The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://news.yahoo.com/enduring-pop-culture-icons-shine-183413206.html

 >:(

The Beach Boys had a lot of publicity this year. How soon people forget. It's an insult that they aren't included there. 50 years.

Those who care know that this is a good year for the BB's. Those who don't know won't change because of some yahoo mention. I don't really care if they're into Taylor Swift or whatever. I'm just glad many people still cherish the Beach Boys and through their support and fan loyalty contributed to the realisation of the 50th anniversairy!

I'm thinking... safe to assume that this omission wouldn't have been the case if the 50th Anniversary reunion hadn't disappeared in a puff of smoke, along with the awkward public transition back into the late 2012 BB equaling the Mike + Bruce show?

I'll just bet if the public goodwill between the band members was still happening, and reunion was still going, they'd be on there. Bummer.

No, they really are still not on the radar in terms of the type of widespread respect accorded folks like the Stones.

True, absolutely... but it just seems like every time they inch closer to some kind of relevance/respect in that stratosphere, they blow it, much like the famous Jack Rieley quote.

And as a fan, that sucks, man.

Of course, it doesn't *really* matter if the BBs make a certain list, or win a Grammy, but things like blowing the C50 goodwill perpetually keep the BBs as the underdogs in terms of public respect, a position that they've been for so many years. It's such a chronic, bizarre problem with this band...

The momentum died when the tour ended.  The anticlimactic nature of the Beach Boys returning to its Mike Love led formation made the reunion seem like a sham, even if the shows themselves were great.  They did something big and just went right back to the way things were and so the media loses interest, the press loses interest, and even some fans probably lost interest.  But it's not their fault.  It's whoever does the band's PR and Mike for thinking it would be a good idea to begin touring again using the Beach Boys name a mere one week after the reunion tour ended.  I'm not saying Mike fired them or whatever people think he did but it was still an ill-advised decision and he should have given more thought to it.

The original end date of the C50 tour was August 15th, and that's what Mike had in mind when the October M&B shows were booked. Then, the tour was extended, thus it looked like Mike couldn't wait to get back to touring with 'his' band. Would you rather Mike had said "no" to extending the tour, as he very well could have ?

The very fact that Mike would even book a tour of his group after the C50 tour demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of the group he purports to esteem so highly. They had the chance to cement their legacy this year. They got so close. And then Mike bollixed it up out of ego. The story is as simple as that.

Don't try to defend what Mike did!  He fired Brian and Al and Dave!  Everything wrong with the world is his fault and you know it!!

(But seriously, isn't the "Mike ruined the reunion tour" horse beaten beyond recognition by now?)

I am really starting to think that Mike thinks he is really the BBs and also believes public doesn't care about Brian being with the group.

I guess what you said also hit me when I was at the store the other day and saw the Blu-ray of "Doin' it Again" sitting on the shelf. I haven't bought it yet partly because of the bittersweetness I'm sure I'd feel watching it after what actually became of the "reunion". I'll probably want to buy it at some point down the line, if only for the bonus '66 GV studio footage... but right now, I couldn't really be bothered, even with a gift card in hand.  And I say that being a hardcore fan myself... I imagine it would be an odd proposition to make a more casual fan to want to buy "Doin' it Again" these days.

Now you know, I hate to be a downer, but this is how I'm feeling about everything these days...

Thank you! Again! Once again you've put most succinctly what would take me repetitive, rambling paragraphs.

The story is nothing like as simple as that.

I'm not talking about what it was, I'm talking about what it appeared to be and what was perceived by the media and for a lot of the public.

Also, yes, I know the tour was extended.  But Mike and whoever else is in charge of that sort of thing at BRI should have had the good sense to know not to book shows so far in advance when he was already part of something that was bigger and more profitable than any of that.  And with his reputation, he couldn't have thought that something good could have come out of the way it was handled.  If anything, he should have canceled those dates with his band and had consulted thoroughly with Brian and Al before making any further plans.

If there's one thing Mike isn't, it's stupid. He knows Brian has loyal fans and followers. He also heard the applause and support for Brian during the C50 shows. There was a palpable feeling when he is on stage - it's just different when Brian is there. If he didn't think the public didn't care about Brian being a part of the fold, he wouldn't have bothered with a 50th reunion lineup in the first place.

Nor is it as simple as "the tour had an agreed upon end date, it was extended, and now they are doing what was originaly planned and agreed upon."

Nobody has been able to refute the strong likelihood that if Mike had not booked more of his shows and if he had agreed to more reunion shows, there would have already been or would soon be more reunion shows. That part of it is simple. Even Mike's own statements have shown that he is the one who, for a variety of reasons that may or may not be justifiable to fans and the band itself, stopped more reunion shows from happening.

