The Smiley Smile Message Board

Any reason why they don't do the Smile versions?  Like no "hum-de-dums" on Good Vibrations or the "In the cantina..." bridge on Heroes and Villains, are they just shortened for time?

I'm sure rehearsals were busy enough with the new songs  for the tour and they didn't focus a great deal on the familiar stuff like H&V and GV.  I would guess Mike and Totten simply decided to go with the version that they already knew and move on to other things.

I would imagine it's because the number of people who know the Smile versions is tiny compared to the number who know the singles.

Also, with 45 songs in the set, I'm sure that everyone (Brian, included) would prefer the shortest versions possible  :lol

It's nice that they include the bridge to indians and brian sings "bicycle riider" parts.  i still want wonderful.

I can understand the original GV, but they really should include the cantina version.

Just sayin'.

I think it is kind of strange that they're on a tour off the heels of the success of The Smile Sessions yet there's barely any Smile material on the tour at all.  I'm surprised Surf's Up at least hasn't been included in the setlist.

Hearing it without the cantina section is so weird. It's like neutering the song.

They should just play the entire Heroes and Villains suite, from H&V to Cabinessence. Too bad the band doesn't realize that the worst parts of their show are the greatest hits that they think they're obliged to do... You know, as if 99% of the audience is aware of any song they wrote that wasn't Kokomo.

Kokomo is a requirement. It was an enormous hit for them, like it or not (I don't, for the record). And it seems to me that removing it from the setlist would injure Mike's pride in a way that simply wouldn't be worth it. Regardless of its merits or lack thereof, he's rightly proud that he managed to contribute to an honest to goodness blockbuster hit without Cousin Brian. It's a part of their 50 year legacy, their only song released since the late 70s that casual fans have even heard, and it's actually liked by enough of the audience to warrant its inclusion. Certainly it has as many fans as, say, California Saga.

That said, the reason they're playing these versions is because they were the officially released versions. The Smile Sessions was an outtakes collection, not an album. They're playing them that way because those are the versions the majority of the fans know. I'll be honest, if I had my druthers, they'd be doing "Heroes and Villains" the way the band was playing it in the 70s, with a lot more edge to it. I loved the old live version of that song. "Good Vibrations" was the biggest hit of their lives, so you don't go messing with it now. Not on a tour that's supposed to be a summation of their recording legacy.

But that's the way Brian played them at his solo shows, even after the Smile tour.  Therefore they should now be considered the definitive versions to play.

Given that they're playing some deeper cuts that most of the "fans" (and I use that term loosely) probably don't know, what's the harm in changing "Heroes" up a little bit?  I agree with you on "Good Vibrations", but given the recent Smile Sessions release, adding the "cantina" section would be a nice nod to the Smile fanatics out there, considering they don't appear to have any plans to add any more cuts from it.

Solid perspective.

Hahahahahahahaha, right. And "the majority of fans" are surely listening to the Smiley Smile version, completely unaware of the original. No, I'm certain there's a whole club of people that know The Beach Boi~s did a song called Heroes and Villains while somehow being oblivious to an album called Smile.
And as if anyone is going to be bothered by the inclusion of the cantina or hum-be-dum sections.

That would mean Brian consciously doesn't want to play it, which is fine.

Heroes & Villains is on Sounds Of Summer, which has sold at least a couple of million copies, and while I don't know exactly what the tracklists of the various US hits compilations have been over the years, I do know that it's also on 20 Golden Greats (a UK number one album), The Very Best Of The Beach Boys and The Platinum Collection, all of which are successful compilations.

So yes, there are a *LOT* of people out there who know of Heroes & Villains but not of Smile.

Maybe in the UK it's different. Heroes and Villains is incredibly obscure to me; I hadn't even known it existed until a couple years ago. I asked several people after if they'd heard of it (including my mom) and no one did.

The songs everybody knows:
I Get Around
Surfin' USA
Surfin' Safari
Fun, Fun, Fun
California Girls
Good Vibrations
Barbara Ann
Kokomo
Help Me, Rhonda
Wouldn't It Be Nice
God Only Knows
Sloop John B

That's really all the setlist needs regarding the well-known tracks. I have trouble believing the average person would expect anything more from this band, let alone that they know the band even wrote more than half of those songs.

It leaves a good amount of space left to the good stuff, the things I would actually pay money to go see performed live: Cabinessence, Surf's Up, 'Til I Die, That's Not Me, etc. Even more if they thought to make all the surf songs into a short medley.

There's a fair amount of people that aren't showing up to these concerts because of the awful Mike Love setlist. The Smile Sessions brought A LOT of new fans who are only interested in the 1966/1967 material, and only performing five cuts from that era is not worth the agony of sitting through Little Honda, Catch A Wave, Don't Back Down, Little Deuce Coupe, Shut Down, 409, In My Room, Surfer Girl, or Be True To Your School.

Interesting because in the UK, Heroes and Villains was a top 10 single in 1967. And it charted higher than both Surfin' Safari and God Only Knows, both on your list. It's also been a conventional track for greatest hits comps for years, as Andrew mentioned above.

Maybe I don't understand what you meant - you are not in the UK? In the US it was still a Top 15 hit and still charted higher than Surfin' Safari and God Only Knows.

Well, if you think it's agony to sit through In My Room, I'd suggest a Beach Boys gig will never be for you. And the setlist is not that different from what Brian's been performing in recent years, either. And your mother may not know Heroes & Villains, but at least two million people in the US have a CD with it on.

And for every new 'fan' who is 'only interested in the 1966/67 era' there are a thousand or so people who are only interested in the 1962-65 stuff. There are also quite a few of us who actually like the material *after* 1967. Incidentally, I count six songs from 66/67 in the set -- Sloop John B, God Only Knows, Wouldn't It Be Nice, I Just Wasn't Made For These Times, Good Vibrations, Heroes & Villains.

Personally, were I in the band, I would find the idea of organising the set to please someone who thought they'd only recorded two good albums in fifty years quite insulting. The setlist they've got does lean more heavily on the hits than I'd personally like (my own favourite stuff is from Smiley Smile through Love You), but putting in three songs from Sunflower, one from Surf's Up, two from Carl & The Passions and two from Holland hardly suggests that they're wanting to shortchange those of us who like the artier stuff.

