beach Boys, Pete Best was the the poorest. David Marks was beloved by his bandmates who considered him family and never wanted him to leave. The Beatles could not wait to fire Pete Best (and his overbearing micromanaging mother). The manager of the Beatles wanted to have sex with Pete Best. The manager of the Beach Boys wanted to have sex with . . . um, David Marks' MOM.

If you need to compare him with someone, I GUESS Brian Jones would be slightly better, but even he turned into a liability and was rendered useless. There's really no comparison, but the main fact is that David quit AFTER the band made it. He contributed. He helped them make it. He got signed.

Imagine all of a sudden buying BEATLES FOR SALE, or BEATLES VI and now seeing someone other than Ringo or George on the cover. That's what it was like. He was a member who split. All that kids in 1964 knew of Pete Best was that famous 1961 Albert Marion shot of the band best known for the cover of Mersey Beat. Even "Ain't She Sweet" featured dubbed-over drums.

If you can't understand why people get uptight over this it's basically because you're calling a winner a loser. Stop doing it already. It's an incorrect and offensive analogy. He's not The Beach Boys' "Pete Best' -- he's The Beach Boys' David Marks.

If there's any comparison to be made, Pete Best was better looking than the rest of the Beatles, and David Marks was worse looking than the rest of the Beach Boys.

Not so sure about that. A few years ago my wife, looking at the sleeve of "Surfer Girl," singled out Marks. She asked me who he was and why she didn't recognise him from their other album sleeves. I explained that he'd left shortly after recording that album. She then asked me whether he'd been fired out of jealousy as she said he was clearly "the cute one."

I think part of the problem is that the BBs were a vocal group from very early on -- I mean, if you want to date the group's start, it's really whenever Brian started making Carl and Dennis sing with him -- and Dave was not really part of that continuum. He didn't sing on any of the BB sessions, right? And the group didn't stay as a garage-surf band for long. Even Blondie and Ricky contributed to the vocal blend -- you can pick them out on the records.

It seems like Dave was crucial for the group actually becoming a working rock band, but he just doesn't fit with folks' primarily vocal or wrecking crew-centric conception of the group -- so people search for ways to pigeonhole or dismiss him.

Sheesh, guys.  Seriously.  I didn't realize there was an anti-Pete Best establishment going on here.  :-)

Comparing Marks to Best is by no means an attempt to pigeon-hole, marginalize, or dismiss what he had contributed to the group in the brief period he was involved with them.  I'm simply drawing the comparison in the short amount of time both people were involved in their respective bands.  That point alone is not an unfair comparison.  Yes, David Marks had more to do with the Beach Boys than Pete Best did with the Beatles.  Marks was there at the beginning, he played on the hits, he made his contribution to the sound.  That is not in question.  But neither Marks nor Best were with their respective bands long enough to really make a name for themselves.  They are alike in that they both missed the boat to a successful music career.  Only difference was it was by choice for Marks, not so with Best.  And both bands had success without them.  If you don't like this comparison, we can agree to disagree.  It sticks for me though. 

Awesoman, the thing is that it's an INCORRECT comparison. It's not merely a case of "you say potato, I say po-tahto." It's wrong. It's like picking up a tire and holding it next to a grapefruit and saying, "Y'see -- it's the same!" By using the "Pete Best" analogy, it's not saying "he wasn't with the band long enough to really make a name for himself" it's actually saying: "He fu cked up. He got fired because he didn't fit in and couldn't play. He sucked. They liked Al better." That's what "Pete Best" stands for. If one so desperately needs a Beatles analogy -- use Stu Sutcliffe, which is far more apropos. "Pete Best" = failure, missed the boat, fired, lost the lottery, didn't matter, forgotten, amateur.

As for not making a name for himself after splitting from the Beach Boys, wasn't Dave and The Marksmen the first rock act signed to A&M -- or was that the PETE BEST FOUR???

Yeah Dave was signed to A&M Records, Warner Brothers Records, Imperial Records, and Dot Records AFTER the Beach Boys. He played sessions with, was in bands with and/or collaborated with Warren Zevon, Delany and Bonnie, Leon Russell, Glen Campbell, Jim Keltner, T-Bone Burnett, Delbert McClinton, Brian Wilson etc...AFTER the Beach Boys. I could dig having that kind of an unsuccessful career.

I feel a little bad for you, Awesoman, but you do have a losing battle here. There are two things going on. 1) Of course there is some comparison to be made between these two guys, about some things, on some level. In addition to both having once been a part of bands that had success without them (though as has been mentioned, having contributed wildly different amounts, left under wildly different circumstances, and had later careers of wildly different success), they are both men. Both white. Both musicians. So yeah, there are some comparisons to be made. But when you stick by what isn't an especially great choice, well... 2) And worse, you've selected an example who, like it or not, is loaded with certain connotations. I disagree with Howie that you're calling David a failure, et al, by comparing him to Pete Best. But you have to understand that the term carries those connotations. If I can take this to an extreme to make the point, you don't compare a friend with a mustache to Adolf Hitler without expecting the mustachioed friend to get upset. "I'm just talking facial hair!" won't cut it.

David Crosby gets my vote.  or possibly that sax player from the Beach Boys...  ;D

Steve Douglas?  ;)

Wait...did David Marks ever have a mustache?   :)  Of course, if I had compared Marks with Hitler, I'd understand all the emotional outburst.  (Did Pete Best strangle your cat or something, Howie?)

In all seriousness, let's get a grip here.  Perhaps Pete Best isn't the best (pun intended) comparison to David Marks, but there is no harm in making a comparison; nor am I attempting a disservice to either person in doing so.  Yes, I'm making these comparisons fully aware that Marks is certainly a more talented musician than Best, but that's neither here nor there in this context.  Both men were present during the formation of what became two wildly successful bands (which is nothing to sneeze at).  Both men were in the band for a relatively short period of time.  Both men attempted forming bands using their own name; neither band was ultimately successful commercially.  Neither individual was able to fully enjoy the success of their bands; even if one of those individuals deserved it more than the other.  I think I'm being more than fair here.

Pete Best was noted because he was a Beatle and anything Beatle related, anything or anyone related to Beatles got noticed, written about, discussed endlessly.  Look at the library of books out there and the pantheon of related characters in the lore of Beatles.   


David Marks was actually a Beachboy.  He was on TV. albums, part of the band.  More comparable to someone who might have been the Beatles lead guitar on the first 3 or 4 albums before Harrison.   More like that than similar to Pete Best.

