The Smiley Smile Message Board

 When The Rolling Stones gas it up in 2013 for THEIR 50th anniversary celebration, some level of point/counterpoint with The Beach Boys' 50th will prove inevitable. After all, no major rock band has ever made it the big 50. Now we have two of the most iconic bands EVER hitting the mark  at approximately the same time. (For the record, we know The Beach Boys formed in 1961, but didn't enter the public consciousness until the "Surfin' Safari"/"409" single hit the Top 20 in 1962; ditto The Stones forming around 1962 and hitting the U.K. charts with "Come On" and "I Wanna Be Your Man" in 1963.)  

 Regardless of what colossal levels of commerce The Rolling Stones generate in 2012-13, it seems to me that The Beach Boys have shockingly - to many anyway - actually raised the bar: a new hit album that contains music within shouting distance of their finest work; an astoundingly good and well received tour that includes the band's best setlists since at least 1975; a genuine fellowship among the participants. Heart, soul, and spirit cannot be faked, and The Beach Boys' 2012 expedition had been brimming with all three.    

  Certainly Mick and Keith must be aware of what The Beach Boys are up to, and they may even be taking notes. They also must know that putting 3 or 4 new tracks on a new comp (a la 40 LICKS in 2002) would look lame after the success of THAT'S WHY GOD MADE THE RADIO.

 Here's wishing The Rolling Stones a 50th Anniversary as wonderful as The Beach Boys' 50th, even if Mick Jagger has always been chickensh*t to share a stage with them.

 Just a few thoughts to ponder as our heroes go where no rock bands have gone before...

 
 

 

The Stones will probably include Blondie on stage, tho, to tip the balance

Ok.

To be honest I don't think the Stones could care less what the Beach Boys did/are doing. Whatever they plan on doing for their anniversary, I'm sure they're quite secure in themselves. What more do they need to prove?

That said, deep down they know they're chickensh*t to get on stage with the Beach Boys.

 Agree that Keith could care less, but Mick has probably noticed. Wonder if The Beach Boys' frontman has any thoughts on Mick this year?

Mick and the Lovester should face off to see who can move more effeminately on stage

that's both true and funny.

Glad to chime in on this one!  I was a major Stones fan for over 40 years and just a casual Beach Boys fan during that period.  Have seen the Stones 34 times, Beach Boys 5 times.  In addition, i was a regular poster on two of the Stones message boards for the past 10 years or so and became friends with some of the members.  After the BB tour was announced, for some unknown reason i "switched sides".  Now I can't get enough of the BB and only casually like the Stones.  As this tour progressed, I posted some nice words about the Beach Boys tour on the Stones boards.  Each time, my posts were attacked by other posters.  One of the members of the IORR board was so offended that he tried to start an argument with me by claiming that BB tunes were simple-minded compared to Stones tunes!  If that boy could bottle "stupid", he'd be a millionaire!!!

Of course, all of that is irrelevant to the question.  But knowing what I know about the Stones (and their fans), i'll guess this...

1)  The last several Stones cd's were mediocre at best.  No way could they out-do TWGMTR.  no way!  It's better than any Stones album since Tattoo You (from 1981), and the passage of time might regard it even more generous than that.  I doubt they will do any new material, but you never know.  Lately, they've been "opening the vaults" - releasing outtakes and live performances.  Even those were not as good as they could have been had they done it up right - nothing from the Brian Jones era and not enough from the Mick Taylor era.  lots of great stuff still in the vaults.

2) any tour is sure to be short.  Keith's health will not hold up to a major tour.  If you've seen any of his performances of late, then you know they've been pretty bad.  Mick is still a phenomenal performer on short gigs, but it remains to be seen if he can still do a 2-hour show.  My guess is that he can.  He's in extraordinary shape for a man of ANY age!

3) If the Stones do tour again, no doubt that $$$-wise they'll beat the pants off the Beach Boys regardless of how many shows they do.  There's enough folks out there still willing to shell out $500 per ticket and arenas will be the order of the day.  I can't imagine how much a meet-and-greet will cost, but no doubt the hard-cores will eat it up.

