The Smiley Smile Message Board

Radio had to be so important in the 60s/70s. Radio changed a lot during those years. Rock on FM-radio became the hip thing.

I love BB but if you put up Sunflower/Holland against The Who's Who's next and Led Zeppelin IV it's pretty obvious wich side is going to go over with the kids.

Let's take for example, "Sunflower"...an album we all agree is their strongest.  

Are you forgetting Pet Sounds?

Well no.  It's pretty clear that Pet Sounds was well respected and well received when it was released.  My post was focusing on their post Pet Sounds output which I feel has gone practically unnoticed to the general public despite some of the albums getting strong critical reviews.

I think Stebbins (in his FAQ book) correctly pointed to the fact that they started as a twin guitar garage band and evolved into a keyboard/vocal based entity with little reliance on guitars in their overall sound, basically just as blues based guitar pyrotechnics became THE hip thing!

I couldn't agree more: though, Sgt. Pepper had at least a lot of lead/rhythm guitars all over it.

I love the Sunflower album as much as anyone but with a lead-off single like "Add Some Music" it's probably no wonder it wasn't a huge smash for the group. Personally I think it's a very good and charming little song but at the time it might have sounded a little too much like a bunch of bored millionaire rock stars singing about things all nice and cozy and that apparently didn't get them back into the limelight.

1) The failure of completing SMiLE and releasing Smiley Smile in its place and...
2) The Beach Boys backing out of the Monterrey Pop Festival

...caused....

1) the downfall and shunning of The Beach Boys from the social consciousness;
2) inflicted severe irreparable damage to the band's legacy and integrity--both of which, the band has never been able to recover from*

Would that be a fair assessment?


Please forgive the bold (and perhaps uninformed) statements I've made here but I'm trying to pin-point the event or the series of events that contributed to the band officially losing its place among the most respected participants in the music scene after Pet Sounds.  When The Beatles, Hendrix, The Who and The Stones were all releasing groundbreaking music during this time....I'm wondering how or why The Beach Boys' post-Pet Sounds output was largely ignored, year after year? 

*The effects of this slide from the top, I believe, permanently sealed their legacy as we see it today.  As much as we want to not believe it---most of Joe Public associates The Beach Boys with surfing; with the band's career climaxing and ending with the release of Pet Sounds.  Everyone sees Pet Sounds' beauty and importance--but it ends there.  Why is it that The Beach Boys never fully recovered from their fall and their later catalog rediscovered---or perhaps discovered for the first time---by the mass public? 

Let's take for example, "Sunflower"...an album we all agree is one of their strongest during this period.  Both fans and critics hailed it as a success....so why wasn't this album the band's turning point?  Why did the public still not care?  The album charted 151 and 29th in the US and the UK, respectively.  Did no amount of good reviews from critics make fans want to come back to The Beach Boys?  Why were The Beach Boys being punished?

I'm sorry for the rambling post....but all these thoughts are coming up in my head as I'm revisiting their catalog...specifically the post Pet Sounds section.  It saddens me that such wonderful material on each album from Smiley Smile to Love You is practically unknown to the mass public.  If anyone wants to entertain my questions or perhaps point me to some good sources that could fill in the blanks for me--that would be most appreciated!

Justin - You pose an important question.  At that 1967 or so juncture, there were older fans, say late 20's who were the beginning of what is known as the post WWII baby boom, who were in the first wave of rock and roll.  They identified with the early work, and were Chubby Checker fans, doo-wop, etc.  Next came the second wave of boomers, in the early teens, who weren't Elvis people, but, Beatles, Stones, Beach Boys, etc. whom I followed.  A couple of dynamics were going on...and at lightning speed.  One was the emergence of psychedelic music and accompanying pop art, a war (Vietnam) race issues, women's rights,etc., and a look to music to be a voice for some of these problems. 

There was a mixed (and false perception, in my opinion) that the Boys should stay in the car and surf box, because it was a safe place for the fans, and, that they shouldn't be allowed to grow...and change with the times.  Of course, that is ridiculous.  Singers who changed their formats to renew themselves were often looked at as hypocrites.  Then, there is the dynamic of the industry, who seemed to want to stifle their growth.  But, the genie was already out of the bottle.  People tend to rebel against repression, and grow anyway. Artists are no different; especially artists and musicians who become the voice of society. 