But he does fall into that fringe of people who were there early on and left before things really took off or became the stuff of legend.  I'm thinking of Signe Anderson, Skip Spence,  member/s of Buffalo Springfield,  and so on.   Sometimes these make for compelling bios.

OK, let me ask one more question. Very simple one.

How many Beatles songs does Pete Best still get royalty payments for ? (The Sheridan/Beat Brothers tracks don't count, before anyone says anything).

"Awesoman" (is that your REAL name?) -- No, Pete Best did not strangle my cat. But I'm a historian. I know my s hit. And the Pete Best comparison is lazy and incorrect. Look, there are people (and fanzines) that believe that Jan & Dean and The Beach Boys are one and the same. But they're NOT. Now, you might believe that Jan Berry was as talented and important as Brian Wilson and Phil Spector -- but he was NOT.

So, you can FEEL that the Pete Best/David Marks comparison is accurate, but I'm telling you, and Jon Stebbins, and AGD are telling you that it's NOT.

Read 'THE LOST BEACH BOY.'
Learn and move on. 

The 5 Decca Tapes tracks included on "The Beatles Anthology Vol.1" 2-CD set.

Bingo! <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law>



The Polydor tracks wouldn't count anyway. The Beatles were paid session fees and a buyout fee of any royalty payments.

I am going to make an equally as absurd Beatles / Beach Boys comparison:

I say that David Marks was the “John Lennon” of the Beach Boys.  They both played rhythm guitar in a band that changed the course of  popular music and culture.  They were both signed to Capitol Records.  They were both in bands that started with BEA.  They both have had their old shirts on display at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. And they both moved to New York. See…they’re almost exactly the same except for ALL the other differences that make them nothing alike.  Of course you can compare ANY 2 people and find SOME similarities...but that doesn't mean its accurate to put them in the same category.
 
Now as far as being offensive…it’s not offensive to say you aren’t a fan of his, that you don’t like his mustache...think Surfin' USA sucks, or any other opinion that is subjective.  In fact, David is a musician’s musician. If ‘everybody’ liked his music, he would consider that an artistic failure. Where the offense comes in, is in your argument that David wasn’t in the band long enough to have an impact, or that his music career was a failure.  Wasn’t it was only a few weeks ago that Billboard announced the top 30 summer songs of all time…if YOU played on three songs on that list, would you consider yourself a failure?   
 
I get that you are basing your argument on the time factor. However…from a commercial standpoint, the Beach Boys “Greatest Hits Era” was from 1962 to 1966.  Songs David played on were on the charts and his image was still being used well into 1964…so that 'short time' he was there actually accounts for nearly HALF of their ‘glory days’.  There is no way you can deny that the David Marks era Beach Boys songs are an essential part of the band's legacy.  His time was short, but the lasting result is undeniable! You can prefer whatever era of the band you want, but the reality is, the licensing and sales of Greatest Hits, as well as the consistent touring of those Greatest Hits, is what has kept the operation afloat.  The masses want to hear the Surf / Car classics, and the classics include David Marks….you can’t get around that fact.

In fact, I COULD argue using your logic that David Marks is the "Brian Wilson" of the Beach Boys because they both stayed home to further their own musical endeavors and collected checks while the rest of the band went out and toured to sell those records.  I mean, if we are going to choose random people to compare David to, why limit ourselves to comparing him to failures...we can just as easily pick out the similarities he has with successful people.

Meh, Godwin can suck my dick. Some people--not talking Awesoman here, btw--need extreme, hyperbolic comparisons or analogies because they're fucking stupid and don't understand otherwise. When it's analogous, it's analogous (even to obviously different degrees).

Uh, Pete Best & David Marks are the same...they both have eyes and legs and  pulses..dur dur dur/ [/sarcasm].

As far as I know, none.

'Xactly.  :)

Honestly, I think the point I was trying to make by making a comparison with David Marks to the apparently nefarious Pete Best has gone waaaayyy misunderstood.  And I probably didn't do a stellar job of making the point from the get-go (although I think some are taking this a little too personally).  So if it will settle the waters around here, I invite you to simply forget the original comment I made as I will retract my comparison between the two.  No harm was meant from what I was trying to convey.  So sorry for any confusion.  It's a pity though; guess this means I won't be able to make my next comparison between Al Jardine with "Weird Al" Yankovic as I had originally planned...

BTW Carrie...please let me know if your husband plays in Atlanta again.  Had no idea that he had performed here recently until after the fact.  I would have definitely have gone had I known about it!

Whatever you say, Yoko.  :lol

Exactly WRONG!  Pete Best gets royalties from the Anthology 1 set.

Hey!  One point for me!   :3d

It's a bad comparison in that David Marks is a great musician and also a wonderful singer/songwriter.  I just love his voice.  Pete Best had a great hairdo but was a mediocre drummer.

Carrie, speaking of David's talents, what's the scoops on his new album?  I posted in your Honored Guest thread but nadda.

Can't wait to buy it!

Wrong. Pete Best receives no royalties or mechanicals from his appearance on The Beatles Anthology 1. He received a one-time-only cash payout in mid-1995.

I strongly believe your wrong Howie.  Read an interview last year with McCartney.

Read this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-447201/Pete-Best-The-happiest-Beatle-all.html

Several article state "Best received a substantial windfall—between £1 million and £4 million—from the sales"
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0078983/bio

I believe it's pretty hard in this day and age to jip someone out of royalties.  It's been a while since I read Jon's book but I didn't David get his royalties back?

There is a CNN  with Pete Best, right around 1995-1996, where he holds up a check for about $13,000,000 that he got for royalties from the first Anthology boxed set (and videos).

Are you a member of congress? ;)

I don't think I'm wrong.

David always got his royalties for (mostly) everything he played on dating from Murry's backdated paperwork which wrongly states his exit as happening in 8/63. There was never an issue of getting them "back" since they were always paid in accordance with that end date. The issue is the things he played on after that... (approx. 8/63 through 10/63 maybe longer) which he does not get paid for. Unfortunately the session paperwork from that period has been missing forever...check Murry's tomb.

I would bet that the "windfall" that Best received, and the check that he holds up (13 million? really?) are for, exactly as Howie stated, the one-time cash payout for Anthology. Although how that payment was set up, paid out, whatever, might have been left to lawyers who describe it in legal terms that relate to "royalties".

Exactly - kinda splitting hairs Howie.

