The Smiley Smile Message Board

Just caught this quote from Stephen W. Desper over on the Hoffman forum. Pretty shocking that this hasn't been brought up yet over here. (Unless it has, in which case mods feel free to delete of course.)


So the Beach Boys pulled out of the festival not over concerns related to their set list or Brian's psychological well being, but... Coke?

The "so what do you think of Mike Love now?" thread may need a review.. What a Joker!!

But if Brian had done that, he would receive no criticism at all.

It would, but even Brian never got that apeshit stupid.

He would have received criticism, but it would have been in a different form because of his mental illnesses. Also, the thousands of dollars worth of hash....

It's actually quite a principled stand, albeit one that backfired tremendously.

Canceling Smile was a far worse move.

Who knows. It might have bombed badly.

And the way the whole SMiLE saga turned out it helped strongly in fortifying their artistic reputation over a couple of decades of mostly weak material. Imagine SMiLE would have been released back in the 60's - even if it had been a critical success and had sold reasonably it still might have fallen into oblivion (as so many other great concept albums of that time have). The eventual myth building has had its benefits over decades.

Just sayin'. Off topic, anyway.

Old news: that was broken at least a decade ago, maybe longer.

Its on page 153 of The Beach Boys FAQ book published 2011.

Oh, well there you go then. Maybe it was still worthwhile bringing the topic up though. Monterey seems to get discussed ad infinitum around these parts, and like I said, I've never seen anyone proffer the "Coke defense" before.

Yeah, I was about to say...  In fact, I first heard SWD speak of it (or at least we speaking of SWD's speaking of it) right here at this very forum.  I've spent some time going through a bunch of Monterey topics here just using the search function.  It's fun!  :D

As far as the infamous "Coke defense," well, as interesting as it is, there is some part of me that doesn't like the thought that this is what kept the 'Boys from performing at the festival.

The Beach Boys pulled out of the 1967 Monterey Pop festival at the last minute because Mike Love did not want to be associated with Coke, which was one of the sponsors of the event?  That sounds like absolute bullshit to me.  Can anyone provide evidence that Coke was even a sponsor?  And if they were, what is the logic that Mike Love, of all people, would refuse a gig due to a corporate sponsor as innocuous as Coca Cola?  Where did this nonsense first originate?

Nah, I agree. Smile is a gift for those of us who missed the release of all those classic 60's albums. We got to witness the release of one of them.

I think if you read up the the thread you will see this is the claim of Stephen Desper who was the Beach Boys live mixer during that period, and who ended up doing a bunch of the sound engineering at the Monterey Festival. The Coke anecdote is true, but to say it was THE reason is probably an exaggeration. It was one of a dozen reasons. Carl's pending draft troubles, Dennis' pending divorce, Brian wanting to concentrate on tweaking Heroes and Villains, the group being unprepared for facing that audience, lawsuits, business crisis, Brian's state of mind etc... This was a time of endless swirling problems within the band, and Mike added to the bitch-fest by taking a stand against Coke...i guess.

I know it is said that if the boys woulda played Monterrey that they woulda had more of a chance to have been part of the "hip" crowd in the late '60s, but honestly I think history may have went like this (forgive my bad writing):

"The Beach Boys, about to release the quirky Smiley Smile, started off their show with an organ dominated version of their single "Heroes And Villains", with Brian Wilson delivering a powerful vocal. The band breezed through their set, which included hits like "Wouldn't It Be Nice", "God Only Knows", and "Good Vibrations". A performance of 1965's "You're So Good To Me" was also quite punchy, although the groups decision to bring "Surfin'" out of the mothballs seemed oddly anachronistic. And honestly despite their best efforts, the group seemed out of time and out of place after barnburning performances by The Who and Jimi Hendrix."

Honestly, I don't think they woulda been blown off the stage, but if they did play it probably woulda been something like the 1967 Hawaii shows. They probably woulda still been thought of as slightly square and maybe woulda gotten Smiley Smile and Wild Honey some more sales.