My kids are always looking for what they call "fresh beats" - new music...and in a matter of months, new bands like Jefferson Airplane, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, etc., caught the attention of young people.  And a second layer emerged, with The Monkees, The Cowsills (yes, as in John Cowsill!) and Sonny and Cher. This layer came with TV shows.

Blaming the Smile dynamic, I think is misplaced.  Americans had no idea how hugely popular the Boys were in Europe, who did not have the same social issues and war as we had, here.  Real Boys' fans were patiently impatient,  but, accepted the newer music, look and growth and continued seeing them, live.  Surfs Up was important, as well as Holland, Wild Honey, and 20/20.

The odd place to hear BB music was on fm, which was, and has displaced am radio, for music lovers, for the most part. The fm stations were playing Pet Sounds and Smiley in boutiques in Harvard Square!  It was such an unlikely place because it was that intellectual hippie-type subculture, who had castigated the Boys as trite, and irrelevant.  Someone had finally opened the oyster and found Pet Sounds which was awesome, but not a commercial success at the time.  This opened the door for critical appreciation of Smiley and a welcome for Surfs Up and Holland. 

One of my professors, (for something unrelated) post grad (way post grad) explained to me in this analogy, that sometimes the "back door" (fm stations) became the "front door" for artistic and critical acceptance of the Boys' music.  All of a sudden, these former fans woke up after the Vietnam War ended and saw that the Beach Boys were right there, the whole time.  Even though they still sang the girly-surf-car songs, they had constructed a catalog that was mind blowing.

Hope this helps fill in the blanks... ;)

Http:www.youtube.com/watch?v=uehyh57k2_E&feature=youtube_gdata_player

If this does not work, it is YouTube - Live Paris, December, 1970 - Part 1 (of 2)

The record company used "dated" (outdated) photos for various releases, pretty inept, in my opinion.

The striped shirts we're gone in 1967, by which time, most had longer sideburns, and mustaches or beards, London's Carnaby St. styles were exploding in 1968. Dennis a "dork?"  

Capitol was part of the problem; from the outset. Too bad they wanted it both ways.  Brother Records creation was somewhat a response to that issue.

By 1970 it was too late.  They'd already lost their popularity.  The striped shirts should have been gone way before '67.  And yeah, Dennis was, perhaps, the exception to the 'dork' thing.  If it was Capitol choosing those record sleeve photos, then they are partially to blame (they certainly were to blame for putting out Then I Kissed Her after the Beatles put out Strawberry Fields Forever).

It started happening pretty early...look at the performance of Don't Worry Baby from the '64 Dick Clark TV show...that happened to be an all Beatles episode BTW...yeesh. One thing that stood out to me, even back in '65, was the cover of the GREAT LP Beach Boys Today...the Beach Boys look like Hollywood frat boys, all collegiate and clean cut, even Dennis got shoved into a stupid sweater. Matching sweaters? WTF were they thinking? Compare that cover with its competition in record store bins at the time...Beatles, Stones, Byrds...the Beach Boys were perceived as geeks, sorry, great album...dorky cover. It hurt. On All Summer Long they looked hip...by '65 they were losing it...got it back for Pet Sounds (kind of) but much of the world had moved on. People forget that the pre-Beatles Beach Boys were viewed as kind of edgy, punkish...Pendletons, bare feet, some long hair...by the time they got to the matching college-boy sweaters there was no visual edge. Well, Dennis gave them a little.

Jon - You are correct about the Leave it to Beaver sweaters! Did Murry or the studio pick the clothes?

They did look adorable on the Christmas album...

On Pet Sounds, Carl's Bench Warmer 3/4 coat was exactly what every one else was wearing!

The difference, I think, is that after January 1967, so-called hip rock musicians and rock audiences began to take themselves very seriously. Rock was, now, a serious thing. Hendrix was serious. A man burning his guitar on stage was serious business - something that might scare children and turn off old people (you know, over 30...). The Doors were serious. Jefferson Airplane (despite what now seem like hilariously dated lyrics) were serious. Pepper was the Beatles going straight-faced (wasn't McCartney who quoted Dylan as saying something like, "Oh, I get it. You don't want to be cute any more."). This was anticipated, particularly, I think, by Dylan who put the idea in people's heads that if rock and roll was going to really be good, it had to aspire to important, serious matters. Children probably shouldn't like it - if they did, it would be immature, etc. And while The Beach Boys were certainly moving in the "right" direction, they had a HUGE mountain to overcome with their "fun in the sun" image. To many, they represented fun, not, say, spiritual or intellectual enlightenment or advancement. That doesn't mean, of course, that they couldn't have still produced hits with such themes - they could have attracted the same crowd that, say, liked The Cowsills or The Archies in the late 60s. But that wouldn't have made them hip either.