Well...there is a difference. Royalties never go away, they cycle as long as sales keep happening. If you are owed royalties legally, you will keep getting them as long as product moves. A one time pay out is something else... its like a severance package or a settlement...or in this case a gift, because I have a hunch that legally the Beatles owed nothing to Best. They decided to give him some dough because he was on some ancient, unreleased, and badly contracted material they were using. They finally did him a solid which was a real cool thing. However, my point was the lawyers or accountants who were instructed to release the funds to Pete may have created a contract that leveraged Pete's "gift" against sales or royalties of a certain percentage or rate of Anthology 1 projected sales. That's a total guess on my part, just knowing that lawyers like to keep things justified contractually. Howie may have a better idea since he's interviewed Pete and some of the other Beatle principals.

Jon - I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.  Go on the web and read some Pete Best interviews where he talks about his Anthology royalties.
Based on the interviews he's done, it seems clear he has been paid based on the sales of the package.  Course, rock writers always get it right.

Pete was on some live Hamburg tracks and also on the Decca audition tapes.  The Beatles couldn't legally use his performances without paying him royalties.  If they made an agreement to pay his royalties in one lump sum, then it's still royalties.  Again, you are splitting hairs over semantics.

Without some agreement in hand to reference, you are just speculating.

As a songwriter with ASCAP and my own little publishing company, with a band record about to come out - I've been doing alot of research into royalties.  To say it's a confusing area with layers and players is an understatement.

If you want to go on record as saying Pete Best doesn't get any sales from Anthology at this point, that's a stretch.

Bottom line, Pete Best is not a good anology to David!

I don't argue for the sake of arguing, and this is not an argument anyway. Just replying to your "splitting hairs" comment. I don't think it is...so i responded and tried to explain why. I haven't read a whole bunch of Pete interviews like you, or interviewed him myself like Howie. I have read a few things about Pete getting a gift or lump sum for the Anthology 1 record. So yes I am speculating. Its a "fact" to you that he gets "royalties"... its not as clear to me at this time, I know he got a bunch of dough. Technically The Beatles could use his performance without paying him "royalties" if a binding legal agreement (old or new) superseded that. I know what Pete played on, but thanks for making sure, I don't know what contracts or agreements are in play regarding those recordings. I don't think that's splitting hairs...i am losing hair though. I've been a registered BMI songwriter for 28 years. I get royalty checks for songwriting about every three months, and I get a check for publishing about twice a year. I never got one for 13 million dollars. I got one for 7 grand once and that made my wife real happy for about a day. Most of the checks i get are for a couple hundred bucks...which is nice because i haven't written or performed on a published/recorded song since the '80's. But enough nostalgia. I don't want to go on the record about Pete not getting royalties, although i believe it is possible he got money, a gift, without being "legally" eligible for performance royalties. Speculation. I'll do some independent research on this and perhaps I'll say, "hey that Surf Rider guy was right". Don't want to split or lose any more hairs. And yes, bottom line, Dave Marks is no Pete Best. Mahalo.

Mahalo to you Jon!

Here's a link for an article quoting a CNN interview from 1996 with Pete Best.  " Best said "The Beatles Anthology 1" has given him "a little bit of recognition, which for so many years was denied." "Financially, it's going to be rewarding as well, because this time around there are royalties."

http://www.beatlesagain.com/breflib/peteivw.html

Maybe Pete is going around misstating the facts (which wouldn't surprise me either).

+++++++++++++

By the by, any news about your updated "The Real Beach Boy".  I know you are busy with numerous other projects.

A check for $13,000,000 for five tracks on Anthology 1 and the videos ?

Sorry, that is simply impossible - for one thing, A1 didn't sell 13,000,000 units worldwide: couldn't have. In the US, by far the biggest market, it's certified as 6x platinum, which means it sold 3 million units. The DVD boxset is certified as 13x platinum (13... hmmm... seen that figure before somewhere  ;D)- however that's not as impressive as it looks, as platinum certification is 200,000 units and every disc in a set counts as one unit and there are 5 DVDs in the set, thus each box counts as five units, thus  13x platinum equates to actual sales of 520,000 DVD box sets. And that was in 2003 ! So, total US sales of A1 are about 3.6 million. Even assuming that ROW sales were an impossible 9.4 million, does anyone here honestly think Best was on a royalty if $1 a set for five tracks ?

Simply... a "windfall" isn't a royalty - if it was, they'd have said "royalty", and if Best was waving a check for 13 mill, it was a prop.

My point is intact - Pete Best has never received a royalty from any Beatles recording

Edit - the UK certification for A1 is double platinum, or 600,000 units (possibly 1,200,000 not sure if it's per disc or per set), and the DVD box hasn't been certified, so it sold less than 25,000... all of which makes the alleged $13,000,000 payment even more impossible.

Good one! LOL


He will be back in Atlanta at some point...some of his solo band members are from ATL, so he'll be down there more often these days.  Check out Jez Graham’s playing, if you haven’t already…he's great!  I will let you know the next time David plays down there, though.  As far as the Best comparison, there’s no harm done. Mostly, I’m just happy that there are fewer people who feel that way today than did 10 years ago…and I’m optimistic that in another 10 years, the thought will be ancient history.


I don't really check the sub-pages very often...sorry.  But yes, he does have a CD coming out in early September called The Circle Continues.  All songs have been co-written by Stephen Kalinich. You will recognize some familiar names in the credits...nothing to the extent Al has on his CD, but there are few amazingly talented guest artists on there. There should be audio clips available in the next few weeks...I'll keep you posted!


Like Jon said, he does get some.  But as it turns out, it is actually pretty easy to gyp someone out of their royalties.

There are no live Hamburg tracks featuring Pete Best in existence. The oft-bootlegged Star Club tracks were recorded in December 1962, over four months after Best was canned and the band was subsequently signed to Parlophone. The Decca tapes were always fully owned by the group -- in actuality, originally NEMS.

Best's payoff from the Anthology tracks was indeed Apple doing him a solid, and was entirely and completely due to Neil Aspinall taking care of his family.

Incidentally, Ringo Starr has earned far more money from Best's Anthology performances than he will in 82 lifetimes.

Compare the royalties David Marks must get from Sounds of Summer to the royalties Pete Best DOESN'T get from 1.

I've just put Pete Best's name into the PRS (Performing Rights Society) database, which is used to calculate payments for the use of recorded music originated in the UK. He is listed as "performer" for the Decca and EMI audition tracks on "Anthology 1." This usually implies that he still gets royalties as a performer based on sales and radio airplay (albeit a dwindling amount with each year that passes. The EMI tracks may even be based on the royalty rate in the original 1962 contract - a farthing per record sold to be split five ways.) He is not listed as an individual performer on the Polydor tracks, in the same way that - say - Johnny Scott is not listed for his flute contribution to "You've Got To Hide Your Love Away," as that was subject to a one-off fee.