Exactly! Carl's pending draft troubles!  In an era of forced conscription into military service, with some few exceptions such as college deferment.  That is the most credible.  I think it would have been a bad move for them, especially Carl to be appearing at any event that had any antiwar or anti military overtones, given his Conscientious Objector assertion and the climate of the country, and widespread public opinion against anyone perceived as a "draft dodger" in a system run largely  by the heroes of World War II.  Almost every rock band had an anti war message.  Better to "stay under the proverbial radar." Better than "getting "in their face" while he had a draft board case pending.

Now, the military is a volunteer system.  Not back then.

Yes, I did read this thread starting at the beginning where it is said that Stephen Desper recently made this statement on the Steve Hoffman board.  But I’m wondering where he got this info.  In your BBs FAQ book you call it a theory, a word which would indicate that someone presumes this may have been the reason, but has no conclusive evidence.  And I must admit that when I read your book I laughed out loud reading the words "Another theory is that Mike Love was leery of Monterey's Coca-Cola corporate sponsorship and cancelled to protest unhealthy beverages in principal."  And considering that you stated it's a "theory" I took that to mean it's simply speculation on someone's part, even though it would be safe to say that Coke or Pepsi, along with a variety of other sugary soft drinks, were probably sold at every single Beach Boys concert with no protest from Mike Love.  

Jon, when you say "The Coke anecdote is true" are you saying that it is true that there was in fact a Coca-Cola corporate sponsorship and Mike was upset about it, or simply that it is true that this is an anecdote has been put forth as a reason the BBs cancelled their appearance?  (Just did a web search and wasn't able to find any logo or other mention of Coca-Cola on the 1967 Monterey posters, tickets, or what I could see of the stage.)

Since Brian stated at the time that he was responsible for canceling the Beach Boys appearance at Monterey I have always assumed that to be the case, although Carl's draft issues and other factors certainly could have contributed.  I hope Stephen Desper reads this thread and will provide elaboration.  He was there working with the Beach Boys at the time, and he's been an incredible asset to this board providing us with fascinating background.  But, although I most certainly wasn't there and thus don't have any first hand info, this story of Mike being responsible for the BBs pulling out of Monterey simply because he was unhappy about a Coke corporate sponsorship just seems like nonsense to to me, although I can see Brian or Mike giving it as a flippant answer, or telling someone to give it as an answer in order to evade the real reasons the band pulled out.  Or Mike could have even said something like, "We're not going because I'm unhappy about coke," but he wasn't actually talking about Coca-Cola.

I hear that Brian also wanted to add "Chug-A-Lug" to the setlist and this only exacerbated matters.

Not to mention Mike's plan, if he was forced to appear, to blurt out "And you'll never drink Coca-Cola again!" at the conclusion of Surf's Up.

I'd say as with most significant Beach Boys mystery/controversies there is never one clear answer. Why was Smile scrapped? Why is Brian mentally troubled? Why was Dennis self destructive? Why was Murry such an A-hole? Etc... Monterey came at a bad time for the Beach Boys. That period in '67 is filled with festering problems. Carl's draft issues were extremely serious and he was a whisker away from going to jail. Dennis had a marriage that was imploding. Brian's whole world was melting down. Demand for the group as a live act was suddenly in free fall, and record sales were about to plummet. There were lawsuits and suspicious business issues. I totally believe Desper's claim that Mike added to the mess by taking a ridiculous stand against an unhealthy beverage at that exact moment. It just sounds about right to me. The Beach Boys are the kings of...when everything is falling apart and becoming a giant mess, one of them pulls even more ridiculous sh*t just to add to the pile of poop. Being that Desper was so deeply involved in Monterey, more so than the Beach Boys, he seems like a credible source for what went on. But i agree the Coke story is weird, and that's why i wrote it up that way in the FAQ book. My use of the word true in my previous post was to emphasize that Desper has told this story for a decade (as AGD mentioned), its nothing new. We have a lot of new info about Monterey, Carl's draft problems, and what a mess the BB's were at this time in the Beach Boys In Concert book coming in June. It will give added perspective and context to the whole matter of that time, but no real smoking gun as far as the Coke theory goes.

This kinda reads like a summary of the Beach Boys' career   :lol

I wonder if Mike or someone was misinformed. Can anybody find any evidence that Coca Cola was a sponsor of the 1967 MPF? The poster and other mailers, ads etc. say "sponsored by "The Foundation", a non-profit organization".