All it would take is a vote if the others really wanted it. Maybe they didn't really want it.

Why not an Al-Brian-Dave lineup?

Boring.

Totally disagree. It's as exciting as anything related to the BB's outside of a reunion. It shouldn't be called "The Beach Boys" either, but a chance to hear and see more of Al and David in particular would be great.

I've pointed out numerous times that the others most likely don't want it. They clearly wanted and/or want to do more reunion stuff, but that's different from simply moving to strip Mike of the use of the name.

I haven't really seen anybody that truly believes Brian and Al will move to take the license away from Mike. A few have simply posed the question, just sort of wondering out loud.

It's also perhaps a bit early to say with 100% certainty what they "want" or what they plan as it relates to the license.

"At that point my attorney merely suggested to Mike's attorney that a possible press release in those markets might be appropriate to stop the confusion, which was in no one's best interest. " 

- Brian Wilson

Brian will never stop Mike from using the name, Brian's been sitting at home while Mike earns him money since 1965.  Why would he stop that?  Brian makes money off 2 bands right now, if he took the name he'd only make money off 1 band, and have to pay Mike for it?  No thank you. 

I agree that it's highly unlikely Brian will ever stop Mike from using the name. But Brian almost certainly would make significantly *more* money using the BB name himself than he does touring solo and taking his 1/4 cut of the license fee he gets from Mike's tour, *if* Brian actually toured as constantly as Mike does, and operated under the same basic financial structure. This of course would never happen, as it would require ten thousand percent more effort for maybe only a few times more money.

The only possibly scenario I could see Brian attempting to move towards stripping Mike of the license is if Brian was doing it to attempt to essentially force Mike into touring in the reunion configuration. As I've mentioned a number of times, a reunion under duress is something I doubt Brian or anybody wants. 

The similarities between the Beach Boys and their touring and membership issues is so similar to the country band "Alabama".  All of those guys hate each other, and on any given day whenever they do something 1 or 2 or 3 of them may show up... even to the point where they cut one of the dudes out of the old pictures, so nobody remembers that there's 4 members. 


What it comes down to is, if Mike kept touring with Brian he probably felt like sh*t was going to get ugly again and didn't want that.  Mike is all about money, and he would have made more money touring with Brian... but yet doesn't want to.  That tells us something.  I don't think they had any issues, I just think that they're different people and too much is too much sometimes.  In Mike's band everybody's his bitch, in the BB's Mike is a rockstar but so is Brian.  Brian travels with an entourage and while Mike has massive love and respect for his cousin I'll bet he doesnt' have an ounce of it for the assistants. 

The cynic in me says Brian and Al have increased the license value by merely implying they want a full group to continue. ;)

Definately could be.  Brian's manipulative as sh*t.  Maybe the royalty has been stuck at the same figure for 10 years and they wanted a raise, lol. 

Someone (quite possibly someone who posts here...) was quick to point out the oversight in the Yahoo article in the comments section. While it was certainly disappointing, ultimately it just doesn't matter that much...and I hope that such slights can be sloughed off in the wake of the good things that happened in 2012. Mike isn't the devil and Brian isn't a saint--but we had a great, great year even with the messed-up headlines in October. Time to turn the other cheek, smile when your heart is breaking, let any chips just slide off the shoulder, and be grateful for all of the unexpected treasures that slipped on through in spite of the BB's penchant for discord and intrigue.

What John Cale sung in his 70s hommage to BW ("Mr. Wilson") is still true today: we "believe ['em] anyway." And that's never going to change, now, is it??  :brow

Way I see it is that the re-union was never a dead-cert to run its full course. These are the Beach Boys after all and on past performance Brian could have pulled out any time, Mike and Al might have fallen out, Bruce could have been offered a better paying job writing advertising jingles and Dave could have seen sense.

With their history, Mike was more than sensible to plan ahead. Don't forget, after all, it's his day job, this was just a sabbatical.

Not sure he would have been any better paid on the C50 tour either as the big money there would be split between five principals, while on his BBs tour it goes two ways (if Bruce is lucky!).

Further, Mike has a band, a bloomin' good band established over many years. Disbanding that would be senseless as, when the C50 outfit loses its novelty value and goes the way of all things Beach-Boys, it might be impossible to re-assemble once everyone's gone their own way.

And just maybe he didn't want to make his band members redundant; just maybe they're friends, and he cares for their livelihoods.

How many of us here, granted a fun but unstable six-month sabbatical with a better-paying rival employer likely to collapse at any moment while your main, steady employer holds your job open for your return, would be daft enough to tell that stable employer to go swing?