Justin - You pose an important question.  At that 1967 or so juncture, there were older fans, say late 20's who were the beginning of what is known as the post WWII baby boom, who were in the first wave of rock and roll.  They identified with the early work, and were Chubby Checker fans, doo-wop, etc.  Next came the second wave of boomers, in the early teens, who weren't Elvis people, but, Beatles, Stones, Beach Boys, etc. whom I followed.  A couple of dynamics were going on...and at lightning speed.  One was the emergence of psychedelic music and accompanying pop art, a war (Vietnam) race issues, women's rights,etc., and a look to music to be a voice for some of these problems. 

There was a mixed (and false perception, in my opinion) that the Boys should stay in the car and surf box, because it was a safe place for the fans, and, that they shouldn't be allowed to grow...and change with the times.  Of course, that is ridiculous.  Singers who changed their formats to renew themselves were often looked at as hypocrites.  Then, there is the dynamic of the industry, who seemed to want to stifle their growth.  But, the genie was already out of the bottle.  People tend to rebel against repression, and grow anyway. Artists are no different; especially artists and musicians who become the voice of society. 

My kids are always looking for what they call "fresh beats" - new music...and in a matter of months, new bands like Jefferson Airplane, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, etc., caught the attention of young people.  And a second layer emerged, with The Monkees, The Cowsills (yes, as in John Cowsill!) and Sonny and Cher. This layer came with TV shows.

Blaming the Smile dynamic, I think is misplaced.  Americans had no idea how hugely popular the Boys were in Europe, who did not have the same social issues and war as we had, here.  Real Boys' fans were patiently impatient,  but, accepted the newer music, look and growth and continued seeing them, live.  Surfs Up was important, as well as Holland, Wild Honey, and 20/20.

The odd place to hear BB music was on fm, which was, and has displaced am radio, for music lovers, for the most part. The fm stations were playing Pet Sounds and Smiley in boutiques in Harvard Square!  It was such an unlikely place because it was that intellectual hippie-type subculture, who had castigated the Boys as trite, and irrelevant.  Someone had finally opened the oyster and found Pet Sounds which was awesome, but not a commercial success at the time.  This opened the door for critical appreciation of Smiley and a welcome for Surfs Up and Holland. 

One of my professors, (for something unrelated) post grad (way post grad) explained to me in this analogy, that sometimes the "back door" (fm stations) became the "front door" for artistic and critical acceptance of the Boys' music.  All of a sudden, these former fans woke up after the Vietnam War ended and saw that the Beach Boys were right there, the whole time.  Even though they still sang the girly-surf-car songs, they had constructed a catalog that was mind blowing.

Hope this helps fill in the blanks... ;)

They were not "unhip" due to anything other than the fact that their post Smile records no longer had the Genius of Brian Wilson at the helm. I would say that by 20/20 the Beach Boys as co-producers were getting pretty good at it but by then it was too late.

Mike Love was always "hip". He was sporting a beard and wearing stripped pants as soon as anybody else. They became unpopular because they released really inferior records post Pet Sounds. Inferior because Brian stopped being the writer/arranger/prodcer he was. They stopped making great records and a lot of people stopped caring as a result.

Not showing up at some pop festival in California did not make some guy in Oklahoma think "well I guess I'm done with those Beach Boys" .....However, hearing bits of Smiley, Wild Honey, or Friends would have and likely did. Especially Smiley.... Good Vibrations is a huge monster hit and then the fans and music buying public get Smiley Smile.

Striped shirts.  Old fashioned haircuts.  Seriously.  The music was really cool and mostly hip (Christ, I hate that word), but the image that the Beach Boys presented was not keeping up with the times.  And the times, they were a-changin'.  The Beach Boys were primarily a singles band in the '60s.  Go to Wikipedia and look up, say, Help Me Rhonda, and look at the pic of the record sleeve.  Now just scroll forward through the singles and look at the sleeves from each single up until, say Break Away in '69.  Striped shirts on Sloop John B in '66.  Striped shirts on Darlin' in '67.  Hell, even on Good Vibrations they look like a bunch of dorks (for late '66).  Check out the sleeve for Then I Kissed Her, which Capitol put out while waiting for Brain to get his sh*t together in '67.  Look at Do It Again ferchristsakes.  Are you kidding?  For comparison, look at the Beatles singles from the same time period.  That'll tell you a lot about why the Beach Boys lost cred with the young folks growing up in the mid to late '60s.   