What Best has in common with Scott is that he has no right of veto or editorial judgement as to how the Beatles recordings in which he participated are used. As essentially as "session musician with added privileges" I imagine his much-publicised pay-off was a combination of royalties from "Anthology 1" and a further fee to prevent him objecting to the exploitation of these recordings at any time in the future.

Anyway, he's there. If he wasn't getting residuals from the recordings, it would be very unusual for him to be listed without there being a specific note about it.

Hope this helps.

Makes sense.  Too bad certain people ALWAYS have to be right (AGD).  Reminds me of the Captain of the Titanic - gripping the ship's wheel as it went down and still believing his ship couldn't sink.

It's not I who claim he got $13 mil, it was portrayed that way on CNN.  The fact is that Pete Best has claimed he gets royalties in multiple interviews.  But you didn't research that did you????

Fact is, you aren't calling me a liar, your calling Pete Best one!  Maybe he is???

Mahalo Carrie!  I had heard David didn't get everything he should.

Very exciting, the new album.  I really, really love David's voice and can't wait to get his new set.

Is their a release date set?

I'm saying, there's no way any check for that sum concerning that release at that (or any) time could be legitimate. The album/DVD simply hasn't sold anything like enough. And yes, I caw the initials CNN, just like everyone else here.

Captain of the Titanic did no such thing, no did he say the ship was unsinkable. That was a deckhand to a passenger: evidently, he was wrong.  :o

New evidence says that Best may get royalties - cool, I have no problem accepting that and saying I was in error. But, the CNN check is undoubtedly a prop, and going back to the origin of this thread, to compare David with Pete is, frankly, ludicrous in all particulars.

Thank you AGD!  Totally agree that Pete Best in no David Marks!!!!!!!!!  And I agree, the $13 mil is someone's fabrication.

Wan't this thread supposed to be about the potential 50th anniversary?

Pete Best could join the re-united Beach Boys on-stage maybe?  Fo a one-off payment of course...

David Marks comparable to Pete Best? Let me answer this question with a question.

Why do Beach Boys fans always feel the need, even the urge, to compare the Beach Boys to the Beatles, in any capacity, in the most godfuckingdamned asinine ways? I mean, really now. There are so many fans who go on and on about "the Beach Boys are the best band ever" and "Brian Wilson is a genius" and "Pet Sounds is the best album ever" but feel like they need to justify those feelings by drawing innumerable comparisons with the Beatles, THE GREATEST BAND OF ALL TIME WITH THE GREATEST MUSICAL GENIUSES AND THE GREATEST SONGS AND ALBUMS OF ALL TIME.

Sure, I discovered (as in really explored) the Beatles first. The Beach Boys came later. Sure, I'd seen the Paul McCartney statements about Pet Sounds. It didn't faze me one bit. I was hip to Pet Sounds in 1993 as a 9 year old kid, at the tail end of the whole "the Beach Boys suck" thing that was so prevalent in the USA, LONG before I was into the Beatles. When I dove headfirst into the Beach Boys' wonderful world of music, I had no hype going into it beyond Pet Sounds and any number of the hits. The Beatles may have blown my mind, but the Beach Boys knocked me on my ass. To this day I haven't found better. And I haven't felt the need to go around trying to justify my feelings that the Beach Boys are, in my opinion, the greatest rock band ever to walk this planet. I sure as hell wasn't interested in trying to prove it to the masses of elitist Beatles fans, let alone anyone else. Anyone with a brain can make their own choices and decide if they like something. I spent a semester on college radio (specifically, a modern rock station) in 2003. The general taste of the people at Cabrini College ranged from indie rock to death metal to gangsta rap. A good number of those folks couldn't have given two shits about the Beatles. But when I began doing Beach Boys-themed shows on the radio, people from those walks of musical life took notice. Some of them even became fans. I couldn't begin to imagine how many copies of Beach Boys music I gave to people who asked. They never had to justify their fandom.

If you're going to spend your time going on and on about the Beach Boys but always feel the need to justify it by comparing them to the Beatles, you should put your Beach Boys collection in the trash and just listen to the Beatles because it will probably be better for your mental health.

I totally agree with your post. I have long given up justifying to people why The Beach Boys are my favorite band. I'm not sure if this is still prevalent in the USA or not, but growing up in the 60's and 70's,  it was always a Beach Boys vs. Beatles mentality. The two were always compared to each other. They could never co-exist together in the fandom world. You liked one or the other, but not both. I'm 52 years old and it is only in the last 15 years or so that I finally really listened to The Beatles. I dare say that I like them now almost as much as I like The Beach Boys. To this day though, in my head, in the back of my mind, I still compare the two bands, especially their output by each year. In regard to David Marks, I never really thought of him in comparison to anybody. He was just the first Beach Boy to quit and be replaced by Al (Though we now know that wasn't really the case). I regard myself as the true blue fan; who never stopped listening to them, even when it was most uncool to do so. Music is such a personal thing and nothing or no one was going to change my tastes, not even with teasing (light) and sometimes ridicule (harsh). These days, most people have a certain respect for The Beach Boys even if they know nothing more than the hits. These days, the only real knocks that I hear about the band are from us fans who feel a need to take sides with either Brian, Al, Mike and Bruce. I hope the reunion tour (whatever shape it takes) will quell that tide, as well. I have always been interested in their band politics, but my passion has always been their music.

The Beach Boys are way better than Mott the Hoople...

So are we gonna compare Billy Preston and Billy Hinche too? Or should it be Ricky and Blondie?

though my favorite is that George Martin (on the BW Tribute) compares Brian to John/Paul's writing, George and Ringo's performing and George Martin's producing....Brian IS the whole band, he's the Beach Boys!, they're rest are the f-ing messengers.   ;D

Let me answer your question with yet another question: why not?  There's nothing wrong with making a comparison.  I like both bands fine and don't really have a favorite between the two.

And by the way, there was hardly a grand scheme behind my attempt to compare David Marks with Pete Best.  I simply saw a similarity between the two people (ie - basically their short careers with respective bands) and commented on it.  The comparison was over-scrutinized and ultimately frowned upon.  It really had *nothing* to do with comparing both bands as a whole. 

agfagfas

Howie - You forget about "Cry for a Shadow" which was recorded live in Hamburg and features Pete Best on drums.

And it was on Anthology 1.

"Cry For A Shadow" wasn't a live recording; it was recorded June 22nd 1961 at a Hamburg high school gym when the lads, billed as The Beat Brothers, were backing Tony Sheridan on several tracks (and in the time left over, recorded two of their own). The Beatles credit was added some years later, when it was released initially in Germany (1964) then the UK & US (1994).