Coca-Cola was a licensed vendor, so if that counts as sponsorship, I guess.

And when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter if they really were a sponsor or not; only that Mike felt they were, and opposed playing for that reason.( if he did indeed act upon it)

Mike must have been ok with Coke by 68 as he is holding a can in those Saltair pictures as discussed a few weeks back. :lol

Sure in 67 it could take paint off  metal...but by '68 it was practically health food.

Yes, it was made with real sugar (in the US) as opposed to high fructose corn syrup which is terrible.  I watch for the Kosher blend around the Jewish holidays and which is bottled with a yellow cap. That is real Coca-Cola. 

And, a lot of stores also carry Coca-Cola in the original green glass bottles, from Mexico, for about $1.40 a bottle. That is also made without high fructose corn syrup.  That is available, year round.

Didn't they use it to clean car engines with Coca Cola back in the day?   ;)

The Coke thing was a minor excuse. If the rest of the band wanted to, they woulda shoved the Coke excuse down Mike's throat. I'm not so sure The Boys realized how big this thing was going to be, even though the organizers didn't invite The Stones, The Doors, or Clapton/Cream, or Dylan.

After reading about this Monterey Festival retraction for years (yes it hurt them) I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it was all about hipness. How were the older Beach Boys songs going to play out with The Who and Hendrix and Joplin and the Jefferson Hairpie? Times were a-changin.

Brian had just come off the Smile album and was burnt out. They were right in the middle of recording the Smiley Smile album (which was very late) and gettin' stoned on hash all the time. Didn't feel like going anywhere until two months later when they went to Hawaii and got more stoned, then came back to Heider's to touch up the tapes. But I don't think Brian was a big factor anyway - he wasn't in the touring band at that point. They had Good Vibrations and Heroes & Villains to play for the crowd - and what else? Vegetables? Nah. Couple songs off the Pet Sounds album? Maybe. Carl's draft? A little bit. Dennis' divorce? Nah. The band nmay have been intimidated and didn't like the idea of possibly getting a negative reaction, especially in Rolling Stone Mag and other press. Just some thoughts........

I agree, it looks pretty shaky but you know they heard what they heard. Mike alone couldn't keep them from going. Also, how does that square with his MPF comments at the time of the festival to that reporter.

Brian probably could unilaterally keep them from going but I don't know if he did. Might of, Vosse seemed to think that the people involved with the organizers sort of freaked/creeped Brian out if I remember right. Maybe he had a "your festivals a witch" type personal issue.

I wonder if the Boys didn't see the organization as flaky or seeming to be all hat and no cattle or something else that didn't inspire their confidence. I can't believe the Boys were intimidated by the other acts, they were still c*ck of the walk. Weren't they headliners? Weren't they having most of the hip bands of the moment open for them up to through that period.

I'm leaning more toward Brian and/or some/all the Boys having a lack of personal confidence in the organizers with maybe Carl [and the maybe others] caving to a worry about his legal status. And maybe Mike had a fleeting [for a few days] issue with Coke being vended on top of it. I guess I'm agreeing it probably was many things.

There's three things I never understood regarding the decision not to play Monterey.

First, Mike was making a judgment about the merits - or lack of - of Coca-Cola. Now, keep in mind that this was an outdoor rock & roll festival. Didn't Mike realize what other "substances" were going to be consumed during the concert, including his band's set? That would be terribly naive and contradictory to take a stand on Coke, but not the other substances more harmful to one's health.

Second, Carl was protesting the war in his own personal (religious?) way. Wouldn't Carl be praised for this stance by the audience at Monterey rather than be criticized? You know, love and peace, man...

Third, I don't think the band would've gone with the mellow, slowed-down sound of the Hawaii set. A large part of that Monterey audience was right up their alley. I mean, you had kids from California, outdoors, enjoying the summer day (and summer night), trying to pick up girls, enjoying rock and roll music. The Beach Boys could've easily - easily - come up with a satisfying setlist. I can't see how the audience would not be entertained. How far removed were they from that infamous poll which voted them the Number 1 group in the world?