It's just an example of a song that doesn't need to be performed live, if Mike Love's vision of a "commercial setlist" is all that's keeping it in. I'd much rather hear Wonderful, complete with yodel-lay-hee-hoos... That would be such a highlight.

http://www.last.fm/music/The+Beach+Boys/+charts?rangetype=week&subtype=tracks
Wow, you're right. Just compare the plays in the last week for Shut Down and That's Not Me. It's exactly "a thousand or so," like you said. Thank the Radio God that Mike Love is sparing us the non-commercial I Know There's An Answer in favor of crowd favorites like Little Honda.

Deal with it, just like they do. The Lovester thinks that he needs to sing Shut Down and 409, he should also apply that mindset to people that don't care for anything before and after 1966 (or haven't listened to it yet!).

A quarter of the setlist focusing on 1962-1965, a quarter from 1966, and the other half for deeper 1962-present songs. What's wrong with that?
Although if they performed Pet Sounds, Smile, and Love You in full, that would be fine too.

Last.fm is not a very accurate method of determining which songs are popular across the broad spectrum of fandom, especially for a 50 year old band where a large chunk of their listening audience may not be tech savvy or be interested in a service like that.  That list is heavily skewed toward Pet Sounds because it's an indie/hipster favorite and because last.fm is primarily used by young people.

Uh, wat.

The alleged "Smile versions" are 2011 inventions. They're not the originals. This is not how these songs were originally envisioned in the 60s for the Smile album, and above all, it's not how they were finished in 1966/1967. They're playing the version of "Good Vibrations" that has been known and loved by fans for 46 years, not the version that was edited for The Smile Sessions release last year. Same goes for "Heroes", although a few Smile references have been thrown in there. That's how the song was finished in 1967 and yes, that's the version most people are familiar with. The 2011 edit is not the "original".

So yeah. That's why they're playing the songs as they were finished back in 1966/1967 and not playing versions they've never performed before that were edited together in 2011.

I've been to two of the concerts so far and the third will be in Stateline. When you hear the crowds response to Little Duece Coupe, Fun Fun Fun, Shut Down, it's amazing. The place erupts in applause. When Fun Fun Fun plays and the entire crowd is singing along to the high parts,  you will realize what they came to hear. I have many, many, many BB recordings and I love to play "deep" tracks when I'm at my office screwing around with my cars but the people who paid the big money to see them, payed the  money all these years to push songs like Kokomo to number 1, want to hear the classics.

kappa sez "In My Room" = worthless trash

Come on, d00d. These setlists are damn good, full of lots of unexpected additions and deeper cuts.

I enjoy your blaming of *everything* bad on Mike Love. I'm sure the guy is sitting there with a pen and paper, laughing maniacally as he writes "Heroes And Villains (aka total trash) (NO CANTINA SECTION FUCK THAT)" or something.

I also enjoy your dismissal of something like"In My Room" or "Surfer Girl", essential Brian Wilson tracks. Not getting those or dismissing them is not really getting Brian Wilson, just as not getting "Surf's Up" or "Heroes And Villains" isn't, to me. Sorry, I think they deserve a setlist spot as much as "Heroes And Villains", albeit for very different reasons. But hey, Mike added them to the setlist which only contains the biggest radio hits (like "This Whole World", "Please Let Me Wonder", "Marcella", "Add Some Music To Your Day", "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times", etc. etc. etc. and not even adding "Kokomo" to the setlist until several dates in), so it must be a flaming pile of shit.

Mike ain't such a bad guy ^_^ A bit of an asshole, true, but not deserving of the amount of scorn you've thrown his way in this thread. Chill out u r an indian smoking some pizza from the ceremonial pipe or something39jtiegw

Then why is Kokomo so high up?

Look at it this way: there are two kinds of people.
1. People who listen to The Beach Boys on the radio.
2. People who listen to The Beach Boys through their real albums.

If you are buying a greatest hits disc, then you probably don't care about the band's general output. "Heroes and whatsits? Honey, put on Kokomo."
If you are buying Smiley Smile, you're not listening to it thinking that it's the true follow-up to Pet Sounds (unless the year is 1967).

But whenever I look at concert footage, it does seem like most of the audience was in their 20s when Smiley Smile came out... I don't even know anymore.
I think the reason why that is, is because they're the only people who can deal with the placid tunes. If they suddenly decided to play Smile in full as their second set, I'd bet the average concert attendant's age would go down by about forty years.

Yup thats about it right there.

The setlist is pretty well aimed at all sides of their audience, though. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to something like "Cabin Essence "or "Surf's Up" making the setlist, and maybe they will in time, but it was never really realistic to expect them to show up as soon as they started playing shows. Brian hasn't even played those songs for several years, maybe even since 2004 or 2005. That's quite a while when you consider the hundreds of dates played since then, y'know? The tour was put together pretty quickly, too.

Like I said, maybe we'll see them later on. It'd be nice, but if not, most people are happy with the setlists, and most of the additions over time have been more obscure late 60s/early 70s album tracks. There are several fan favorites that were never popular singles, so hay.

I get that, but he doesn't need to do them. I think you could do a whole show without doing those songs and without more than a dozen (or so) people realizing it, just like you could with Forever (if it wasn't a Dennis tribute) or... I can't think of any other slow not-immediately-known-by-the-general-population songs like that because there aren't any others that fit that middle ground.

I mean if you were to pull out anyone with less than three songs by The Beach Boys on their harddrive, Surfer Girl probably wouldn't be on there.

Yeah, actually.

^_^ same.

Firstly, I assure you there's an in between category there: people who own SOME of their albums, a greatest hits collection or two (which feature the original 60s edits of the songs in question), and listen to them on the radio.

Secondly, SMiLE is not a "real" Beach Boys album. We have a Brian Wilson album and we have a box set of outtakes. There is no SMiLE album by the Beach Boys and there never will be. There is, however, a Smiley Smile album, with no Cantina. Nor is there a Cantina in the versions on Live in Concert, 20 Golden Greats, Made in USA, Greatest Hits Vol. 2, The Very Best of the Beach Boys, Classics Selected by Brian Wilson, the Knebworth concert, nor Sounds of Summer. The Cantina section was only added in the first disc of The SMiLE Sessions because they were aping BWPS. Otherwise they wouldn't have stopped there, they'd have edited the thing to be ten minutes long and include "Barnyard" and "I'm in Great Shape" and the "threescore and five" verse and who knows what else.

Scenario three: You discovered Smiley Smile out in your grandma's garage, put it on before you were a big Beach Boys fan, and proceeded to wig the f*** out while exchanging confused and terrified stares with said grandma.

...and the average ticket sales would go down by about eighty percent.