It started happening pretty early...look at the performance of Don't Worry Baby from the '64 Dick Clark TV show...that happened to be an all Beatles episode BTW...yeesh. One thing that stood out to me, even back in '65, was the cover of the GREAT LP Beach Boys Today...the Beach Boys look like Hollywood frat boys, all collegiate and clean cut, even Dennis got shoved into a stupid sweater. Matching sweaters? WTF were they thinking? Compare that cover with its competition in record store bins at the time...Beatles, Stones, Byrds...the Beach Boys were perceived as geeks, sorry, great album...dorky cover. It hurt. On All Summer Long they looked hip...by '65 they were losing it...got it back for Pet Sounds (kind of) but much of the world had moved on. People forget that the pre-Beatles Beach Boys were viewed as kind of edgy, punkish...Pendletons, bare feet, some long hair...by the time they got to the matching college-boy sweaters there was no visual edge. Well, Dennis gave them a little.

I thought you were talking 80s Beach Boys when the sh*t really hit the fan.

So we really don't think that the abandoned SMiLE project had any impact on their fall?  Wasn't there substantial buzz and hype about their follow up to the much acclaimed, Pet Sounds?  Carl summed it up nicely..."Smiley Smile was a bunt instead of a grand slam."  Didn't this "bunt" as it were...signal the beginning of the "end" for the band?

It's a really interesting question.  The shockwaves of Sgt. Peppers can't be underestimated.  Rolling Stone and then Creem had a lot to do with the whole "rock must take itself seriously" critical viewpoint.  There are loads of albums from ostensibly unhip bands trying desperately to come to grips with the psychedelic/post-Peppers era and make "serious" statements, running the gamut from brilliant to dire.  The Four Seasons' Genuine Imitation Life Gazette...The Tokens' (they of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight") Intercourse...even "Crimson and Clover" to an extent.

The thing that's really interesting about the Beach Boys is that Brian seemed to understand that they had to keep abreast of the Beatles to stay relevant while the group did not, but Brian then lost interest in playing that game just as the group seemed to realize the consequences of not doing so.  Their drop from mainstream/countercultural good graces really does seem to be out of all proportion, though.  I think the failure of Smile does actually have a lot to do with it in the end, because they failed to deliver on the pre-release hype.  If the album had come out, even if it wasn't a hit or a game changer in any other respect, I think it at least would have softened the blow to their critical standing going forward.  As I recall, Jann Wenner in particular regarded the whole "Brian Wilson = genius" thing as empty hype, and it could have been precisely the non-delivery of Smile that played into that.

Great points, folks.   It was hard for me to realize that much of the public then were doing the same things people--myself included--still do today: resist change.  

You're right filledeplage....fall may have been too harsh of a word. especially since I am completely clear on their long term impact and their overall legacy in music.  But there was definitely a negative shift in the Beach Boys career and as you say each group/artist has their ups and downs.  Let's take the Rolling Stones--a group that I absolutely love: many figure Exile On Mainstreet to be their best work and have basically dismissed everything that has come after.  Some Girls sometimes creeps in there as their last true great album to some but Exile has taken the entire spotlight.  But I feel that although people may have stopped listening to the Stones regardless if their cutoff were Exile or Some Girls...there never was such a cold shoulder towards the Stones that the Beach Boys seemed to have experienced.  Then again, the Stones never released a "Kokomo" or made appearances on "Full House."  As someone brought up earlier, I think the 80's really did them in.  

I suppose in the end, I'm jealous that The Beatles' legacy is far more respected than The Beach Boys especially when The Beach Boys did just as much change and tweaking to their sound as The Beatles did.  But alas, The Beatles had an impeccable catalog: cohesive, consistent and packed with strong songs and hardly any filler.   As much as I adore the Beach Boys' post Pet Sounds output, much of it is in fact uneven and inconsistent.  The biggest problem of course being: it is missing Brian Wilson.  Sure, The Beatles had a smaller catalog than The Beach Boys but I wish it didn't stop them from being recognized for still creating sophisticated music.   I look at my friends (in their late 20's/early 30's) and none of them are even aware that there was anything of value after Pet Sounds.  Heck, to some of them, they would group Pet Sounds along with the surfing music (embarassing, I know).   Why is it easier for Joe Public to embrace The Beatles' artistic shift over The Beach Boys'?