Well, on the other hand, I think if the Mama's and Papa's could play this festival, the Beach Boys could too. Like the Mama's & Papa's, the Beach Boys had recent hits that were pretty well received the previous two years. John & Michelle Phillps lived in Brian's neighborhood, didn't they? You'd think they would have influenced their decision. Were the Beach Boys as hip as the Mama's and Papa's. Would they have left their striped shirts and tennis shoes home for this gig?

i believe it was in the 6 part bbc bob harris 1974 special mike mentions some story about brian and the group being worried about how the proceeds were to be distributed and said something like sure enough there were problems with that. it was something along those lines. i don't have the special with me right now to quote what he said but it was something like that. plus some other reasons but those escape me at the moment.

do you remember where in the special?  not sure I want to listen to the whole thing ( again?)

it was when they talk about 1967 and smiley and such. don't remember which tape...maybe 4?

Maybe Mike thought it was another type of coke

I think I have it on LP. I'll have to check.... (or maybe tape)  there's SO much stuff....

But I can't find them....

Not THAT ^ is more believable. The Beach Boys and problems with money. Not surprising at all.

Sheriff - Why they didn't play, I don't know, and whatever reasons set forth, are of no consequence.  It didn't happen.  It was too far away for me, so it did not affect me.  But, I hope that in the Rock History courses, they teach the rock music material in historical context, as it reflects the era.  

To be sure, Carl Wilson was under government scrutiny, as a result of his draft status.  And, that had to have spilled over his family.  Read the Band.  Or 4 of 6.  If anyone had a case in Federal Court, and your personal freedom might be at stake, would it be prudent to taunt the government by showing up at a festival such as Monterey or "walk the line" and keep your "nose clean?"  (That could be the reason; I don't know.). But these were very public facts.

If Carl lost his petition, and ended up getting drafted, it would have been a way to make an example of him, and send a "message" to those who would evade the draft.  It was a very high bar of evidence to support your claim for CO status.  Had he been drafted, it would have changed the dynamic of the Band, and the loss of that incredible voice.

There is much interesting material in print and online concerning privacy invasion by the government.  You might start with John Lennon.  It went on for decades.  Rock music was perceived as anti-government, anti- establishment, etc. Yada Yada Yada. They stalked actors, musicians, and other high profile people.  Carl's draft status was often in the news because of a "Why should he be above the law?" attitude.
 

If they would have wanted Carl that bad in June of 1967, they would have grabbed him. They didn't need to wait for the Monterey gig to expose him or set any kind of "examples." All they had to look at was the list of shows he'd be at or when Carl would be home. That's all.

Now that makes a lot of sense to me. They were never going to get paid because that was the deal, it was non-profit with proceeds to go to something. There is a letter out there from the Foundation about it I think. I can see them having issues with where the money went or maybe if the money was really going to get distributrd even.

I just don't buy the not hip enough angle, they were invited by people who thought Pet Sounds and GV was genius, the Boys were on top. Just beat the Beatles. They were invited by people who admired them for what they were, not what they should be.

Hadn't Carl just been nabbed in NYC the month before over his court case?

Carl was already arrested in April of 1967 and it was the day or so before my first BB concert!  Front page news.  He was released, with some fanfare, and made it to perform.  There was an indictment by a Grand Jury in January of 1967.  Criminal prosecution  for draft evasion. He was arrested in New York by FBI agents and released on $15,000 bond.  There is a criminal law blog you can google.  He made an offer to perform with the Band, but it appeared that it failed for "vagueness" and was rejected.

There is some info in the Badman book (which is flawed, and I don't have at my disposal at the moment.)  They were to go to Europe, Ireland I think.  I think he was arrested and the case, continued, for other hearings, etc.  If I remember correctly, he had to go to CA, to that court - found the case number...

United States v. Carl Dean Wilson, 436 F.2d 972 (9th Circuit, January 8, 1971)  I have not read the case.

So, he was in the middle of a mess, and the Band (and Carl) likely did not know what the future held, and whether he would be free to travel outside of the US and, perform the tour schedule.  

And, the case dragged on for four years.  The war did not end until 1973.

Here is that letter:

http://recordmecca.com/store/posters-and-concert-memorabilia/monterey-pop-festival-notes-for-the-friendly-media-press-handout/

They didn't know what they going to do with the proceeds at the time of the letter.