I've seen the comparative sizes of the hipster crowd and the general audience.  Down here in Sydney, I saw the "Smile" tour fill the Opera House, I saw "Lucky Old Sun" fill the State Theater.  Then I saw a greatest-hits concert fill the frickin' *Domain*.  Estimated at fifty thousand people, of all ages, grooving on them placid tunes.

Regards,
Jon Blum

Which is only any evidence for your statement if all the people playing Pet Sounds were people who were *only* interested in 'the 1966/67 era'.

In fact, the last.fm playlist stats pretty much always reflect the same listening pattern -- people listening to Sounds Of Summer, and people listening to Pet Sounds. Except that a lot of the people listening to Pet Sounds turn it off part-way into the album.

But your whole argument is fundamentally incoherent, anyway. Just because *you* think that the only worthwhile music the band made was in 1966 and 67 doesn't make it true. Nor does it mean that there is a massive audience out there who *only* want to hear that music and nothing else. Nor does it mean that the millions more people who have copies of songs like In My Room and Surfer Girl secretly don't like those songs.  And it definitely doesn't mean that it's a conspiracy by Mike Love to make Brian perform songs you don't like -- of the nine songs you cite as being 'agony', five of them (Catch A Wave, Don't Back Down, Little Deuce Coupe, In My Room and Surfer Girl) have been regulars in Brian's set. Brian's played In My Room and Surfer Girl at *every single show he's done*, bar none.

Remember that outside his Pet Sounds tours, Brian's not played anything other than the hits from Pet Sounds for years, while Mike's band have included Here Today and You Still Believe In Me. After the Smile tours ended in 2005, Brian's not played anything other than Heroes & Villains, which is also a regular in Mike's band's set, from Smile.   No matter *who* was in control of the setlist (and it seems to have been worked out by compromise) you'd never get the kind of setlist you seem to want, because while to a greater or lesser extent all the band members (except presumably David) see Pet Sounds (and to a lesser extent Smile) as their most important album, none of them see it as their *only* important album, or 1966 and early 1967 (because when you speak about 1967 you're clearly not counting either Smiley Smile or Wild Honey, so we're talking about up to March at best) as more important than the other forty-eight years and nine months of their career.

Oh, but Jon, That Lucky Old Sun wasn't recorded between January 1966 and March 1967, so no-one who went to see that can be counted in the people Kappa is talking about. The *actual* size of the crowd who are only interested in that music could only be estimated by taking the Smile audience, then taking away from that anyone who also went to see That Lucky Old Sun or the Mike & Bruce band. You also have to take away from that remainder anyone who liked the non-Smile portion of the set, especially anyone who sat through the agony of In My Room or Surfer Girl without being in obvious pain, and anyone who *didn't* like Smile as much as they were expecting. If any of them stayed for the encore and sang along with Barbara Ann, they might as well just be Mike Love and wear a Hawaiian shirt and have done with it.

*THAT* is the audience Kappa is *actually* talking about. My strong suspicion is that it is the empty set...

I never said that.

If you were to stop by any music boards not running phpBBS (there must be at least one extremely popular example you can think of) it's generally agreed upon there that Pet Sounds and Smile is the most worthwhile thing they ever did. I don't believe that, it's just the most popular understanding in between "The Beach Boys were a lame surf pop band" and "oh god Brian D. Wilson is a genius clearly their best albums were Adult/Child and Landlocked and his Disney covers were the highlight of 2011"

These same disappointed people are using the negligence of those albums as the excuse why they're not bothering to purchase a ticket. It's not my complaints, it's their complaints. And that's a pretty big "they". Don't shoot the messenger.

My favorite part of the Smiley Smile version of Heroes and Villains is where they sing "Bicycle rider, see see what we've done done to the church of the American indians" right before someone yells "you're under arrest!"

Sure duuude, they'd start throwing beer bottles the second they hear that "roll Plymouth rock" acid alliteration and demand a refund.

the Cantina version was officially released nearly 20 years ago, on the box set as well as the Smiley 2-fer. It's the version on BWPS and The SMiLE Sessions as well. It's been in official circulation for quite some time. The "hum-be-dum" section of GV has been played live by the BBs in the past as well.

I find it strange that they played more SMiLE material (Wonderful, VegaTables) in conjunction with the GV boxset in '93, than in 2012 when the SMiLE tapes were released in their entirety.



Unfortunately, the blame does fall on Mike mostly. Brian and Mike have both stated that Mike is in charge of the setlist on this tour, with Brian adding a few suggestions like This Whole World and Please Let Me Wonder. In the case of Add Some Music and Marcella, we know Brian had to go out of his way to convince Mike to include them (according to Rolling Stone)

The setlist is too heavy on pre-65 material and covers. In other words, it resembles a Mike/Bruce show more than a Brian show. Which is ironic, considering they're using mostly Brian's band. Mike likes to say how brilliant the SMiLE music is, how great Wind Chimes and Wonderful are, he's even been telling people to seek out She's Goin' Bald and Wild Honey as of late ... so play that sh!t!!!

Nicely stated - and accurate. A few people here need to read this post, it's not like all Brian and his band played was deep tracks, and Mike/Bruce only played surfing/car/Kokomo hits.

To say that the alternate versions of H&V and GV were only 2011 edits is not entirely accurate. An acetate of a version of H&V including the "Cantina" section was recorded in '66/'67 and is included as a bonus track on the "Smiley Smile"/"Wild Honey" 2-fer, and a version of GV featured on the "Rarities" album served as a template for the SS edit. It certainly would not be out of line, and in fact would be a valid and adventurous artistic statement (much-needed IMO) to play either of those tracks (esp. H&V) in their alternate forms, and, far from alienating fans who may have never heard those versions, would almost undoubtedly only enhance their appreciation of the songs.

Obviously "In My Room" and "Surfer Girl" deserve inclusion, but some of the more redundant concert staples could be omitted in favor of more deep catalog songs. To say the sets are "full" of unexpected additions is exaggeration. Love has basically succeeded in imposing his preferred agenda on the setlists, "Marcella" and "Add Some Music" notwithstanding. There could be much more stunning sequences in the shows, but each one is derailed by a return to relatively pedestrian fare.There is simply not an adequate balance between the more commercial/shallow and the more ambitious/deep elements of the band. This is basically due to ML's preferences. He's not being as conniving about it as you suggest, but he's relentless and determined about it, and he has had his way and the band is basically presented in his image, not as the Wilson Bros. as a sibling unit (who are more truly the group's heart & soul IMO) wanted it to be, and that's a shame, again IMO, because they could be so much more than that, esp. in this last defining go-round.