And thanks for the kind words about the avatar...got that last summer and it's currently hanging up on my wall next to my signed BWPS and Pet Sounds! 8)

Hey Justin, I know what you're saying, but the Beach Boys' critical reputation has been on the upswing for a while now... really since the 1993 Boxset came out and the release of "I Just Wasn't Made for These Times" doc a year or so later. As I'm told (my own fandom didn't start until 1995), in the late 1980s it was pretty bleak, but among the heavy music fans and critics, they've been well respected for a while now. You can definitely tell just by reading all the off the charts ecstatic reviews for the Smile set, coming from people who don't usually effuse with such abandon.

Regarding the post Pet Sounds albums, you remind me of how I felt when I first became a fan, feeling like the post Smile material was all one big letdown, but when you dig deeper (and maybe you already have) you'll realize that's just not the case. For one thing, Smiley Smile, Friends and Love You are HEAVY HEAVY Brian albums, it's just that his production approach is different, and less commercial, but it really grows on you. Then you find all the great album cuts, gems by the other guys like "All This is That" and albums like "Sunflower" and "Pacific Ocean Blue" that are not strictly Brian albums but still wonderful music. Really you can't go wrong exploring everything up through Holland and In Concert, and then add the 1977 albums, Love You and Pacific Ocean Blue, to that list. The rest is more flawed but the GV Box provides a great survey if you haven't explored that already.

I'm not sure if it's quite this simple. The Beatles changed substantially from album to album and the fans followed them. In fact, I would say, for the most part, that change is crucial in order to be relevant and to sell records. But some changes are more acceptable than others.

The thing that's really interesting about the Beach Boys is that Brian seemed to understand that they had to keep abreast of the Beatles to stay relevant while the group did not, but Brian then lost interest in playing that game just as the group seemed to realize the consequences of not doing so. 

I'm wondering who told you this? David Leaf maybe? The fact is that Brian was the last Wilson brother who caught on to the Beatles thing. Carl and Dennis were much bigger fans at the outset, especially Carl. The appearance of a 12 string Rickenbacker in the Beach Boys preceded Brian's slowly growing affection for them specifically because Carl loved the Beatles sound. If anything Carl and Dennis were urging their brother to go more in that Beatle-y direction starting in '64...Dennis changed his whole attitude towards the drums because of Ringo...both of them were definitely "keeping abreast". 

It started happening pretty early...look at the performance of Don't Worry Baby from the '64 Dick Clark TV show...that happened to be an all Beatles episode BTW...yeesh. One thing that stood out to me, even back in '65, was the cover of the GREAT LP Beach Boys Today...the Beach Boys look like Hollywood frat boys, all collegiate and clean cut, even Dennis got shoved into a stupid sweater. Matching sweaters? WTF were they thinking? Compare that cover with its competition in record store bins at the time...Beatles, Stones, Byrds...the Beach Boys were perceived as geeks, sorry, great album...dorky cover. It hurt. On All Summer Long they looked hip...by '65 they were losing it...got it back for Pet Sounds (kind of) but much of the world had moved on. People forget that the pre-Beatles Beach Boys were viewed as kind of edgy, punkish...Pendletons, bare feet, some long hair...by the time they got to the matching college-boy sweaters there was no visual edge. Well, Dennis gave them a little.

BTW, Justin, just  to comment on your Beatles comparison, the Beatles were my favorite group for over 20 years before they were replaced by the Beach Boys. One of my previous hang ups about the Beach Boys was the lack of consistency... as you say, they've put out some seriously bad albums in their career. The Beatles had remarkable quality control and a short, hugely successful career but one day I just decided that when it came down to it, quality was more important for me than consistency. To put it plainly, I still adore the Beatles, but their best work (for me) just doesn't approach the Beach Boys at their best in terms of complexity or impact. Sgt Pepper is fun to listen to, but Smile blows my mind. McCartney wrote so many wonderful songs that I can't keep track, but none of them quite approach God Only Knows or The Warmth of the Sun for me (in fact I think the closest Paul came to topping Brian wasn't even with the Beatles, it was the Ram album!!!). Anyway, just my 2 cents. Yes, there are plenty of duds in the catalog, but you won't find diamonds like these anywhere else.