4) The Stones have been doing basically the same set-list for the past 20 years.  I can't compare them to the Beach Boys in that regard - before this tour my last BB show was in 1980 or so.  But i will say this...  dag gone i LOVED the Beach Boys set list.  I never get tired of their hits and LOVE the album cuts they've been doing.  The Beach Boys greatest hits have, IMO, have stood the test of time better than the Stones' hits.

Bottom line... if they do a 50, the Stones will no doubt out-gross the BB, but the cd (if any) and the tour won't be nearly as good.  NOT --- EVEN --- CLOSE!

Not that it is a contest but my winner is the act with the best 50 year album. Not sales but reviews. We know that 'Radio' has been pretty well received.

So good luck with that Mick and Keith! ;D

My hardcore fandom for the Beach Boys only began a few years ago; before then my "primary" band has been the Stones.  I'm a huge fan and I make the rounds on the Stones boards and keep up to date with their plans for their next tour/performances.  All I know is that I'm thankful the Stones decided to postpone their festivities until next year otherwise I wouldn't have been able to see as many BB shows as I did this year.  Phew!  So anyway, with that said, your post peaked my interests.

Yes the Beach Boys surpassed many people's expectations on this tour but I wouldn't say that they have "raised the bar" but rather simply "met" the bar.  A bar that was set by many other huge older acts that go out there and let the older catalog speak for itself: Stones, Paul McCartney etc.  Please know that them "meeting" the bar is me NOT belittling their accomplishments because that bar was pretty damn high as it is.  For them to have met it is a huge accomplishment...they came together wrote a very respectable (no pun intended, promise!) album and they are touring a  kick ass show to boot.  The Stones' last album "A Bigger Bang" in 2005 also garnered them a #3 debut on Bilboard just like the BB snatched last week.  Both bands also got favorable reviews for their albums as back to basics late in the game "classics."   The ABB tour that followed the album was the number one biggest grossing tour until it was bumped a couple years ago by U2's 360 tour. 

In terms of song choices the tour delivered a couple good nuggets but nothing could beat the game plan they set out for themselves in 2002 for their 40th Anniversary tour.  A worldwide tour where in some cities they would do three shows in three different venues: a stadium, an arena and a small club/theatre.  Each venue was presented with a specialized setlist with huge deep cuts and totaled about 80 different songs for the entire tour.  The arena shows got something special where they devoted that night to a specific classic album and they would play a chunk of songs from that album.   It was their most dynamic tour in decades. 

With that said, the Beach Boys are slightly late for joining in the "hey we're going to have a huge tour too!" game since the band has been so fractured in recent times.  They were smart to join forces finally for the 50th Anniversary and also have themselves put their own stamp on the tour record and scrap books.  The tour will end up being a huge success but in no way should it make Mick or Keith take a peek over here.  They've had many tours of their to go well, they don't need any tips or suggestions from the Beach Boys or U2 or whomever.  At this point, the only thing Mick can take out of the Beach Boys is that they were able to pull everyone together and actually pull it off.  That is currently the issue with the Stones, trying to figure out logistics to commemorate the anniversary.  They don't want to do a huge tour (for a few reasons) but they do want to do something.  They want to include past members (Taylor and Wyman) but they need to coordinate their schedules and of course come to financial agreements.  The moral of the story should be "If Mike Love and Brian Wilson can come together....anyone can!"   The two bands have a loyal fanbase and each tour will do fine considering there won't be TOO much of a fan crossover between the two bands.

let me add one more thing.... the last several Stones tours were predictable and even (shock!) to an extent...boring!!!  Even a lot of their hard-core fans will tell you that.  The Beach Boys 50th tour is fresh and alive by comparison.  Even the theater shows on the Licks tour were pretty much the same old war horses with a couple of rarities thrown in.

Very happy to be here with you guys!!!!