Brian shouldn't have to beg ML to include Marcella and Add Some Music, if Brian asks Love to include them (or anything else) he should say Yes Sir, I don't care if he has kept the BB name alive on tour, that has served him well also and, even though he wrote many fine lyrics and has sung well (most of the time), as Dennis said "Brian IS the Beach Boys, we're just his messengers". A slight exaggeration perhaps, but only slight.

..."Marcella", "Add Some Music", "This Whole World", "All This Is That", "California Saga", "Sail On Sailor", "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times", "Kiss Me Baby", "Please Let Me Wonder", "Cottonfields", "That's Why God Made The Radio", "Isn't It Time", et cetera et cetera notwithstanding.

Take an actual look at the current setlists:  nearly half the tracks being played weren't hits.  For a tour which is trying to reach the hits-loving audience as much as the art-loving audience, that's about as fair a split as you can get.

Regards,
Jon Blum

Those people may well exist -- but given that there are several hundred thousand people already going to this tour, apparently enjoying it, you've not actually made a case why the band should tailor their setlist to a small number of people who a) don't buy tickets to their shows and b) don't actually like anything they did in 97.5% of their career.

Personally, were I in the Beach Boys and putting together a setlist for a Beach Boys tour, I'd make my decisions based on what would appeal to *people who actually like the Beach Boys*. That would mean including most of the hits -- because a lot of people like those -- but also I'd throw in some of the better album tracks and some of the artier material, that more in-depth fans liked. Songs like Please Let Me Wonder, Disney Girls, Kiss Me Baby, This Whole World, Add Some Music, I Just Wasn't Made For These Times, Marcella, Forever, Sail On Sailor and All This Is That. And I'd *definitely* make sure that stuff that was both popular *and* artistically interesting -- like Heroes & Villains, Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only Knows, Don't Worry Baby, In My Room... -- I'd make sure that was in the set too.

Because if you do that, then there's a good chance that people *who actually like the Beach Boys and buy tickets to their shows* will have a good time.

The setlist they're doing isn't what I'd pick if I wanted them to just do my favourite songs -- there'd be a couple more Smile songs in there, and a few off Love You, and no Kokomo or Barbara Ann, just for a start -- but it's a good compromise between a hits set (and many of the hits are great anyway) and a rarities set that only ten people would actually show up for.

I can't see how doing a *less* varied set, and one aimed at only people who haven't bought tickets to the show and don't like the band very much, could possibly be a better idea than what they're doing.

At the UK premier of BWPS, the same people that were giving 10-minute standing ovations for each suite were going utterly *bananas* for Help Me Rhonda.

The emphasis is flipped for the harvest stadium tour. The hits have priority, and that's completely fine. The thing to do is to go completely nuts for the tunes that mean the most to you. That's what Smile fans in the UK did during the BW Pet Sounds tour, and maybe it played some small part in convincing him how much love there was for that material lurking in the mainstream.

But just about every track on Smile is still more popular and appreciated by more fans than anything you listed.

Says who?

You would have to be clinically insane to think Surf's Up or Cabinessence has less of a following than Disney Girls or Sail On Sailor.

So to answer your question, every single human being capable of rational thought.

Okay.

Core, essential, non-removable songs [somewhat debatable]
Surfin' Safari
Surfer Girl
I Get Around
Don't Worry, Baby
In My Room
California Girls
Help Me Rhonda
Surfin' USA
Barbara Ann (The Regents cover)
Fun, Fun, Fun
Kokomo
Sloop John B
Wouldn't It Be Nice
God Only Knows
Do It Again
Forever
Heroes and Villains
Good Vibrations  

Pre-Pet Sounds (1961-1965, spans 4 years) (Grand Total: 27)
Little Honda
Catch a Wave
Hawaii
Don't Back Down
Please Let Me Wonder
Then I Kissed Her (The Crystals cover)
Kiss Me, Baby
Why Do Fools Fall in Love (Frankie Lymon & The Teenagers cover)
When I Grow Up (to Be a Man)
Be True to Your School
Ballad of Ole' Betsy  
Little Deuce Coupe
409
Shut Down
All Summer Long
Do You Wanna Dance? (Bobby Freeman cover)

Pet Sounds (1966) (Grand Total: 4)
I Just Wasn't Made For These Times

Post-Smile (1967-2012, spans 45 years) (Grand Total: 14)
Marcella
This Whole World
Disney Girls
Isn't It Time?
Cotton Fields (Lead Belly cover)
It's OK
Add Some Music to Your Day
California Saga: California
Sail On Sailor
All This Is That
That's Why God Made the Radio
Rock and Roll Music (Chuck Berry cover)

Smile (1966-1967, spans 2 years) (Grand Total: 2)


What can we assess from this?
I think there's a lot of orange.

Except that you keep changing the terms of the argument. A few posts ago you were saying that they shouldn't be playing Surfer Girl and In My Room at all, now you've got them in a list of 'core, essential, non-removable' songs -- a list that also includes Heroes & Villains (a song you were arguing before was unpopular in the form they're playing it) and Forever (a song which you claimed was less popular than *ANY* Smile song). You're also claiming that May 11 1966 through May 19, 1967 is somehow two years.

I would also argue that at least *some* 'humans capable of rational thought' might also think that songs like Disney Girls and Sail On Sailor, which have appeared on multi-million selling compilation albums, have more fans than songs like Holidays or Song For Children, which haven't.

You still haven't explained why you think the setlist should be based solely around the preferences of a hypothetical group of people who only like Pet Sounds and Smile, don't like anything else the Beach Boys have ever done, and don't buy tickets to see their shows, rather than around the preferences of people who like the Beach Boys and buy tickets to their shows.

I like the Bee Gees' concept album Odessa, and I also like Robin Gibb's unreleased solo album Sing Slowly Sisters, but I don't really like anything else the Bee Gees ever did very much. I never bought a ticket to a Bee Gees show, because I don't like them very much, apart from those two albums. Would it have made sense, when they planned a show (when they were still performing), for them to mostly do stuff off Odessa and Sing Slowly Sisters, or did it make sense for them to sing Stayin' Alive and Massachusetts and Tragedy? If it wouldn't have made sense for them to do that, why would it make any more sense for the Beach Boys to do essentially the same thing?

I changed my mind after some thought and looking over the setlists from the last forty years? The argument is, "why the f*** are they barely playing their most renowned work?" (In before "if you're a real Beach Boys fan then you'd know Cotton Fields was the apex of their recording career...")
It is. But you can't take out the Dennis tribute.

