What is the most devastating moment in the band's career?

[HeyJude]

I don't think that Alan Jardine was being greedy in the least.
Al Jardine was treated like sh it and publicly humiliated at a tremendous professional and and personal cost and and with great malice.

When I met Al in 2005 before a little middle-of-nowhere benefit show, he seemed to be almost coming out of a tiny PTSD and into being happy about simply once again being allowed to legally say he was a "Beach Boy." He had clearly been beaten down, was still on the outs with the rest of the guys (wasn't even allowed to sing with Brian at the Hawthorne function), seemed so liberated as to sign some of the autographs he was doing (which were being done to auction off for charity) as "Beach Boy Al Jardine." And he was *still* talking about wanting to get "all the guys" back together. He had just been to an Eagles concert (I think they had even had him on stage maybe?), and the vibe he was giving was basically "if those guys can do it, then WE should be doing it."

The malice and vindictiveness issue is key, and I think most fans don't know about a lot of the backroom stuff and hassles that occur even when Al does rag-tag one-off gigs, and the local city chili cook-off organizing committee starts using too big of a font to mention his "Beach Boys" founding member status.

[Howie Edelson]

"Darlin'" is a miracle. I can't deny it. But if ANYTHING could be deemed "undersold" -- it's that single.
Nearly nonexistent backing vocals -- or at least signature BB's vocals and nothing near the production level of the '66 tracks.
Had the production values that went into "Time To Get Alone" -- mixed with some guitar and distinctive upfront group vocals, it definitely could've/would've/should've skimmed the (U.S.) Top 10.

[Douchepool]

What's funny is that Darlin' also has the fullest arrangement of any of the Wild Honey tunes vocally...but even by Beach Boys standards it was a slight one. That's not to knock the song; the song is fucking great. Sort of makes one wonder about how Smiley Smile is considered a piss take when it has MUCH more intricate vocal arrangements.

Carl was right with the "music for Brian to chill out with" comment with regard to Wild Honey.

[Mikie]

"Darlin'" is a miracle. I can't deny it. But if ANYTHING could be deemed "undersold" -- it's that single.
Nearly nonexistent backing vocals -- or at least signature BB's vocals and nothing near the production level of the '66 tracks.
Had the production values that went into "Time To Get Alone" -- mixed with some guitar and distinctive upfront group vocals, it definitely could've/would've/should've skimmed the (U.S.) Top 10.

With all due respect, How, the Darlin' instrumental track was just fine and the backing vocals were there. I don't think they could have improved the song much to sell better. It came in a bright orange picture sleeve with a Sun on it and I believe it didn't do better because it had the name "Beach Boys" on it. Capitol probably didn't promote the Hell out of it as the Capitol lawsuit was in progress. Like I said, they were not up high on a pedestal in '67 and they not only had steep competiton, but Heroes was not the strong single they had hoped for. And Good Vibrations helped Smiley Smile along. It was about momentum. And they just didn't have it. I love the song Wild Honey, but that single didn't exactly kick ass on the charts either. Singles were just about over for them at that point.

[Howie Edelson]

I disagree.

[Douchepool]

The only thing they really could have done with the tune short of a fuller vocal arrangement would be a faster tempo. The tempo seems a smidge tentative. Note how on Live in London the band seems to have sped it up a bit and then it cooks.

[bossaroo]

Darlin is a brilliant song, a favorite of Brian and many fans and for damn good reason. But it's still a rewrite of an early 60s song and it sounds like it. I realize a lot of groups were getting "back to basics" and back to their roots after all the psychedelics wore off, but anyone who was paying attention were hoping for something a little more forward-thinking and modern from the Beach Boys at that time.

let's face it, a lot of folks had probably already written the Boys off as square and irrelevant before Good Vibrations came out and blew everyone's mind. they still had the potential to make huge waves in the pop world, but not with a song like Darlin.

[Douchepool]

If they were looking to get a BIG single as far as production on the market, why they didn't release Loop de Loop in 1969 after Break Away is beyond my comprehension.

[HeyJude]

Call me nuts, I always dug the circa 1980 live arrangement of "Darlin'", where they made it sound more like a pop/rock song.

[CenturyDeprived]

Call me nuts, I always dug the circa 1980 live arrangement of "Darlin'", where they made it sound more like a pop/rock song.