I honestly, seriously, call me a moron think you're onto something about him wanting to keep his buddies employed.  I own a business but have no employees... but I've worked for people that owned small businesses... and in my case, the owner of the company, believe it or not, was incredibly protective of his employees.  The guy was rich as hell, but if anybody that worked for him had an issue or a problem, or a medical scare or something, that guy would move heaven to help them out.  We had one guy have a stroke, the owner was on vacation, he caught a private plane to the employees town that night so he could visit him at the hospital the next morning.  When I turned in my notice I was leaving, he called me on the phone and told me he was mainly concerned that my new job might not work out, and that I wouldn't earn a good living for myself.  He was probably an anomaly but it's not a stretch, I don't think to believe that Mike is definately concerned about the livlihood of his band members. 

I'm sure Mike greatly appreciates his musicians. But my personal guess is that Mike is not huffing around touring at age 71 going on 72 just to keep a few of his backing musicians employed.

There was a lot of speculation going back to early this year as to the strong possibility that Mike personally made less money touring in the reunion lineup than he does on his own. It's quite possible.

While we don't know the exact breakdown of the C50 tour arrangements, I would doubt they split all the proceeds five ways. The tour operation was run by a company formed by Brian, Mike, and Joe Thomas. Al is a corporate member, so he may have seen an actual cut. But it's likely that Bruce and David were just salaried, as they have been over the years during their tenures in the touring band.

Logical. I enjoyed this post, thanks.

Getting back to the original list and topic of the thread, I saw that same end-of-year recap in my local paper. Bottom line: The Beach Boys are not listed because they don't have the same major corporate and advertising backing and interests as the other artists on that list. There is a reason for everything articles and syndicated columns do, and most of it comes down to increasing visibility of these "hot" "hip" or "now" artists because a lot of interests stand to make a lot of money as the performers' stock goes up through increased visibility.

I read these just because I'm a fan of pop culture and music in general. As far as why someone wasn't included, if you play this scene as someone would play the stock market, with value increasing with visibility therefore making more money for those invested in the venture, it all adds up why the names mentioned prominently on that list are there while others are not. Apply the same to the world of sports, and see why certain names like Jeter, Bryant, etc appear everywhere and other less marketable players might have the skills but not the ability to make money for sponsors and investors.

In other words, where was the corporate sponsorship behind the Beach Boys versus, say, The Stones or Taylor Swift? Or the current "it girl" twenty-something hip irreverent Lena Dunham? Some artists are better at getting their audience to buy products and spend money than others.

Follow the big money. It may explain more about why The Beach Boys aren't in that syndicated article than any speculation about Mike Love.

I don't think the BBs were ever considered a pop icon. Maybe briefly during that magical summer/fall of 1966, but never again.

IMO a pop icon is someone that actually marked history in modern arts. Some examples: Michael Jackson did, The Beatles & The Stones did, some Hollywood actors also meant a lot in the cultural development of the 20th century society.

The BBs didn't. Sad but true, as James would say. So I'm not surprised they're not in that list.

But that doesn't mean they're not my fav band of all time. I couldn't care less what the public thinks about this bunch of crazies...I love them'all!

For a few years in the early 60's, the Beach Boys created an entire myth around California culture that had been hinted at before, but nowhere near what it would become in the 60's. Not to get into debates over what the "real" surfers or the "real" hot-rodders thought of them - inside the music and the imagery on their album covers was a fantasy world that both a kid in the midwest or a kid in England could see and think "That's where I'd rather be, that's what I want to do.".

Take a look at when the Beach Boys appeared on Ed Sullivan in '64 versus when Dick Dale did Misirlou on the same stage a few years earlier. Footage of large waves dominated the footage intercut into the Dale performance. When the Beach Boys were playing I Get Around, they showed footage of convertibles, beautiful girls on the beach, guys driving neat cars wearing shades hanging with those girls, etc. It was pure sunny California mythology, and pure escapist fantasy for those kids watching in a living room on Sunday night.

Those are people my age...I want to be there too. Powerful stuff. The early Beach Boys music was a soundtrack for a lot of this.

And if they didn't originate this "California Myth", their music crystallized it and made it real for a lot of people at that time. They helped make these underground or niche activities like the custom car culture and surfing (complete with lingo) mainstream.

Worthy of note and inclusion in any discussions about history and culture of the 60's.

As far as the original article - that is all about the money.

Did not mark history in modern arts?  Really? The fact that virtually the entire music industry over the past half-century acknowledges  how sea-changing the Beach Boys were to pop/rock music notwithstanding?

The industry has acknowledged it, sure.