AGD, you contradict yourself.  You say it wasn't live but then say they were billed as the "Beat Brothers" for  the event.

It was, fact, recorded live (no overdubs) at the school assembly hall with guests in attendance.

It was John, Paul, George and Pete.  Written by John and George.  It was recorded live in Hamburg.  (Howie stated, "There are no live Hamburg tracks featuring Pete Best in existence.")

It has been released dozens of times over the years; as the Beat Brothers, the Silver Beatles, and The Beatles (ANTH 1).

*************

AGD, it is tiresome when you continually split hairs just to be argumentative.  I urge you to please, please (me) & do proper research before you delve outside the area of your expertise (the Beach Boys)!

May I refer you to a website like "The Beatles Bible", which is comparable to your BB Site.

http://www.beatlesbible.com/

Oh, stop trying to pick fights with AGD.

When he said "billed," it was clearly referring to how they were labeled for the recording itself. And as for a live show -- the Beatles Bible itself calls the recording a session: "Towards the end of the June 1961 session, which took place in a Hamburg school assembly hall." http://www.beatlesbible.com/songs/cry-for-a-shadow/

So in referring AGD to a "superior source," you proved him right.

No way dude!

I suggest you reread the thread and see that my post was directed to Howie, not AGD.  AGD, not Howie, responded with incorrect information.  You should be writing him for picking a fight with me.  Wouldn't do any good though as AGD can't help himself.

You don't "bill" acts for a recording session.   That's live performance terminology.  Again, it was recorded "LIVE" in a assembly hall, not a studio.

Again, the song has been labeled in numerous ways.  It was never intended, when recorded, to be released at all, let alone as the Beat Brothers or the Beatles.  It's only due to the success of the Beatles that any of those recordings saw the light of day.  And they couldn't release it as the Beatles in the first place because they were legally prevented from doing so.

 As to picking fights with AGD,  he is the big bully of the Beach Boys boards.  His act gets tiresome and if people would start calling him on the stuff he pulls, maybe he'd play nicer.

Whatever, dude.

For the love of all that is good and pure, please shut the f*** up about Pete fucking Best.

What if they were gonna put together a boxed set like the GV boxed set for the anniversary...any track ideas to throw out there for a five disc version that includes SIP, Stars and Stripes Vol. 1, some solo tracks from all the boys...I'd love to hear ideas.

No problem Wirestone.  I totally understand you 'rock journalists' wanting to cover for and defend your brethren.  (I have the highest respect for Howie and Jon S - really good guys who always go out of their way for people)

But I've had a couple rock columns myself.  Interviewed Alan Parsons once.  Doesn't make me an expert in all things Alan Parson Project.

That is exactly where I got the info from (and I deeply appreciate the most flattering comparison, but said site is far superior to mine).  ;D  What Howie (and I) mean by live is, live in concert, not recorded as live (which, given the exceedingly primitive nature of the recording equipment, was unavoidable). "Cry" wasn't released in any form until some three years later: had it been released in 1961, it would have doubtless been credited to "The Beat Brothers". The session was for Tony Sheridan - not The Beatles. BTW, The Beatles Bible makes no reference to anyone other than the artists, the engineer and the producer being present. That said, the BBible also makes no mention whatsoever of Paul's presence at the April 10th 1967 session for "Vega-Tables", so perhaps it's not infallible.  :)

Agree  ;D

Wouldn't hold your breath on that one...  ;D

So, the Beach Boys have their 50th anniversary next year......?   :-\

Rumor has it.  :)

odds Brian plays bass for hypothetical concerts? wagers?  for most of show?

Make a bet like that in Las Vegas, where the suckers are.

What the hell?! You're just looking to pick a fight...chill the hell out. You have a thing against writers or something? And before you get all pissy with me, I'm not a "rock journalist defending my brethren"...I'm a BB fan who happens to be a a musician/producer calling you out on your sh*t.


Agreed. Hell, f*ck the Beatles...this is a BB/BW board.  ;D

How is that even relevant to your argument? :p

Exactly!

What is your argument Fear 2 Stop?  That it's ok for Howie and AGD put out incorrect information on Pete Best's royalties and, after pointing out they were wrong, AGD attacked me (as he loves to do) and I defended myself?

You tell ME to chill out when AGD routinely attacks posters on here like a rabid pit bull.  You must be buddies?  Or another failed rock journalist???

I don't mean to stick my head in someone else's business, but I was brought up to defend something I believe is right: In all of my dealings with AGD he has been a reputable fellow, not a bully, never resembling any characteristics of rabid pit bull, and actually treated me with respect. Same for Billy and Clay.

Continue on with this inane diatribe of misled comparisons if you wish---I think a large portion of us have tuned out already.

I mean no disrespect with what I have written.

Goodness, you must not pay a lot of attention to what's written on this boards.  Like last week when AGD exploded and dropped the F BOMB.  Or when he was banished from the Blue Board for verbal attacks.

He freely admits he doesn't play nice.  

AGD is not a bad guy - but he attacks, and enjoys it!  He doesn't like it when he is questioned, and it frequently shows.


You seem to think it's OK for AGD to attack me for pointing out he was wrong but it's my bad for sticking up for myself.

Please read the posts and come up for with a relevant argument please! (though I'm sure AGD is delighted to hear you, Billy and Clay are such big fans of his)

SRH has conveniently  and swiftly forgotten I admitted earlier on this thread that as Best is on the PRS database, in this instance I was wrong and freely admit so.

The reason I lost my rag with someone here recently, in the course of a discussion, stated that an established fact was of no consequence. You've never said a bad word in such a situation ?

Anyhoo, like Paulos said, Pete Best is of no consequence, either in The Beatles or The Beach Boys. Done, dusted, next please.

Isn't it remarkable that as soon as a topic is started about Mike Love (vs. BW) or possible reunions it's only a matter of time before it turns into a huge argument? And here's me thinking only the Beach Boys themselves are constantly quarrelling...

Yesterday Rocker tried to get this topic "ON"-topic again ... let me try it once more.

The last few days this topic slowly turned into a general music discussion. By now half of it is about Pete Best, of which a large part is about who's right/wrong. Agree to disagree please, or I'm going to move part of the discussion to where it belongs (either general music discussions of sandbox).

Nope - show Brian a chair/stool and he'll use it.  :)

I've been to several of BW's shows where he played bass for one or two songs, but it never sounded to me like I was actually hearing two bass guitars. If he was plugged in at all his bass must've been pretty low in the mix.