Totally agreed (not on the nuts part ). And the "bum-bum-bum" backing vocals (which are missing on the studio version) help take the song into the stratosphere.

[CenturyDeprived]

If they were looking to get a BIG single as far as production on the market, why they didn't release Loop de Loop in 1969 after Break Away is beyond my comprehension.

Loop de Loop is really kind of a dud!
It's just not too great, and I think that it would have sunk like a stone if released in its day.

[Douchepool]

It's not the best song in the world but the production makes up for whatever the song lacked. I don't think they could have gotten away with Sail Plane Song as the single on the other hand...it would have been laughed at.

[Howie Edelson]

Can anyone remember off the top of their head what the approximate date that Brother settled with Capitol around that time?
I wonder who at Capitol was "working" the '67 BB's singles to radio -- and what ELSE were they pushing at the same time.

[KDS]

and last but certainly not least, Carl's premature death and the wretched situation we find ourselves in today: Mike Love controlling the rights to the band name...

[sigh]

The legal right to tour as The Beach Boys resides with BRI. They license Mike to do so. As a voting member of BRI he controls exactly 25% of the band name.

*sigh*
thanks so much for the clarification. again. 
we all know that Brian and Al wished to continue touring as Beach Boys in 2012 but Mike prevented it. Mike has somehow thwarted or bullied the other rightful members of BRI out of sharing the license, and if Carl were still with us... God rest his soul... we can all be fairly certain that would not be the current situation in which we find our favorite band.

I think Mike was genuinely into the C50 celebrations, unlike it's been said by some insiders (i.e. that he was lukewarm about it). His comments in interviews, his teary introduction of Cal Saga, his top-notch performances... all point towards it. He was fully involved. He addressed issues candidly and embraced his band partners. Something broke his heart along the way, rightly or wrongly.

I'm sure this article has appeared on here before as it's almost three years old.  But I find it interesting that this was posted June 29, 2012.  That's Why God Made the Radio wasn't even a month old.  The Beach Boys C50 Tour was in full swing, yet cracks were beginning to show. 

http://www.avclub.com/article/the-beach-boys-reunion-tour-may-not-be-all-surfing-81961

[Mikie]

Darlin is a brilliant song, a favorite of Brian and many fans and for damn good reason. But it's still a rewrite of an early 60s song and it sounds like it. I realize a lot of groups were getting "back to basics" and back to their roots after all the psychedelics wore off, but anyone who was paying attention were hoping for something a little more forward-thinking and modern from the Beach Boys at that time.

let's face it, a lot of folks had probably already written the Boys off as square and irrelevant before Good Vibrations came out and blew everyone's mind. they still had the potential to make huge waves in the pop world, but not with a song like Darlin.

Yep, they took "Thinkin' 'Bout You Baby" from 1964 and made it into a fast Rock song three years later. In 1969 a kick-butt live version was released on "Live In London" and a year before that somebody named Carl Wilson thought the backing track was good interesting enough to include on Stack-O-Tracks.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Can anyone remember off the top of their head what the approximate date that Brother settled with Capitol around that time?
I wonder who at Capitol was "working" the '67 BB's singles to radio -- and what ELSE were they pushing at the same time.

Late June/early July 1967.

[Howie Edelson]

Thank you.
That's what I thought.

RE: "Darlin'" -- the '73 version should've been pulled as the IN CONCERT single.
Now, THAT had real U.S. hit potential -- and doesn't sound dissimilar to, guess what, a killer Three Dog Night cut.
One of CW's best recorded vocals (future '72/'73 mixes of the song should boost the backing vocs as well.).

[clack]

I disagree, Clack.

You think if "Do It Again" had gone Top Three or if some smart DJ flipped a single over and took to "This Whole World" that would've cost them anything in the early-'70s?
I think it would've bridged the gap that found the band playing with occasional hostile fans clamoring for the hits.

'Do It Again' and 'This Whole World' are great pop records. But if there was no lost-masterpiece SMiLE legend, and all we had were a couple of early '67 top 5 singles instead -- then yes, the early 70's renaissance might not have happened. And one or 2 more 1967 pre-Pepper hit singles wouldn't have helped in '68 or '69 anyway.

'Never My Love' and 'Happy Together' didn't help either the Association nor the Turtles bridge the gap between 60's top 40 pop and early 70's 'progressive' rock.