See, I would've gone ahead with this a little differently.  To me both bands are incredible and I can't put one song of one band's over another.  The Beach Boys can't lay down "Midnight Rambler" and the Stones can't do "Good Vibrations."  I'm past the point where I pick a "winner."  It's apples and oranges.  Part of why the BB tour is working really well is because this is the first united tour as a full group in years.  You said yourself that you saw the Stones 45 times and the BB less than a handful.  What'd you expect was going to happen?  The Stones by comparison have toured way more consistently than this version of the BB.  That has everything to do with it.


I can't agree with any of this.  How is the BB tour fresh exactly when it's tailored the exact same way as a Stones show?  First half: deeper cuts and fan favorites while the second half is your typical greatest his home stretch designed for the casual/tourist fan?  The BB only seemed "Fresh" for the aforementioned reasons above.  Your own preference is of course your own but let's not make such declarative statements when they're really personal opinion.  And your summary of the Licks theatre shows is pretty off...out of a typical 22 song set, more than half were songs haven't played in decades if ever at all....definitely more than "a couple rarities thrown in."

Both bands are irreplaceable so let's not dismiss the Stones just because a dumb guy on a board said something stupid and left a bad taste in your mouth.  :hat

Personally I wish The Stones would just go away.  But that's just me.  I can appreciate and even respect their legacy but their 50th anniversary will be one I'll be sitting out personally.

see guys, this is exactly what i mean about these stones fans... i come out here to get away from them and they still can't leave me alone!!!  they gotta moan and groan all night long when you say something they don't like.  both of their main fan message boards have deteriorated into babble, hope they don't drag it over here.  i highly doubt that any of the Beach Boys fans would suggest i put my basset hounds to sleep so that i could attend more Beach Boys shows.   yep, that actually happened to me on one of the stones boards - actually the guy said it to my face at a meet-up.  another time i took one of them with me to an out of state show and the guy trashed the motel room while i was out, of course the room was in my name.  i could go on and on and on.  this guy here just thinks it was one incident, but that was all i cared to go into.  there was A LOT more to it!!!

Stones Members circa 2012

All appear fit and able to play, even Mick Taylor, Wyman look willing and able to some extent.
On a playing level, the ONE concern is Keith Richards, can he play anymore? apparently arthritic hands, coupled with forgetting riffs like Gimme Shelter and his kinda coasting performances are a big concern for a gig, never mind a tour
On a writing level, i am fearful - Keith again hmmm... is there anything left in the tank, heart says yes/head says no
Mick - i am also fearful,however! given his melodies/lryics on plundered my soul and other new/old songs from the recent remasters/expanded releases shows he's defo capable of it, but also capable of bumming it

i'd like to see taylor, wood, richards all playing, with bill and charlie and mick, bobby keys etc and play like they did in the early 70s pomp - that would be nice

The Stones will out gross the Beach Boys on tour, not even close.  Serious question though...when was the last Stones album of new material to chart in the top 3?  I honestly don't know as I am not a big Stones fan.

The last album of original material they released, in 2005.

The Rolling Stones are the 2nd most over-rated band in history. The first is Nirvana

just my opinion

Not a big RS fan, but Jagger will kick Myke's butt down the road as far as he wants to. He is the ultimate frontman and  Myke will always be choking in his dust. Mick and the band will get great press as the world's greatest rock and roll band of all time.

But , BUt, Mike and the BBs did Jumping Jack in concert, when have the Stones ever had the balls to do any BBs?  ( never; that's right)

 Perhaps Mick loves Mike. Or vice versa.

If the Stones tour in 2013, will they consider it their 50th Anniversary tour? Maybe diehards could clarify, but I thought the Rolling Stones were acknowledging 2012 as their 50th anniversary, but chose not to tour regardless.

Maybe they could pull a Beach Boys, who were formed in 1961, did their first gig in 1961, and released their first record in 1961, but celebrated their 50th Anniversary in 2012! :police:

 Watts joined the Stones about January 1963, even though the group existed months before. As noted above, both bands entered public consciousness in 1962 and 1963, respectively. The Stones have already stated that any 2013 events/activities will mark their 50th anniversary. 

Thanks for the clarification.