I think you make a lot of good points.  And to add to that, it wasn't just the '65 look, but the '65 lyrics.  Sure, Today was a huge step forward, but Summer Days was a step back at a very crucial time.  California Girls was a deserved hit, but the lyrics cemented the Beach Boys' sun 'n fun image at a time when other groups were quickly embracing the counter culture.

If you look at the top 50 Billboard hits for 1965, the Stones had Satisfaction, the Beatles had Help! and Ticket to Ride, the Byrds had Mr. Tambourine Man, Dylan had Like a Rolling Stone ... and the Beach Boys had Help Me, Rhonda and California Girls.   Things were even worse if you listened to album cuts like Salt Lake City and And Your Dream Comes True.

That put the Beach Boys on the wrong end of the cultural divide, along with "simple" good-time groups like Herman's Hermits.  In retrospect, it was a huge mistake for the Beach Boys.

It's always seemed that the attempt to alter the image and mature and/or become "hip", began much earlier.   Then Brian's retirement from the road and the Today album presented bold steps in that direction, but still they continued with the dorky clothing and presenting themselves (or being at the mercy of the record company pushing them as) a surf band.   And as nice as they are, Summer Days and Party! were completely counter to where they/Brian had been trying to take the band/music (image wise).  Of all the major bands of the era they appear to be the most at odds, in conflict, and engaged in a total tug of war, with the image they wished to present.  

I think you make a lot of good points.  And to add to that, it wasn't just the '65 look, but the '65 lyrics.  Sure, Today was a huge step forward, but Summer Days was a step back at a very crucial time.  California Girls was a deserved hit, but the lyrics cemented the Beach Boys' sun 'n fun image at a time when other groups were quickly embracing the counter culture.

If you look at the top 50 Billboard hits for 1965, the Stones had Satisfaction, the Beatles had Help! and Ticket to Ride, the Byrds had Mr. Tambourine Man, Dylan had Like a Rolling Stone ... and the Beach Boys had Help Me, Rhonda and California Girls.   Things were even worse if you listened to album cuts like Salt Lake City and And Your Dream Comes True.

That put the Beach Boys on the wrong end of the cultural divide, along with "simple" good-time groups like Herman's Hermits.  In retrospect, it was a huge mistake for the Beach Boys.  

I think you make a lot of good points.  And to add to that, it wasn't just the '65 look, but the '65 lyrics.  Sure, Today was a huge step forward, but Summer Days was a step back at a very crucial time.  California Girls was a deserved hit, but the lyrics cemented the Beach Boys' sun 'n fun image at a time when other groups were quickly embracing the counter culture.

If you look at the top 50 Billboard hits for 1965, the Stones had Satisfaction, the Beatles had Help! and Ticket to Ride, the Byrds had Mr. Tambourine Man, Dylan had Like a Rolling Stone ... and the Beach Boys had Help Me, Rhonda and California Girls.   Things were even worse if you listened to album cuts like Salt Lake City and And Your Dream Comes True.

That put the Beach Boys on the wrong end of the cultural divide, along with "simple" good-time groups like Herman's Hermits.  In retrospect, it was a huge mistake for the Beach Boys.

those damn white suits!  :o

I don't know if I quite agree with this. I think songs like "California Girls" and "Help Me, Rhonda" became difficult for the group's image a little later on (beginning in 1967, I'd say). What is important to recognize though is that while "Day Tripper", "Satisfaction", "Like a Rolling Stone" and "Mr. Tambourine Man" were huge hits, different, and helped shape the sound to come, they were also very rare. They stood out precisely because they were doing things that few other artists were thinking about. Other huge songs from 1965 included "I Fought the Law", "Wooly Bully", "I Can't Help Myself", "Hang on Sloopy", etc. "California Girls" and "Help Me, Rhonda" fit in very nicely with those. And more over, as I suggested in my first post in this thread, this was before there was really any kind of sharp divide between the hip music and the not hip music - the "serious" and the "not serious". Sure, one probably still existed but not to the same extent as later when music magazines were actively shaping what was cool to listen to and what wasn't. While I don't think people may have said in 65 that the Beach Boys weren't making the kind of music that The Beatles, Dylan, or The Byrds were making, I don't think that would have led to many to reject them for being uncool.