Just chiming in to say, Jons new book sounds utterly cool and I want a copy. Go whip the editors and get them to hurry up!

So.......the Monterey gig was in the middle of June, 1967. If the indictment for Carl was in January and he was arrested in April, what did that have to do with the Monterey festival? I don't understand the tie-in. If they wanted to take him for draft dodging, they would have re-arrested him in California sooner. They didn't have to wait for him to show up to Monterey. And didn't the settlement mean he (the band) had to play prisons and institutions for free or something or did that pan out in 1068?

The Settlement didn't happen until 1971, a little late for Monterey: 
 
http://reasonabledoubt.org/index.php/criminallawblog/entry/january-3-1967-beach-boy-carl-wilson-becomes-draft-dodger-today-in-crime-history

How the decision was arrived upon, I don't know. Recently, I saw something cool on YouTube in black and white with Al and Carl among some other rockers discussing various topics. And Carl discussed the huge stress he was under as a CO, and if he didn't have "bread" he would have been in big trouble, in other words, to mount a strong legal defense.  

If you read the case, or the online sections of the decision, you would see that he lost on Constitutional grounds of the legality of the war, and, there was a question of what type of community service would satisfy the service requirement.  

The Band is a generous one.  And they were going to play these venues free for Carl's freedom, then why would they quibble about division of monies for Monterey?  I have no knowledge of the contract.  It makes no sense.  I got the "sense" of regret from hearing later interviews about Monterey, in the sense that "they would have, if they could have" and that is just my collective inference.  I got the feeling that Carl wanted to play Monterey.  Maybe he felt guilty, if his draft status impeded the Band.  I don't know.   Does it matter, now?  I don't think it does in the Big Picture.

They did end up doing shows in prisons, etc., but I have no knowledge of the particularity of the court order.  If I was in front of a judge in April/May of 1967, under very hostile circumstances, and someone tried to cover my butt, and my lawyers might have told me to "get under the radar," I would do exactly that.  And, if my big brother had to be the "heavy" and "cancel" and my cousin had to squawk about some sponsor, then, I'd be mighty happy that I had a family who "had my back."

I could be 1000% wrong, but, looking back, I think they closed ranks to protect Carl in absolutely any way they could, even if it cost them, they did what they had to, to keep him out of jail.  Better to perform at a jail, by mutual agreement, than be behind the bars of the jail.  JMHO

Yeah as Bgas said this thing took until 1971 to really settle. Part of the problem was the original terms of the plea deal required Carl to empty bed pans in hospitals and that type of thing, he refused and instead insisted it would be a better use of his time for the group to perform in prisons and hospitals, but the court initially did not agree and Carl was in violation of the court order throughout '67...and was threatened with jail time.

Thanks, Ian and I are going through the proofs now and the book looks spectacular.

Yes, there was an issue of appropriateness of service.  But, the court has discretion. 
open jurist.org/436/f2d/972/united-states-v-wilson
It is also on Justia US Law
 

Yeah, Filledeplage, it doesn't really matter now of course (as don't a lot of things up for discussion on this board). The only reason I keep coming back to this thread is to try and clear up a couple of things as far as to why they didn't show up for the Festival. Many think it affected their career in a big way. It was the beginning of an ebb in their career for sure - they were on a ride with a lot of momentum up until mid to late 1967. You wonder if they would have maintained or had more credibility in the Rock world at that point if they had attended Monterey. Did one gig matter that much? Should showing their "hipness" and musical credibility have mattered that much to the band in 1967? Did they know the consequences for not showing up? 1967 was when they lost the tennis shoes and striped shirts. It was a pivotal time for this band, that's for sure.

But the others who were considered and asked who didn't show up, the aforementioned Doors, Kinks, Beatles, Stones, Clapton, Donovan, Captain Beafheart, went on to have very successful careers. Of course the ones who did show up where also successful, or died within a few years. You look at the lineup for the groups who showed up and it was a who's who and up and coming of the Rock world at the time.

I think in 20/20 hindsite...............a missed opportunity.