The Beatles. Neither the beach boys nor the stones legitimately have 50th reunion's this year. The Beach Boys should've been last year, and the stones should be next year, as far as first studio recording release goes.

And wouldn't this year also be the 55th anniv. for Buddy Holly and the Crickets?

I seem to recall there being a bootleg of the Stones doing I Get Around. I am sure I had it somewhere....

Well, sure. But Late November /early December 61 is more likely to be counted as 62, in a round-off way of thinking. They did what, 3 maybe 4 appearances in 61?

It´s actually a recording by the Andrew Oldham Orchestra, lead vocal by Mick Jagger (no other Stone involved).

(http://i45.tinypic.com/f51suo.jpg)

Figures; if anyone would know, you da man!

Unless the Stones do theatres I have no desire to ever see them again. It was cool once to see them in 1994 but I hated the theatrics. After 1978 I can't really stomach too many of their gigs. I hate the female background singers, I think Keith can't play worth crap since the Some Girls era, and though Ron and Charlie are still good, Mick is just sad. Unless tickets are much cheaper, the venues much smaller, and maybe Mick T and Bill are back, a new Stones tour or album will mean nothing to me. I mean my favorite member died in 1969, and since the 1981 tour Mick and Keith are pathetic. I do enjoy the post Brian pre 1980's studio work fine, but to me they were cool without him not innovators. I am a huge fan but much more than the Beach Boys I hate what they became. Keith's book was nasty and garbage as well.

 Keith's book was rather mean. Imagine if Mick wrote a book taking Keith to task for the size of his member. But somehow it's all fun and games when it's Keith. Talk about a crazy old man...

He totally wrote Brian out of history only because he grew not to like him. Funny enough Keith's done everything Brian ever did wrong and his addiction screwed up the band to a far deeper level because frankly it was a lot worse.  Without him and Mick and Ian (who is about the only person who gets treated fair in the whole thing) Keith would have been a bum. I say this as somebody who loves Keith's writing, playing, and even vocals in the sixties and seventies. He simply didn't have their ambition, marketability (at least at the start), or organizational skills. I don't know if he had tried to understand Brian and Mick even if he didn't agree with all they did I would have a lot more understanding for Keith or who Keith became.

I only brought it up because, during these 50th Anniversary interviews, they are repeating the "Dennis asked us to write a song about surfing" story, Al is telling the story about the guys auditioning for his mother and recording "Surfin" with Brian on drums and Al on bass, and the guys calling into a radio station to vote for/request "Surfin" - all of which happened in 1961.

How many appearances does it take to legitimize the group? 1, 3, 4? I don't know. I have no problem with making 1962 the  starting point. It's all good. Just saying... :)

I read somewhere that the Stones consider '63 to be the start because that's when Charlie Watts came into the band.

 Buddy of mine had the MADE IN THE SHADE and GOOD VIBRATIONS:BEST OF THE BEACH BOYS comps, both of which were released at the same time, early Summer 1975. Great listening...

 IMO the whole point is that the Stones and the Beach Boys are still functional bands, thus the 50th anniversary stuff. This just isn't the Beatles' moment. Let's forget about them (for awhile) and make way for the Beach Boys and the Rolling Stones.

  The Stones are releasing a 3 CD best of (GRRR!) with two new tracks this November. (Single "Gloom & Doom" out now.) I don't know if a new Rolling Stones studio album is in the cards for 2013, but if not, score a point for The Beach Boys!

There should be one of those 'EPIC RAP BATTLES OF HISTORY' feat. Mike vs Mick

As I will have seen both live this year, I'll let you folks know who puts on the better show.  ;)

I like The Stones , heard that new track Doom and Gloom Blues (?) and it's good.
No way will it compere to the BB's though, the new album is superb and the Stones haven't managed that since i was in pampers.
Also , the Boys got David back will the Stones invite Mick Taylor, with whom they made (for me) their best work , i think not.......................

There are rumors Bill Wyman has been rehearsing with them, I agree that they should include Taylor as well.