Again with the rock journalist stuff. I was mentioning what I do so you wouldn't think I *was* one..seriously...what is your problem with writers?

Back to the point of the original topic...

I think the reunion would be a good thing, and bring some sort of closure for Brian. I think he's become a lot stronger in a lot of ways, and could handle it now.

He was plugged in at the one concert I went to,an but the first note he hit he kinda flubbed...but it sounded cool. But mostly only a couple of notes then it was a prop...to the point where he acted like it was a rifle.  Going on 6 years now yet I remember that show clear as day.

Why does Brian mostly just sit at his keyboard without touching it when performing? We all know that he can play very well, is it a confidence thing?

U.S. fall tour '09 he played -- audibly -- on almost every song.

Every tour before that, pretty much, he would have at least one or two songs (usually "In My Room" and the intro to "Marcella" or the break in "Wind Chimes") where he played, too.

The whole set-up is designed to give him the most breathing room possible to sing well -- the band doesn't really need another keyboardist. But if he wants to play, he can. And given that it gives his hands a place to rest if he likes -- well, that's fine too.

Problem is... most of the time, he doesn't. I cherish an early UK tour review from NME (which was a rave, btw) which, when discussing "Surf's Up" stated "Wilson doesn't so much sing the song as semaphore it".  ;D

Yes -- I remember when the hand signals started -- about a year(?) into the touring. And everyone was like: "What the heck?"

He's done a few shows/appearances just sitting on a stool, which were interesting. I always wondered why they didn't pursue that. (I guess the answer came last fall -- he might just decide to play the thing throughout the show.)

I was thinking about this (and I actually wanted keep this thread on the right topic). Anyways, what would they do with Brian for these reunion shows. Put him on the side of the stage with the grand piano? Put him on one side of Mike with a keyboard that doesn't get played, and Bruce on another side with another keyboard that doesn't get played? And then Al and Dave thrown in there somewhere? I honestly think Blondie and Ricky should be part of this thing too, but knowing the BBs, probably not. It doesn't really "fit in" cleanly with the whole BB thing, although neither does the whole David Marks situation either. And seeing that they will probably have played on everything minus "Kokomo" that will be played live, why not?

My preference would be to have Brian do the late 70s/early 80s thing and play the grand and do his vocals from there, and then "play" bass on a few songs just to it like the old videos we watch from the early 60s with Brian and Mike up front. And to really bring this thread back to the topic, who would you want there. Here's my take:

Brian Wilson: Vocals/Keys/Bass
Al Jardine: Guitar/Vocals
Mike Love: Vocals
David Marks: Guitar
Blondie Chaplin: Bass/Guitar
Ricky Fataar: Drums
Bruce Johnston: Cheerleader

backed by Brian and Al's bands, or a good mixture thereof.

Would you please elaborate regarding David Marks? What situation are we talking here?

Just that he was there like originally, and played on classic records, and then was gone, and wasn't there for the "super-classic" era of Today/Pet Sounds/Smile Sessions. And that how his and Al's situation of who's original? It was just messy. Just like having two dudes in the early 70s play on some pretty cool but not very commercial records. You know, just not fitting in with the classic, Mike Love version of the Beach Boys.

Al & David just played a show together in New York. They are in a band together right now. I know David has a personal issue with Mike at the moment, but he has always had a relationship with the band for their entire career. And, he was included on the monument in Hawthorne. David fits in just fine!

David Marks was as responsible for CREATING the "classic, Mike Love version of the Beach Boys" as Brian or Carl.  His guitar was/is unique on those early albums.  If you'd ever seen/heard him play live in any of the BB band incarnations going around you'd know the difference immediately.  You could be blindfolded and hear the difference between David and anyone else playing the same stuff.

I can't define it but I know when I hear it.  Go figure.

Mike said that Brian was going to be working with them on music and studio stuff, which Brian has basically said he'd do about 4 or 5 years ago.   So Mike's not really lying, he's just being a little deceitful. 


Big concert, Mike and Brian on stage singing together?  Never happen.

You've got to ask yourself a question Fear 2 Stop.  Would you rather

A. go to a concert and see Brian play a bass well

or

B. go to a concert and see Brian aim his bass at people acting like it was a rifle.



....I think we all know that B is the best possible scenario here.  Wish I was there. 

And it shouldn't.

Why not ?

Oh, the latter! I wasn't putting Brian down...hell, that was one of my favorite parts of the show!

Oh I know, just having fun.

Fair question-and I don't have a concise answer. Aside from the obvious ($$$$$), I just kinda think its pointless. And with the exception of the die hards, I don't think the average Joe really gives a sh*t. And empty seats would not be good . Seeing Brian on stage with  Mike seems like a hideous joke or nightmare that just is not going to mesh well at all. I know, I know, its well documented here that my regard for ML is that of a sewer rat-so  crucify me but I've got some company(go to mike love is a jerk .com). Suffice to say that the whole shebang , for me, would be an exercise in sheer hypocrisy.

Everybody is a hypocrite, it's unescapable.  I don't think it'll happen, but if it does something like they're talking about is something managers hash out, there won't be any Mike opressing Brian or anything.  It'll be "Mikes Manager and Brian's Manager agreed that they should do a show together" type stuff.  LOL

In the end it's much ado about nothing, we're talking about music.  I don't think it'll happen, but stranger things have happened regarding these folks. 

Suppose Brian was cool with the notion. ?

I'm honestly not sure that Brian's presence is really going to add much to the whole thing.  Would he even bother singing anything?  Sure, it would be cool if they all got together, but I just don't think this is the "mega-event" that fans want it to be.  These guys are all pushing 70, they don't really get along that well with each other, and their best singer has long since passed away.  I would be much more interested in a new box set of some sort being released; maybe something similar to the Endless Harmony and Hawthorne, CA compilations.

I can see the interviews now...

Mike: "Well, it was the 50th, and my wife and managers thought it was a great idea...."

Brian: "Hey, that's my line!"

 ;D

Not so wild about the idea of the reunion. So much could go so ridiculously wrong it's kind of scary to think about.

Inescapable! That's just inbelieveable.

PLEASE tell me you're not the kind of butthole who calls people out on spelling errors on a messageboard.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unescapable

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inbelieveable

I'm makin' a joke man, about hypocrisy, chastising your spelling error while having one of my own.

Regarding Brian playing piano/keyboard or bass and singing, can he still mentally sing and play simultaniously? I'm not trying to belittle or insult the man. Landy's "medicine" did some very real, permanent damage. Does Brian still have the concentration to both play and sing at the same time? For an extended period, I mean. Several songs in a row. I'm sure Brian could probably handle a part of a song, or even a complete song.