And I think you're not entirely wrong about the staying power of Sunshine Pop vs. what music was considered hipper during that era, but I think 'Forever Changes', 'Younger Than Yesterday', and Buffalo Springfield are not good examples of the latter. The Byrds and Love are still highly influential among young rock musicians, certainly more so than the Association. Do young music fans really listen to 'Happy Together' more than they do 'So You Want to Be a Rock n' Roll Star'? No idea.

But you're right, the Monkees for instance were considered a joke, but their records have held up while those of Country Joe and the Fish ( a better example than the Byrds, imo), say, have not.

[Howie Edelson]

You'd be surprised how many musicians and writers today are influenced by groups like The Association and the SONGS -- not the bands, not frontmen, not the sideburns, not the crushed velvet -- or even the tracks, but the SONGS by groups of that ilk. I don't know what you do Clack, but I work in the industry and see "what's floating" in 2015 -- I've found to my surprise that nobody behind the scenes gives a s  hit about the things music fans think music makers / labels /publishers give a sh*t about. I absolutely love the Byrds, I wish that catalogue was worked better, but a band like Love, or the Springfield is on nobody's radar (that I've found) other than their fans.

Once you've been to the Songwriters Hall of Fame inductions a few times, and meet publishers, and label heads, you see what's green and growing.
"Evergreens" are growing. Mojo articles on fetish bands are printed on dead wood. The songs don't sell themselves let alone a movie or a product -- which is where LIFE for this music now is.

My ultimate point is that Smile is believed to have been the failure that robbed them of FM standing. I don't believe it's so. I think that the fact that it wasn't rock and was played by adult session players in an era when orchestration was used ON TOP of existing band tracks (Beatles, Moodies, etc.) would cause the hipper-than-thous to feel it was "uptight" music (e.g. "Where's the BAND?!"). As gorgeous and timeless as Smile is, it's very dark sh*t. I know tons of people through the years, who've been tripping and tried to play Smile and ripped it off because it was terrifying. I think that Smile wouldn't have had much of a place on FM going into, say 1969. Brian's strongest move forward was through pop, because his POP was always more "rock" than Smile.

He WAS on the right course though -- the Redwood tracks were that direction. Unfortunately he was tortured into giving them up so that one could be an all-but unrecognizable minor BB hit and the other buried on an LP that 463 people bought.  

[SMiLE Brian]

and last but certainly not least, Carl's premature death and the wretched situation we find ourselves in today: Mike Love controlling the rights to the band name...

[sigh]

The legal right to tour as The Beach Boys resides with BRI. They license Mike to do so. As a voting member of BRI he controls exactly 25% of the band name.

*sigh*
thanks so much for the clarification. again.  
we all know that Brian and Al wished to continue touring as Beach Boys in 2012 but Mike prevented it. Mike has somehow thwarted or bullied the other rightful members of BRI out of sharing the license, and if Carl were still with us... God rest his soul... we can all be fairly certain that would not be the current situation in which we find our favorite band.

I think Mike was genuinely into the C50 celebrations, unlike it's been said by some insiders (i.e. that he was lukewarm about it). His comments in interviews, his teary introduction of Cal Saga, his top-notch performances... all point towards it. He was fully involved. He addressed issues candidly and embraced his band partners. Something broke his heart along the way, rightly or wrongly.

 where is Mike Love in this picture?     http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20778.25.html

[CenturyDeprived]

and last but certainly not least, Carl's premature death and the wretched situation we find ourselves in today: Mike Love controlling the rights to the band name...

[sigh]

The legal right to tour as The Beach Boys resides with BRI. They license Mike to do so. As a voting member of BRI he controls exactly 25% of the band name.

*sigh*
thanks so much for the clarification. again.  
we all know that Brian and Al wished to continue touring as Beach Boys in 2012 but Mike prevented it. Mike has somehow thwarted or bullied the other rightful members of BRI out of sharing the license, and if Carl were still with us... God rest his soul... we can all be fairly certain that would not be the current situation in which we find our favorite band.