Whoa there, we both know Holidays and Song For Children aren't what everyone has in mind when we think "songs from Smile that The Beach Boys could and should be performing live". Just for the record, it's:
Heroes and Villains [✔]
Cabinessence [ ]
Surf's Up [ ]
Vega-Tables [ ]

First you'll need to explain to me why either Little Honda, Hawaii, Ballad of Ole' Betsy, or Don't Back Down should take precedence over those tracks, and then I'll explain to you that...
Countless magazines and music critics don't cite Odessa as the best album ever made by anyone.
Sing Slowly Sisters is likewise not often cited as having topped Odessa in that special numero uno de mundo spot.

In other words, Odessa isn't Pet Sounds, the pop music equivalent to Citizen Kane. Sing Slowly Sisters isn't Smile, the cornerstone of every indie rock album recorded in the last twenty years.

You got me there.

But your claim wasn't "there are four Smile songs more popular than those songs", it was "just about every track on Smile is still more popular and appreciated by more fans than anything you listed". Which means Holidays and Song For Children and The Old Master Painter and Love To Say DaDa and Roll Plymouth Rock and...

You keep making ridiculous, unsupportable, hyperbolic claims, and then acting as if you said something utterly different from what you'd originally said.

No-one's saying they shouldn't play Pet Sounds or Smile tracks, if that's what they or the audience want. What I *am* arguing is that the setlist should be chosen based on what music *the people who go to the shows* want to hear, along with what the band want to play. Those songs have been chosen either because the audience like hearing them or the band like playing them. And even more, I'm arguing that a song not being on Pet Sounds or Smile shouldn't remove it from consideration. There are songs from those albums I'd like to hear more than some of the songs in the set (if you asked if they should swap Barbara Ann for Surf's Up, and it was only my taste that was being taken into account, of course they should), but likewise there are songs in these sets as good as -- or better than -- much of what's on those albums. Kiss Me Baby is better than Holidays. This Whole World is better than That's Not Me.

Your argument is that songs the band don't want to play should be chosen because people who aren't in the audience might want to hear them. Who benefits there? The audience don't -- they seem happy with what they're getting. The band don't -- they seem happy with the sets they're playing.

None of what you've said has actually supported this central absurd claim of yours -- that setlists should be based around the preferences of people who don't like the band and don't go to their gigs.

How do you figure? You don't think they have differing opinions? You're telling me juggling the needs and egos of a bunch of needy, loveably egocentric people doesn't result in a few ruffled feathers and passive aggressive gambits in public?

(http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Al+Jardine+EMI+GRAMMY+After+Party+Arrivals+1-GVhyJeg32l.jpg)


You're kinda warping his points out of all recognition and pretending that's what he's saying. It's not!

If Brian Wilson wants me scared by this tour... I WANNA BE SCARED! I wonder what the heck he meant by that?

(holds up his lighter and screams for HOLIDAYS at the top of his lungs)

(http://i.imgur.com/NeBLp.jpg)

I'm sure they all have songs they'd like to include, and songs they'd like to drop. But it's still the band who are making the decisions.

His original comment was:


Again -- why should the preferences of the people who *aren't* going to the gigs, and only like a tiny proportion of the band's material anyway, be taken into account at all?

Definitely. It's a lot of fun trying to figure it out, tho. ...and more than a bit tantalizing to consider full 2012 BB versions of Our Prayer and Surf's Up, as well... You can't blame folks for drooling over the prospect and arguing for it on a forum read by some of the folks involved in making that happen. It beats lobbying for "Our Prayer" to coworkers around the water cooler.

We'll find out a lot more about what the band thought in the coming months as interviews with the backing band come out, I expect. You know Brian's band and Al Jardine will have more than a few things to say on the setlist subject.

How do you know the rest of the band isn't open to performing more Smile tracks? How do you know the only thing stopping them isn't Mike? We do know Dr. Love is in charge of the setlist. Brian wasn't happy leaving out Marcella. Mike was. Alan wants Our Prayer to open the second set. Mike doesn't.

Seems like it's not about what the band wants as much as it is what Mike wants. In my opinion, f*** what Mike Love wants. But that's just my opinion, so it's irrelevant.

Mike Love benefits with green dolla bills. Isn't that what he says in the recent interviews? He always goes into detail with that consistently commercial point of view, and has concisely determined for himself what songs he thinks the people want him to play. Cheque this playa in action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9VY3zbCt24#t=598s

I don't know why you keep saying that. I must have explained over and over just that it would be nice to hear the crow cry uncover the cornfield. If they only added in two or three or five more Pet Sounds and Smile tracks, it would appease everyone who is bitching for them to do EXACTLY that.

Again, Pet Sounds and Smile is objectively their "best" albums. That means the most popular. The most commercial and well-received.
http://rateyourmusic.com/artist/the_beach_boys
The Smile Sessions - 4.41
Pet Sounds - 4.25
Endless Summer - 4.13
20 Golden Greats - 4.09
Sounds of Summer - 4.09

Or is Rateyourmusic too newfangled for senior citizen Beach Boy fans to be considered a reasonable source of public opinion?

And what evidence do you have that it's Mike not wanting to do those songs? None of them, together or separately, have performed any Smile material other than H&V (and in Al's case Vegetables) since 2005. The one time I've seen Brian asked about it in an interview, he was asked if they were going to do anything from Smile, and he said no -- and Mike asked him if they could at least do Heroes & Villains. They're doing fewer Pet Sounds songs than Mike's band have on tours I've seen, and more than Brian did the last two times I saw him.

We know Al wants to do Our Prayer, but do we actually know it's Mike not wanting them to do it? Or is it just you deciding, on no evidence, that Mike must be the bad guy who's blocking them from doing it?

Note that when Brian wanted to do Marcella and Add Some Music, and Mike didn't *Brian won*. They're doing both those songs. If Brian had said "I want to do Surf's Up and Cabinessence" he would no doubt have won that one too.

Al asks Mike for Our Prayer
Mike says no
？？？
"WHY YOU ALWAYS GOTTA PICK ON THE LOVESTER?"

That's it. I'm calling Brian on the phone myself and demanding he politely asks Mike to add some more Smile tracks.