Jokes are funny, though.  And "Unescapable" is an accepted spelling of the word... so you  may just want to leave the funny bits to the comedians.  It's annoying as hell when people point out spelling mistakes.  Just my opinion!

Sure he does, man.  He just doesn't feel like it, which is probably his opinion of the 50th reunion, lol.

Time for a cooling-off....

Mike Love is expected to make a statement about the 50th anniversary on 101.1 WCBS FM tomorrow morning:
http://wcbsfm.radio.com/2010/07/19/beach-boys-announcement-from-mike-love-tomorrow-morning/

Interesting. I don't know if he would make an announcement like that just to dismiss the rumours of a reunion....

On the other hand, maybe he'll just announce some new releases

I don't know about you guys, but I hope we'll FINALLY get that Stars & Stripes Vol. 2!

 ;D

Mike and Brian to record after 15 years:
http://wcbsfm.radio.com/2010/07/20/mike-loves-statement-about-the-beach-boys-50th-anniversary/#more-12786

Although it still seems like it's not set in stone lol.

I like where this is going.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opcmQFccWK0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opcmQFccWK0)

Me too....  ;D


But I really hope that something will happen studio-wise

Question: would Kokomo and other of Love's "gems" not involving Brian be played on this reunion involving Brian or would that just be a slap in the face? Or make Brian want to vomit?

Ya know what tho? If the two of them recorded together, I would venture to guess that Mike would expect the material to be 'the formula'...no innovation...we'd hear mostly redoes of classic songs, and two or three originals (of which would probably sound like out-takes from 'Still Cruisin'). Heck, even if they toured together, can you see Mike onstage playing 'Cabinessence' or 'Surf's Up' without looking like a tool?

Brian is working on INNOVATIVE music that is going to sell bigtime (can't wait for Aug 17!!!!!) - I think he should continue to do that....not get caught up in nostalgia.

Besides, the conversation with Mike and Brian probably went something like this:

[Mike is counting his earnings from the previous nights show - decides he doesn't have enough and calls up the Brian camp with a 'great' idea about recording together]
[Brian, simultaneously is polishing up a BWRG song in the engineering room]

Brian's manager: "Bri, you got a phone call from Mike, says he wants to get together and record"
Brian: "Okay" acknowledging the fact that his cousin called, walking away to fiddle with a particular sound on the mixing table, and then totally forgetting about the call.

I guess it is because I didn't grow up when the Beach Boys were in their prime (and thus never saw them in concert or never felt the excitement of getting a brand new vinyl of 'Sunflower'), but I don't see the point in a reunion tour or a studio album....it seems to me it would hold Brian back from creating more music.

This is just my take... the point would be, next year will be the 50th anniversary of this thing we call "The Beach Boys", 50 years that is, essentially, unbroken: since December 1961, there hasn't been a year go by without at least 50 shows by a band containing at least one founding member. That in itself is worth celebrating. More importantly, next year these guys will be 70, 69, 69, 69 and 63: there won't be a 60th anniversary with all five present and I wouldn't lay odds on them all making the 55th. They're family, or the next best thing, friends pretty much forever. Frankly, I don't imagine any reunion show(s) would be musically outstanding... but just to see them up there once more, gathered around one mike and singing "Surfer Girl", or "Their Hearts Were Full Of Spring", well, if the thought of that doesn't move you then nothing will.

Of course, no Carl and no Dennis. How could there be ? They're dead, and have been so for, respectively, 12 and 26 years, but they've lived on in the music. Their physical absence is no reason for not celebrating the anniversary, and I think Brian will understand that and make the effort.

I feel that the central part of most good music is spirituality, and I suppose that Mike, Al, and Brian singing around a mic for one last concert together would be heavily spiritual and thus moving, so I see your point. Like I said, I didn't grow up with them when they were all around a mic together, so I really never thought about it that way.

I think some sort of commemoration is in order. A live show, with Brian singing "God Only Knows" and doing his parts in "Surfer Girl" and "Do It Again" would be appropriate, if ultimately unremarkable.

A recording would be better. Indulge me for a second.

I'd like a two-disc set of hits and new material, with the new material being led off by the three BB tracks from the mid-90s -- Soul Searchin' and You're Still A Mystery are releasable now -- with the guys finishing vocals on Dancing the Night Away. Brian and Mike could maybe three new tunes, Al could contribute "Don't Fight the Sea" and some other tune he's been sitting on for 30 years. That's eight tracks right there. Bruce or Dave could have a tune. And heck, just overdub a couple of other Paley sessions tracks -- Chain Reaction of Love is begging for a Mike vocal, and Some Sweet Day is perhaps Brian's best unreleased pop moment. There you have it!

New disk:

1.) Soul Searchin
2.) Back to the Beach (new Wilson / Love)
3.) Don't Fight the Sea
4.) Chain Reaction of Love
5.) Drag Race Love Affair (new Wilson / Love)
6.) My rewrite of "Goodnight Irene" (new Al)
7.) I Write the Songs (hot mix)
8.) Some Sweet Day
9.) High School in my Heart (new Wilson / Love)
10.) Dancin' the Night Away
11.) You're Still a Mystery

Easy!

You've sold me on the idea. Brian obviously still has a great voice...the latest posting on the youtube thread of Mike singing 'Disney Girls' showed me he can still sing. Al (proof on Postcards) can still sing. And Brian could really make some great originals.

Ok, I admit I was wrong about alluding that it would be a disaster. Besides, I WOULD love to hear a cover of 'And Your Dreams Come True'.

Perfectly put!

Exactly! Does anybody want "Stars and Stripes" to go down as the last project the entire surviving members were involved in? They are in a unique once in a lifetime position right now to celebrate their legacy to the full. If they blow this opportunity now it will never come again. They won't be able to do it as 80 year olds. As long as diehards don't judge them by or expect them to reach the creative heights of a "God Only Knows" or perform live to the standard of "In Concert '73" than as a fan how can you not be happy?

Here's how you can not be happy.  ;D

"No Carl, no Dennis - no real reunion"...

"Mike's only in it for the money/publicity/ego"...

"Alan's only in it for the money/publicity/ego"...

"Brian shouldn't be forced into participating in this pantomime"...

When Carl was still alive, The Beach Boys very frequently performed with just one Wilson on stage and I don't think anybody said then that it wasn't really The Beach Boys... So I don't see why it shouldn't be now...

You may be surprised to know that several people DID say just that.  And one rather famous fan (with the initials DP) even held the opinon that they stopped being "The Beach Boys" when the number of Wilsons onstage went from three to two!