I'm a Beach Boys fan first, but am also a big Stones fan and post over at the "Tell Me" board where this subject has been broached.  Interestingly there is a great crossover of fans and a lot of respect for Brian and the BBs among the posters there (Mike's R&RHOF speech notwithstanding).  I think the Beach Boys big resurgence via the recent LP and tour were a direct result of Brian's artistic integrity over the last 15 years.  Creating new and ambitious material (if generally not fully up to his old standards), forming a crackerjack band with full awareness and appreciation of his lesser known masterworks, and a growing general public appreciation of Pet Sounds and Smile (and BWPS) built a head of steam and majority of the touring band for Beach Boys 2012.  The Stones on the other hand have spent  the majority of the past 20 years or so releasing by the numbers product to help promote high priced stadium tours.  The exception being perhaps the Stripped project.

I've wanted Mick to cut the stadium Rooster crap since 1975.  But they love the money.  It parallels the BBs post Endless Summer mindset for me.  Jukebox and cheerleaders.  Warhorses and posing.  Whatever.  Would love to see the Stones make a rootsier album, or attempt a tour of smaller venues and play offbeat gems.  Hell -- perform Their Satanic Majesties Request in full would turn me on way more than Jumping Jack Flash one more time.  It won't happen.

Those four concerts will be interesting. Anyone here playing to go? Expect a lot of vids and pontificaters pontificating. 

Hey Aum Bop Diddit...what's your screen name on IORR?  That place is my second home!

"Wry Cooter"  ;D  And you?  I'll be looking for ya!

Ah cool!  I know your posts very well...you're one of the good guys!  My username is the same there as it is here: Justin.  Nice to know there's some good crossover here!

The Beatles died forever in 1969. They are finito. I don't think John woulda wanted anything Beatles related again. For sure he might've joined the other guys, but I think he really wanted to turn his back on the concept of The Beatles. As others say here, let the dead groups rest, it's time for the Stones and BB's to shine. However the stones stand stronger, they don't have any gaping hole like Carl and Dennis are. Well, ofc Brian Jones was a huge loss, but they did do stuff after that. That can't be said for Dennis, and certainly not for Carl. Wyman doesn't count in my list for the obvious reasons, but he is a great musician and I loved his Blues Odyssey!

Well obviously you are too!  Guess I could have figured that one out but what the hey.  I will say some of the posters are a little rough on edges there!  (And perhaps a little more under the influence of something.  :-X)  But just like here some great hard core discussions and info.  See you there!

It's been a headache going over there, lately.  Sadly, it's the only Stones board really worth visiting but it's sadly being ruled by bitter, Debbie Downers that thread-crap on all the threads.  I understand there's a lot to be miffed about with the band like the ridiculously high ticket prices but it's difficult to actually have a discussion when people are just so blatantly bitter and pessimistic--nothing gets done.  Hopefully it will blow over but it ain't happening any time soon....

Domenic Priore once told me that he saw the Stones at a small show in 1978 and that he thought it and that tour was their last great moment. I agree! I love their vintage work, but after the seventies it doesn't matter. Saw them once in 1994 it was cool but nothing I would ever care to repeat. If it was a theatre maybe.

Sad to say but the Stones will probably do something the Beach Boys failed to do on their 50th tour - have Blondie Chaplin on stage.

I 100% agree with that.

Y'know, the Stones and the BBs should tour together...they could call it "Stoned at the Beach"...  >:D

...but that's probably too sociologically incorrect to fly in this day and age, now, isn't it??

(http://www.kweevak.com/2000-graphics-articles/2007-05-13-brian-wilson-06.jpg)
(Looks like Brian is at least "one up" on Mike in the Springsteen department...)

But frankly I won't be satisfied until I see The Boss get up on stage and jam with both of 'em...

The Stones played at the Checkerboard Lounge here in Chicago with Muddy Waters (and others) in 1981 in the MIDDLE of their world tour (now on DVD).  They also played the Double Door in 1997.  I don't know why they picked that club, it's not the best for a concert.  But the bottom line is, they did it.  Too bad I wasn't there.