Absolutely -- and there've been dozens of threads saying precisely that. But I strongly suspect the 'folks involved in making that happen' won't exactly be convinced by someone saying "f*ck what Mike Love wants", calling the set they're doing at the moment "the awful Mike Love setlist", saying "The Lovester thinks that he needs to sing Shut Down and 409, he should also apply that mindset to people that don't care for anything before and after 1966", and in general deciding to pick one band member to blame for the fact that the setlist isn't dominated by two albums at the expense of the entire rest of their career.

Ok, then let's be clever and Machiavellian.

Suggestion --

"Like the album sticker says -- HIT! Billboard smells hit. Commercial success. Sold out shows. Wow, Mike -- things are going great and your beloved UK shows from a few years back really wowed crowds, you should do something similar later this summer and play more stuff those Europeans like. Things sure are different over there but you're so good at tailoring setlists to individual audiences, Michael Edward Love!"

You can't blame fans for focusing on Love when all the reportage says he's responsible for the setlists, can you?

In conclusion, please don't throw us in the Smiley Sounds briar patch, Br'er Love!

"Isn't It Time" & "That's Why God Made the Radio" are being performed in order to promote the new album, so can't really be counted in the above equation (which doesn't seem to work out to "roughly half" at 1st impression, but haven't done the math).There is no shortage of uptempo hits in the set, no danger whatsoever of not reaching that audience, and it's condescending to assume that they would be put off by a larger sampling of slower "art" tracks. Andrew's repeated assertion that the constituency for those types of tunes are not attending the concerts (and therefore their opinions are irrelevant) is questionable. Maybe not, but maybe it's because they are disappointed not to have the opportunity to hear more of their favorites.

We know from ample anecdotal evidence that Love is the principal oppositional force in favor of relative conventionality, it's a red herring to suggest otherwise. The Jardine "Prayer" snub and grudging acceptance of "Marcella" are telling. He played more deep cuts on the previous BB tours in recent years, but now that the stakes are higher and Wilson is present I have a feeling that he has a stronger desire to put his stamp on this band lineup and career-capping tour, as definitive as is now possible. It would rankle if there were any further tilt in the direction of artistic ambition at the expense of commerciality, which would highlight a contrast with his basic vision for the group. There are definitely ego issues involves, at least to a degree, IMO, esp. when it comes to SMiLE material. He was willing to perform it "unplugged" in the '90s, with Carl still present, but it would be anathema to him to have to do any more of it in this context, and he would fight hard if any more significant pressure was applied from within (highly doubtful) in this regard.

MAJOR kudos to Jardine for pushing for it, speaking up for SU (and Dennis's opinion) on Charlie Rose, and even for leaking the delicious TSS info prematurely last year, indicating his enthusiasm. He talks enthusiastically about looking forward to sitting down and watching the GV session footage he was sent in the new PBS special, obviously more appreciative in retrospect of their more cutting-edge creative work, and reportedly regrets siding with Love and Johnston in the defining final battle for group direction in "78.

There was not a single mention of SMiLE in the PBS special, and you could just feel the tension against its inclusion and
the inability and resistance of Love to maturely integrate its unique heritage into a nuanced recounting of the group's history, which pop music historians will not judge him kindly for.

Did Al('s band) perform "Our Prayer" or "Surf's Up" at any of his shows?

Which one have people ever heard on the radio?

Regards,
Jon Blum

And I think there's a hell of a lot of non-orange for a band that's supposedly fixated on being a hit machine.

You seem determined to find reasons to discount the big slab of more adventurous music.  "Oh, playing Good Vibrations is obligatory" -- they're still playing it.  "Oh, they have to play songs from the new album to promote it" -- that doesn't explain why they're going beyond the single.  (Last time around they managed to promote "Summer In Paradise" without playing a single new song, actually -- the songs they played were the oldies on the album.  I don't think they've played two genuinely-all-new songs in the same concert in twenty-five years.)  And the underlying premise that playing "All This Is That" is an artistic statement while "Please Let Me Wonder" and "Kiss Me Baby" aren't because of the year in which they were recorded is just weird to begin with...

Regards,
Jon Blum

Any survey on the net is going to be skewed towards younger generations.  And any survey on fannish matters like music is going to be skewed towards the hard core (who actually bother to vote) over the casual listener.

And it's loopy to think that the hard core -- who weren't even numerous enough to make "Smile" go gold, when Brian released it or when the sessions box set came out -- are going to buy that many more tickets than the closing-in-on-three-million people who bought "Sounds of Summer" alone.

BTW, anyone else think it's absolutely perfect that not one but two of the Greatest Hits got a score of 4.09?

Cheers,
Jon Blum

...See, that second line is the bit you're just assuming.

If Al wants to do a song, but Brian isn't enthused by the idea of doing Smile stuff (as seen in a previous interview), and Bruce and David have expressed no opinion one way or the other (not surprising, seeing as they had nothing to do with the song), that's hardly Mike overruling the rest of the band.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

As said above: of course you can count them.  Last time around, they promoted their new album by playing remakes of "Hot Fun In The Summertime" and "Surfin'".  They promoted "Songs From Here And Back" and "Summer Love Songs" without ever playing the "new" tracks off them.  The very fact that they can't stick to oldies to promote their new album is already a sign of them being more adventurous than anytime in the past twenty-odd years...


I don't think that's Andrew's assertion.  His point is that there isn't a significant "constituency" which is shunning the concerts because they only like the Pet-Sounds-era stuff -- because most of the people who are amazed by "Surf's Up" also appreciate tracks like "Please Let Me Wonder" and "Kiss Me Baby", not to mention "Fun Fun Fun" and "Help Me Rhonda".  Andrew's saying that the people who like the "art" tracks generally are attending the concerts, and it's silly to chase the subset of that subset who are boycotting them.

Personally I'm a huge Smile fan, I'd find it heart-stoppingly gorgeous to see the band do "Our Prayer" leading into "Heroes And Villains".  But I don't feel cheated if I merely hear them do 45 other songs I love.


No one doubts that Mike prefers the more mainstream stuff.  But the thing I think you're overlooking is that this is a tour of a band, with five different opinions involved.  If Brian, Al, Bruce, and David all wanted to do "Our Prayer" and Mike overruled them all, that would be one thing.  But if Al wants to do "Our Prayer" while Brian's not especially keen on doing "Smile" again, while David wants to play something with a good lead line and Bruce goes off on a rant about Obama not giving them press coverage... that's a more complex reason why it doesn't make the set.  Not one with one villain.


...Then he must be really rankled, because all the set additions since the start of the tour have been tilting in that direction.  Ferchrissake, they're playing "California Saga" now -- the Beach Boys are on stage in front of thousands of people singing about Steinbeck!  Did you ever think that would happen again?