In 1964? Jeez...

Sorry if this has been posted

http://www.billboard.com/news?tag=nav#/news/beach-boys-love-talks-reunion-plans-katy-1004106085.story (http://www.billboard.com/news?tag=nav#/news/beach-boys-love-talks-reunion-plans-katy-1004106085.story)


Mike sat down with billboard

(http://www.billboard.com/photos/stylus/109478-mike_love_beach_boys_617_409.jpg)

The Beach Boys will celebrate the 50th anniversary of their first single in 2011, but the group's Mike Love says that any specific reports about how they'll do that are premature.

 

"There have been a lot of ideas floated, but nothing decided," the senior remaining Beach Boy tells Billboard.com. "So far it's just conversation. There are no big plans yet -- although there's a lot of interest from a lot of people to see what would happen if we got together and did some new music and maybe did some shows. But so far nothing's firm."

 

Former group member Al Jardine recently said the group -- including Brian Wilson, Bruce Johnston and early member David Marks -- would reunite in 2011 for at least one reunion show, probably free. And an early suggestion was made that Wilson and Love would be collaborating on some new material, but that was rebuffed by Wilson's management, who cited his focus on his upcoming "Brian Wilson Reimagines Gershwin," due Aug. 17.

 

Billboard Bits: Beach Boys Reunion a Possibility

 

"I've had a few conversations recently with my cousin Brian...about doing some musical projects together," Love says. "But we're busy touring, he's busy recording and doing some dates, so in the fall we'll get more focused on it." Love says he himself has recorded "18 to 20 songs that I have yet to come out with," including tunes inspired by his experiences with Transcendental Meditation and the Maharashi Mahesh Yogi and a song entitled "Pisces Brothers," which Love describes as "a reminiscence about George Harrison."

 

Meanwhile, Love says he's getting his head around the idea that it's been 50 years since the Beach Boys released their debut single, "Surfin'." "It's a pretty remarkable landmark," he says. "I'm almost at a loss for words, but it is pretty damn special to even contemplate doing something 50 years after you started. It's pretty amazing to still have our music in films and people coming to see us five decades are we started. Initially the subject matter was so unique -- songs about surfing, great cars, being true to your school, California girls. And the subject matter is still in vogue -- just ask Katy Perry."

 

And Love's thoughts about Perry's "California Gurls?" "I think the part she did is pretty cool," he says. "There are a lot of writers on it, and I think it's probably a stroke of genius to have the king of canine cool, Mr. [Snoop] Dogg, do his thing. But I think her creative part, her musical part, is pretty hooky. I think it brings the Beach Boys' 1965 classic to mind, that's for sure."

Actually spring '63 tour...Brian didn't go, Al filled in for him.

http://www.ctpost.com/entertainment/article/The-Beach-Boys-Band-wraps-Alive-Five-series-601396.php

Bruce Johnston, who joined the group in 1965 and tours with the Love-led incarnation of the group, the Beach Boys Band, "hadn't really thought about it." But after some prodding, Johnston finally came up with an idea -- and it will have diehard fans salivating.

"Everyone's going really nuts and asking, `Are we going to do it?' " Johnston said during an interview from New Jersey last week.

Johnston envisions a "Beach Boys convention," with every living person who has ever been part of the band hosting informal seminars, vocal classes and unplugged performances.

"That's my pie-in-the-sky plan," he said. "Who knows if it's going to happen?"

Have you heard "Cool Head, Warm Heart" ?  That's not the formula.  It's actually pretty decent, in my opinion. 

That's just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Is he talking about Snoop Dogg or Scrappy Doo?

Wow, I REALLY like this idea.

Totally.

Where can I get my ticket?

Preach it, Brother.

http://www.mydesert.com/article/20100810/LIFESTYLES01/8090329/-1/newsfront/Former+Beach+Boy+sends+%E2%80%98+Postcard+from+California+

“I don't think anyone is excited about it,” Jardine said. “Far from it. No one seems interested to get it done except the managers and the agents.”

His previous effusive yapping, tells me otherwise, why backtrack now?

Maybe someone told him to ?  ::)

Al's getting as bad as Mike

Four guys dancing around on a pin head - that's what we've had for months now. How hard is it to say "Yes, sign me up, I'll be there?"

They're waiting for Brian's people to say something more committed than 'Brian Wilson Reimagines Gershwin is out on August 17th!'

I am beginning to think that the reunion might not be a great idea. Brian has come so far in his solo career, with BWRG being a major event; Al has finally released his surprisingly good solo album; Mike and Bruce are touring as the Beach Boys for a long time now...

The fact that they have been using the Beach Boys name for so long certainly makes the reunion less exciting for the public-at-large. "I just saw the Beach Boys last year, who cares?" Maybe Bruce's idea is the best one, but it does not sound likely.

Interesting that Al still apparently mentions the concerts even when he says that no one is excited about it.

more obscure tracks like "Do It Again."

US #20 and UK #1. Very obscure indeed.  ::)

This reunion is a silly idea.
Brian just released his best solo album, his best work since the 60's, with epic and superb production again, like Pet Sounds/Smile.
Brian revisited the best of the music from the past, but he don't need to revisit HIS past in a studio and/or live, re-recording tracks again or writing songs with Mike. It's a better choice write songs with Scott Bennett. Write songs with Mike now is like make a new wedding with your 2nd wife, after 5 marriages: why he need to go back his past that he didn't feel good to remember?

News from The Rolling Stone: Jardine confirms one show, Live Nation pushing for tour (!?): http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/17386/183831

That's from July 21, and has been, like Mike's assorted jumping-the-gun proclamations, backtracked upon.

Yeah, eat your heart out, Myk. :p

Al still talking shows next year. He quotes 5 have been agreed.


http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2010-09-02/music/al-jardine-would-much-rather-be-a-beach-boy-than-go-it-alone/

I won't believe it until a statement from Brian's managment is made.

....or those ghosts! ;)

I didn't realize Mike's vocal on that song was new.  I always assumed it was just the original recording from the 70's.  He said Mike recorded it on a laptop, that's pretty cool that he not only would o.k. it but go slightly out of his way to put a vocal on an Al Jardine album!  Damn.  That's great. 

This is getting just as bad as Chinese Democracy.

I think Mike should go ahead and book 'em, since he holds the license, with an open invitation to join in to whoever is qualified and interested. This leading these guys one way and then another is BS. If Bri don't show up much it will be just like the past 50 years. Yeah, I said it.

I had heard he sang it threw the phone!