It's good that it gets brought up and discussed. And I appreciate your asking my opinion. Thanks.  It was such a cool, yet weird time.  (Winchester Cathedral weird.)  It feels easy because that was the era that I grew up in, and don't have to look it up in a book.  And we were so "into" all the bands.  

Monterey was made into a movie, like Woodstock, so that, it was recorded and distributed in the same way and I suppose it could be compared to missing out on a big party.  It was 3 days long. And, it was a trade-off of sorts.  In the long run, was it worth it?  I think so.  It was a hard decision.  I'm speculating as to the reason being related to Carl because nothing was more important.

Many guys would have gladly emptied bed pans, rather than go to Vietnam and face napalm. It did not play well in the press.  And, there was the issue of not showing up and reporting.  They came and got you.  And how could they get Joe the Plumber, and not a high profile rock star?  And, it was basically unfair.  If Carl was enrolled as a student, he would have been off the hook.  

That might have been a good solution, to enroll in some college and major in basket weaving or whatever, and work the tour around classes. 20/20 as you say.  College deferrals were pitting the haves against the have-nots. It created a class system and resentment with guys who wanted to work in business or a trade and got nailed for Nam, and Joe College got a pass.  

The ebb, I think had nothing to do with them.  It seemed that it was more a case of circumstances beyond their control, like the record company's lack of support, for them, while supporting the avant garde Beatles, and the War, and their public perception of just being centered on frivolity, a direct effect of the record company's not representing Pet Sounds for the masterful work that it was, and is, and hassling them for early 60's stuff.  See Gaumont Palace 1&2 on YouTube. They tell it like it is.  It is honest, funny and they didn't hold back.  

They were really ahead of their time...we got the validation last night!

But, I don't think it affected their overall career at all. It tested their mettle. They outlasted and bested just about all those other bands.  JMHO

Yes! That was weird. Winchester Cathedral overtaking Good Vibrations in the number one spot! How'd that happen?

 

Right! They were not in that movie and soundtrack and probably should have been. For that matter, they shoulda been at Woodstock!  :-D


Disagree with you that there wasn't an ebb in their career, but agree that Capitol contributed to that.

I think it's easy to overstate the effect of Monterey. Not appearing was a blow, but SMILEY SMILE's reception was far more damaging to their career, leading to five years of "a prophet is not without honor save in his own country" scenarios from one end of the counterculture to the other. WILD HONEY and FRIENDS, as wonderful as we know those albums to be now, didn't stop the bleeding, and there were a sizable number of rolled eyes when "Do It Again" emerged as a "revert to the old sound" single (even though it had--and has--a lot more going for it than that).

It was just a very strange, dark time in America...as filledeplage has said, you really had to be there at the time in order to grasp it--and even then, the behavior being manifested was mighty darn weird. To be a BB fan then was like being a French family giving shelter to Jews in WW II--it was something that you just didn't talk about.

I agree with pretty much all of this. Simply putting in an appearance at Monterey Pop I don't believe would have salvaged the group's fortunes in the States. Probably the closest comparison would be with The Association, whose set by all accounts was extremely well regarded (sadly only one song exists of it today to the best of my knowledge) but did nothing to help the group's declining commercial status in the years ahead. Likely the Mamas and the Papas may have followed the same fate, had they survived 1967 intact.

No matter how groovy a set the Beach Boys came on with-- and even if they had done "Good Vibrations", "Heroes & Villains", "Surf's Up" and half of Pet Sounds while dressed in their best hippie attire-- pop was about to be eaten alive by rock, and the group was still about 5 years away from their live peak.

Even the pop charts of the time were taking a turn towards a heavier sound. Yes there were still pure pop gems such as "Wichita Lineman" to be found in the Top 10 during 67-69, but that was becoming a dying artform, and most of the new pop music that informed radio playlists was rock based (Moody Blues, Rolling Stones, Jefferson Airplane), soul/ r'n'b (Percy Sledge, Arthur Conley, Temptations) or white people attempting to do soul with varying degrees of success (Buckinghams, Rascals, BS&T, Gary Puckett). As such, Wild Honey seems like a savvy career move for the boys at the time, but "Darlin'" aside, it was simply too under-produced to fit the expectations of radio. Listen to, say, "Crimson and Clover" or "Ride My See-Saw" and put those up against the song "Wild Honey", and it becomes apparent. This doesn't mean it's not a great, great album because of course most of us love it, but it just didn't pop commercially.