And I'm expecting one or two more additions once they start touring in Europe and Australia, which have always had a higher concentration of art fans.  Just like Mike added so many deep tracks on their UK tour which he'd never play in the States.  Might be "Our Prayer", might be "Good Timin'" or "Lady Lynda".  I don't know -- but I'm looking forward.

Personally I think the stamp Mike's interested in putting on things is "fun first, art second" -- which is not the same as wanting to expunge all that artsy stuff from the record.  Which is why he's putting out a set list with half a dozen songs from "Pet Sounds" and "Smile", three from that notorious commercial flop "Sunflower", and five from their early-'70s hipster-cred phase (versus a resounding four from the next twenty-five years of endless summer).

Cheers,
Jon Blum

I think it's time we petition in favor  of getting "Lookin' At Tomorrow" on the setlist. Given the sorry state of the US economy and the lack of jobs for skilled tradesmen, I fill the song could really resonate. Jardine was just 40 years ahead of his time.

Likely the former on College radio stations and the like. Gotta count internet radio too. Funny how neither Disney Girls or Sail On Sailor are available on last.fm. I doubt anyone noticed when Sail On Sailor was played on the radio five times during the entirety of 1973.

And you're determined to defend the fact that they're playing significantly more album tracks from their virtually unknown LPs than album tracks from two of the most lauded records ever produced by anybody.

Aren't the hardcore the ones that haven been showing up to as many shows as they can?
Isn't Brian Wilson's Smile number one on Metacritic?
Wasn't it nominated for numerous Grammys?
Wasn't The Smile Sessions voted Best New Reissue by Pitchfork?
Isn't a band supposed to be performing the songs that have garnered the most praise?
Aren't younger people supposed to be the ones interested in concerts?

Is the score supposed to be low just because it's a compilation?

Then why doesn't Al just ask Bruce, David, or Brian? Why bother going to Mike at all?

And what fraction of people that are amazed by Surf's Up are amazed by Surf's Up? Please tell me it's somewhere between 99.99999% and 100%.

When all else fails, put words in their mouths.

I still don't get the myth that it's totally and utterly unreasonable to add in a couple more 1966/1967 tracks because "if they did then no one would show up."
Who is against the Smile material? Are they the same people who adore All This Is That and Marcella? Why would performing more 1966/1967 cuts be an issue with the audience? WHO WOULD COMPLAIN?

"How was The Beach Boys concert?"
"It was horrible! They overfilled the setlist with that insufferable 'Pat Stounz' and 'Smoyle' malarky and played Here Today and Our Prayer instead of Funky Pretty or And Your Dreams Come True. I want my f*cking money back."

I wouldn't want to hear "Surf's Up" because Brian can't sing it anymore.  He can sing parts of it but not the high parts.  I wouldn't want to hear a member of the backing band singing part of that song.  That's just MO.  It takes away the emotion if Brian can't sing the high parts.  My personal favorite is that video clip of just him at a piano and it's because he could sing that high back then. Besides, Brian already did the Smile tour.  I'm not sure Brian ever did it in his solo concerts after that or not often.  I haven't stayed on top of all Brian's solo shows over the years so I'm not sure. It could be he wishes he could still sing like that and it's not as much fun for him that he can't sing those high notes.   As far as "Our Prayer," I'd rather hear Add Some Music as a group harmony song because it's a longer song.  Prayer isn't really a song.  Though it would be okay as introduction to H & V and that's where it belongs.  Maybe it will be added some time.   "Wonderful" or "Wind Chimes" might be possible because Brian can still sing those and Mike has said he likes them.  But I bet they'd only do them in Europe and not in the US.

Oh, wait, Wind Chimes is too high for Brian, too.  Maybe parts of Wonderful.  But it would be more okay to hear a backing band member singing those parts than on "Surf's Up."  The best part of SU is young Brian and the way he sounded on it and it's too bad he doesn't sound like that anymore.

Hey Kapper, listen, maybe it's BRIAN that doesn't wanna do a bunch of SMiLE songs. He did say in an interview recently that he didn't wanna perform the album, so likely he is performing the songs that he prefers, therefore we get "Heroes And Villains" and "Good Vibrations". I'm sure if he wanted they would do "Cabin Essence" or "Wonderful" or whatever he wanted if it was up to him. Seeing as how he wanted to do "Please Let Me Wonder", "This Whole World", "Marcella", etc and those made it in the set list, I'm assuming that if he wanted to do more Pet Sounds or SMiLE stuff, it would happen, as, ya know, the guy is the leader of the band!


Crappy attempt at runnersdialzero like humor. Try again.

You could say that with just about every song Brian has a vocal in.

Would be fine with me if that were the case! Unfortunately, that isn't quite exactly the atmosphere being conveyed. What has been said is that Mister Love controls the setlist. Not the band, but Mister Love! If another article comes up with something along the lines of,
Then I would personally have no problem with anybody. Nothing like that has come up yet! What has come up, though, is the fact that Mike has disputed what the other band members want to play.

Which is completely fine from an objective point of view as well!

But I don't like the Lovester's attitude, so I have a problem with his visions.

I wasn't made for these times.

Meanwhile on planet Earth...  "Sail On Sailor" was enough of an FM radio mainstay to chart twice.  "Surf's Up" was released as a single and never troubled the Hot 100.

Back when I was in college, college radio never touched the Beach Boys, but I heard "Sail On Sailor" fairly regularly on the mainstream classic rock station (105.9 WCXR).  And that's a couple of decades later...


Nope.  "Pet Sounds" is one of the most represented albums in the current setlist.

(Only "Today" has more tracks being played -- though it depends how you count "Help Me R(h)onda".  "Today", of course, is their next highest rated album in the Rolling Stone Top 500, and was also one of their biggest sellers.  Is that what you're thinking of as a "virutally unknown LP"?)

Only "Smile" is arguably under-represented -- and "Smile", of course, was never actually released.  Neglecting that album doesn't equal neglecting their acclaimed artistic side, which does not rest solely on "Smile" or "Pet Sounds".

You seem to have a problem with the idea that they had a bunch of other creatively-lauded successful albums besides "Pet Sounds"...

Regards,
Jon Blum

A couple of months ago I happened to hear H&V being played on the radio for the very first time, the original single. I usually don't listen to standard radio shows, but I was at my mother's place, and it came on as we talked. It turned out this was a quiz show (or is it called "quiz program" in English?), and the candidate had to guess who did that song. The candidate guessed right, but he claimed he had never heard that song before.