I think Mike was genuinely into the C50 celebrations, unlike it's been said by some insiders (i.e. that he was lukewarm about it). His comments in interviews, his teary introduction of Cal Saga, his top-notch performances... all point towards it. He was fully involved. He addressed issues candidly and embraced his band partners. Something broke his heart along the way, rightly or wrongly.

 where is Mike Love in this picture?     http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20778.25.html

Don't you know? Mike and Bruce were the lucky test recipients of an invisibility spray that allowed them to invisibly attend that all-important and heartfelt C50 Set End Date Dinner Celebration (or C50SEDDC for short). M&B are both still there in that pic! You just can't see them. There's a Get Smart episode about that very invisibility spray... but it turns out that it's actually real.

[Cam Mott]

I feel sorry for Al and I don't know his motives during the license troubles but the court record seemed to show that Al pretty much shot himself in the foot in spite of BRI trying to cut him slack.

I agree that SMiLE probably wouldn't have been the great thing for the band that we like to imagine.

[Mike's Beard]

It took years for the BBs to build a counterculture following , by the time they did it was dying out. They had a solid pop following and Smile could have just as easily alienated it as Smiley did.

[Nicko1234]

The issue of Al and the licence is all pretty well explained here again for anyone who hasn`t seen it.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html

The key finding:

`Jardine's promotional materials display “The Beach Boys” more prominently and boldly than “Family and Friends,” suggesting sponsorship by the Beach Boys. Cf. Kassbaum v. Steppenwolf Prods., Inc., 236 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir.2000) (reasoning that promotional materials reduced likelihood of confusion by minimizing references to trademarked name “Steppenwolf”).   Also, there is evidence that Jardine uses “The Beach Boys” trademark to suggest that his band is in fact sponsored by the Beach Boys, as Jardine's management testified that they recommended including the trademark “The Beach Boys” in the name of Jardine's band in order to create or enhance marquee value.   Finally, Jardine's use of the trademark caused actual consumer confusion, as both event organizers that booked Jardine's band and people who attended Jardine's shows submitted declarations expressing confusion about who was performing. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html#sthash.HmtTDIGF.dpuf`

[HeyJude]

The issue of Al and the licence is all pretty well explained here again for anyone who hasn`t seen it.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html

The key finding:

`Jardine's promotional materials display “The Beach Boys” more prominently and boldly than “Family and Friends,” suggesting sponsorship by the Beach Boys. Cf. Kassbaum v. Steppenwolf Prods., Inc., 236 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir.2000) (reasoning that promotional materials reduced likelihood of confusion by minimizing references to trademarked name “Steppenwolf”).   Also, there is evidence that Jardine uses “The Beach Boys” trademark to suggest that his band is in fact sponsored by the Beach Boys, as Jardine's management testified that they recommended including the trademark “The Beach Boys” in the name of Jardine's band in order to create or enhance marquee value.   Finally, Jardine's use of the trademark caused actual consumer confusion, as both event organizers that booked Jardine's band and people who attended Jardine's shows submitted declarations expressing confusion about who was performing. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html#sthash.HmtTDIGF.dpuf`

That is the (correct) legal explanation for why (duh) one can't use a trademark without permission.

The court rulings, while providing an occasional inadvertent insight, do not however get into any of the background of how Al ended up in the position he was in in the first place, nor does it provide any insight into the inner-workings of their corporation. Nor should it, of course.

But when we're talking about anything beyond the fact that Al wasn't cleared to use the BB trademark within his own band's name, it goes far beyond court rulings into all of that corporate murk that we'll probably never fully understand.

Al appears to have sought out a lot of wonky advice. (Let us not forget at one point he sued one of his lawyers for malpractice in the 2000's).

But people like Cam over the last 16-17 YEARS! have continued to paint a picture of malice on the part of Al, and that's where all credibility is lost with me. A guy so marginalized, so impotent within the group power structure, who was essentially phased out of the group unwillingly in 97/98 (see the David Marks book for more on that; yes, Howie's right, he was essentially s***canned), and continued to be harangued as his bookings dwindled in the 2000's to the odd Pork Rind Festival here and there, for him to be painted as the big bad guy is laughably ridiculous and ignorant as to how the band is known to function, not to mention common sense.

It doesn't mean Al has never been an a-hole or a pain in the ass over the years (same goes for all of them). Unlike a few Mike defenders, I'm fine acknowledging unequivocally negative things about Al (or whoever).

But on the whole post-1998 fall-out/lawsuit/trademark think, Al was, at absolute worst, poorly advised and didn't seek out better counsel (legal and otherwise). But it's a tragic thing really, not a case of him being greedy or evil or villainous.