They had one of those, actually a blue one, in the BB display at the Guam Hard Rock Cafe when it first opened in 1998.  Looked pretty cheap, like something you'd get at a 70's discount store.  Must have been Al's, because, good grief, was it small. Can't believe they wore that junk on stage.

Nice post. I was young, but did grow up in that era, and you are pretty correct in your assessment.

One of the things that I was trying to get at (but probably didn't) was that people remember who the early adapters were and who lagged behind.  In '65, a number of other groups were still "behind," at least in comparison to what was standard a year or two later.  But many of them faded away as a result, while the Beatles, Stones, etc. managed to stay on top for a while.  

Also, The Beach Boys were doomed (or blessed) from day one to stand apart from the uber-hip San Francisco/Great Britain/Dylan crowd in that they really WERE suntanned, golden haired/prematurely balding Southern California beach kids. Even Brian. They wrote songs about their lives and their emotions and their desires. They created an entire myth about California which they more or less accurately represented. There was no attempt at intellectualism, nor was such a thing necessary with them. Sure they were dorks but the Grateful Dead were even bigger dorks in reality, but those guys wrote about THEIR world which revolved around Bluegrass, drugs, old blues/country tunes: all which resonated with the hip kids and they looked/dressed accordingly (at least in the early days).

"I don't think The Beach Boys are supposed to be hip. I think they're supposed to move you emotionally whether you like it or not."

Daryl Dragon, 1999

Well, I think nearly all those people secretly loved The Beach Boys, and only "came out of the closet" when Paul McCartney made it safe for them. I should also clarify that I am only talking about the US.

Except for the world of musicians, The Beach Boys were never considered hip. They are only considered hip now because of Pet Sounds and Smile, and even that is only to a minority of people. I've known plenty of Beatles/Stones-type music listeners from that time, and nearly every one told me that back then, they didn't want to admit liking anything by The Beach Boys. Strict guilty pleasure, along the lines of The Monkees.

I'd say they became (permanently) uncool/unhip the exact moment the first copy of 15 Big Ones was pressed.

Up until that point they'd evolved and had earned some well worked for hip cred and had just proven with Holland that the Beach Boys of 1973 could comfortably stand both apart and aligned with their former dorky selves and still thrive.

.... Then their fans got home, put on 15 Big Ones, and it was over. I love the album but it basically lobbed a huge grenade on the previous 6 years.

Not true. The Beach Boys were a hip trend in '62/'63. There wasn't anything on the national scene like them. You gotta remember they were THE top rock act in the U.S. in '63, and they were kind of grungy compared to anything else that was mainstream. They definitely were considered hip then, especially compared to clean-cut stuff like Elvis, Everlys, Bobby Rydell, Rick Nelson, Four Seasons etc... The Beach Boys were like punk rock in comparison to what was around. The Beatles changed that a year later.

Not true. The Beach Boys were a hip trend in '62/'63. There wasn't anything on the national scene like them. You gotta remember they were THE top rock act in the U.S. in '63, and they were kind of grungy compared to anything else that was mainstream. They definitely were considered hip then, especially compared to clean-cut stuff like Elvis, Everlys, Bobby Rydell, Rick Nelson, Four Seasons etc... The Beach Boys were like punk rock in comparison to what was around. The Beatles changed that a year later.

Yes, good point, I was definitely referring to the post-Beatles world. The Boys were definitely at the cutting edge of rock before that. I did, however, meet a couple who used to dance at the Rendezvous Ballroom while Dick Dale played, among other surf acts in that era, and they were as snooty as anyone regarding the Boys, claiming that they were "fake surf" and ruined the genre.

Okay, well, I see now that almost all my questions could have been answered had I read the What's Wrong? Artistic Missteps by The Beach Boys chapter in Jon Stebbins' The Beach Boys FAQ Book! Like I said earlier, I had just gotten the book and I"m skipping around...but didn't see get to that chapter when I started the thread 8) 

Anyway, I think we had a great discussion here!

What is hip? As mentioned in my post, here's The Chantays miming "Pipeline" on the Lawrence Welk Show, 1963 from YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j09C8clJaXo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j09C8clJaXo)

One of the best records ever made, one of the most hip and dark and imposing instrumentals ever recorded, some of the best Fender sounds ever captured on tape...does your image of the band or the record match the video image, and if so or if not, does it matter? :)

(Note similarity to the Beach Boys' dance moves...)