I mean, that's telling, isn't it, that they use H&V as a question on a quiz show!

My father however, knew the song.

Well I don't think anybody on this board or any fan at all would be disappointed if they dropped Ballad of Ole Betsy, Then I Kissed Her, and Why Do Fools Fall in Love in favor of say maybe Caroline No, Surf's Up, and Wonderful.

It’s kind of fascinating to read this thread and get another glimpse of the various different factions within the Beach Boys’ fan community.  Given some of kappa’s presumptuous, biased assertions, I think I can finally understand why some longtime fans get aggravated with those that are exclusively drawn to their 1966/1967 period—and I speak as a huge fan of that stuff.  Honestly, kappa, you’re giving us Smile-heads a bad name with your narrow minded focus on that brilliant but brief phase of their career.

To be honest, I never really connected with the Beach Boys much when I was young.  I was more of a British Invasion kind of kid and while the Boys were catchy, I couldn’t relate to the subject matter or their seemingly clean cut image.  I changed my tune big time in the 90’s by way of Pet Sounds, the I Just Wasn’t Made For These Times doc, and the Smile material, my abiding obsession.  The fact that this stuff was so strange and different from the big hits I was familiar with made it all the more intriguing.  But getting exposed to that stuff opened me up to the broader brilliance of their whole catalog—both their earlier hits (and excellent albums like Today! and Summer Days…) and the “wilderness years” of the late 60’s and the 70’s, as the rest of the band stepped up to help fill the void left by Brian.  Needless to say, there’s a lot more to the Beach Boys’ legacy than just Pet Sounds/Smile.  

Would I like to see them feature more of their arty, experimental stuff, particularly material from Smile?  Sure, but I really wasn’t expecting much of that from this tour and it seems pretty churlish to turn your nose up at its exclusion.  This is reunion tour is a celebration of their entire body of work, not just their ambitious artistic heyday, and I’m sure that the majority of fans are coming to see the big hits, the catchy “fun in the sun” fare, not the Grammy winning Mrs. O’Leary’s Cow.  I’m pleased to see them pulling out some more offbeat material like All This Is That and California Saga, along with plenty of Pet Sounds, offering a broader, balanced picture of their work.  As others have suggested, I imagine Brian is just as reluctant to revisit Smile as Mike is at this juncture—remember, Brian was the one who resisted its release for so long and who has long been ambivalent about it.  (I may have briefly bought into the whole “Mike as villain who wouldn’t allow them to f*ck with the formula” myth back in the 90’s, but the reality is a lot more complicated than that and for all his faults, I’ve made my peace with Big Love.) The idea that a significant number of “fans” are passing this tour up because they’re not doing enough Smile is laughable and it’s more than a little presumptuous of a narrowly focused newbie to seek to impose his wishes on the vast majority who have loved the Boys for decades and appreciate their entire body of work.  If they ever decide to break out Do You Like Worms?, I'll be thrilled, but until then, I'll gladly groove to I Get Around, Please Let Me Wonder and Marcella.  

You got my vote!

Christ almighty! What a horrible thread this turned out to be.

Because the original release version is best. The Beach Boys knew that then, and they know that now.

I don't think the Beach Boys are 'SMiLE' fanatics. And that doesn't bother me one bit.

The 45 version of H&V would have sold more if Brian had used a Fender bass instead of the muddy string bass.

Ouch! :'(

Board's turning blue. I would suggest that certain folks in this thread direct their attention to the bluebored.

BUT...

PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE. PET SOUNDS AND SMiLE.

Random thought - imagine if Brian suggested in the studio to have someone play drums like he has Hal play on "You're So Good To Me"! It's literally just a snare, kick, and tambourine stomping on every beat. There are no fills or variations. They'd probably 'correct' him. I just watched a video of the BBs performing the song live about a month ago, and the drummer couldn't resist throwing in fills and few light cymbal crashes. But why? I've really come to admire Hal Blaine's restraint on the kit. It totally fits what pop music is. Showy drums are for 3/4 piece bands.

Is that Hal? I thought it was Dennis on that song.

OK, I'll admit I don't know who played what on all the sessions. Even if it was Dennis, we know he could do a lot more than that with his kit if he wanted to.

What works in the studio and what works live are two different things. The drummers with Brian's band, too, have always played more than on the record on tracks like that, and Dennis played more fills on stage than on the record. I *love* the drum parts Brian came up with in the studio, but while they work perfectly as music, they don't work as well for holding a live band together.

For the most part Cowsill is sticking pretty closely to the parts as written, and the changes he makes are, to my ears, reasonable ones, but your mileage may, of course, vary.

One of the aspects of the Beach Boys that I love is the fact that they restrain the drumming to a very large extent.

There are many BB songs without any drums. The songs that have drums are often very simlistic and don't distract the listener from the music. It seems Brian was more into making the bass do the rythem than the drums. GOK is a good example of that. Not a single song has some damn and dull drum solo. I wish more drummers and music groups would realise less is more when it comes to drumming. I prefer artsy percussion over the standard drum kit.

So true.

As a flat-out Maureen Tucker worshiper, the Beach Boys' restraint with drums is right up my proverbial alley. Very little irritating use of crash crash smash cymbals.

Dennis was fuckin' great at thudding away. Brian has a great feel for JUST ENOUGH percussion that work great with his ideas about basslines.

Absolutely agreed. Brian gets a far more interesting sound by having the treble percussion be something other than hi-hat and ride cymbal -- sleighbells, tambourine or tuned percussion. And I love the minimalism of the drum parts on Love You, or something like Funky Pretty.

I don't know what part of someone slamming their snare on every beat wouldn't hold me together as a musician, but I respect your point. Sometimes, I feel like the drumming on the new record is fit for more for a Who record.

Oh, the drumming on the new album isn't great at all, and doesn't really fit with the style of Brian's best stuff. Don't know whether that's the fault of the drummer(s) on the tracks, or of Brian, or of Thomas, or some combination, though.

As for the live band comment, I can't really explain that, just intuitively for me when playing with drummers there is some sort of optimum amount of flashiness and complexity in the part that I can respond to. Brian's normal parts would be a bit too empty for me to lock in to perfectly, while the parts Cowsill plays on stage seem to be in the sweet spot where it'd be easy to lock into but it's never overwhelming or distracting.

...I'd just like to revisit this argument now that the boys have started playing "Pet Sounds" and "Our Prayer".

I'm running out of wildest dreams now, myself...

Cheers,
Jon Blum