Friends I see as Brian's attempt to crack the "adult" market, perhaps catering to the same sort of folks who bought Sergio Mendes records, but the adult listening market in 1968 was obviously not inclined to take the Beach Boys seriously, and the record stiffed. 20/20 consolidated the band's strengths to some degree, and they were able to eek out a couple more hits in "Do It Again" and "I Can Hear Music", but the wheels were already coming off the cart, and a dog single like "Bluebirds Over the Mountain" certainly couldn't have helped matters.

As I've stated before, the most curious part of their commercial nosedive to me is the "Breakaway"/ Sunflower era, because by 1970 there was something of a pure pop renaissance going on on the AM side of the dial, as rock and pop drifted further apart. Several of the Beach Boys' songs from this era would have fit most comfortably alongside tunes by Bread, The Carpenters or Three Dog Night on the radio, but the one thing those groups had in common was that they were new, and I'm assuming that by this point America just considered The Beach Boys old hat and part of a bygone era.

Sorry to digress from the original topic of this thread, but I'm just basically making the point that there were several other factors at play that derailed their career in the US, and I don't think Monterey Pop was particularly one of them.

These are two great posts, and I happen to agree 100%.  I have an issue with statements like this one, found on Wikipedia: "The cancellation permanently damaged their reputation and popularity in the US, which would contribute to their replacement album Smiley Smile charting lower than any other of their previous album releases."  I call B.S.  While the festival became legendary later on, at the time it was one of the first multi-day rock festivals in the U.S.  Besides the 90,000 or so folks who attended the concert, nobody in America knew much about it until the release of the Pennebaker film in late '68.  Yes, the concert marked America's introduction to Hendrix and The Who and Janis Joplin and others, but it wasn't the festival that made those acts big.  Lots of great acts did not perform at the festival, and their careers were not damaged by their non-appearances.  Likewise, many acts who did perform, like The Paupers or The Association, did not get a career boost from playing the show.  Of those 90,000 people who did attend the festival and had lots of fun, how many were seriously disappointed that The Beach Boys did not perform?  And how big of a boost did The Mamas and the Papas get from headlining the festival?  I just can't see Harry and Hannah from Hoboken reading the papers and saying, "Oh, I see The Beach Boys pulled out of some concert in California...Well, I guess that's it for them, then".    

Re: Association. Two songs survived "Along comes Mary" and "Windy" (on the UK four CD Box "Monterey International Pop Festival" released in 1994).

That whole "missed-the-boat" is foolish pseudo-intellectual propaganda. What a joke! 

And, many of those bands mentioned are Beach Boys inspired "offspring."  ;)

The record company "blame" likely has a time-window, then the total "weirdness" drove the train.  You can blame them for Pet Sounds and SMiLE, and the dropping the ball on promotion, but you can't apportion blame for the MLK and RFK assassinations, Watergate, and all the wild cards that flew around.

They were really smart to go to Europe, and work their market strength, to ride out the storm, as it were, and where it seemed less affected, at the time with all these "Winds of Change" at the time and keep touring. 

That promotion "excuse" is a phony fan baloney too imo. Pet Sounds seems have had unprecedented promotion, it's still around out there. It had three or four singles on the radio and nationally chart alone. It had a four page ad to the industry. Anybody seen another four page ad for a single album for a single band? SMiLE didn't even get released and it had already been promoted.

Edit: OK, maybe "phony" is too strong. How about "well meaning" or "wishful thinking" baloney?

You're greatly underestimating the fame of the festival. It carried an immediate legend among serious rock fans, and was discussed in mass market publications such as Newsweek. "Nobody in America" simply is not true, and nullifies the credibility of what you are saying. The reason that the careers of Hendrix, The Who and Joplin soared afterward is because the INDUSTRY was there, the managers, label heads, fellow musicians. THAT is what makes careers. Joplin and Big brother got SIGNED to a major label directly because of their performance. Hendrix's performance was an immediate legend, and carried him through a period where he returned to the UK. I don't understand why anyone would even post such things, that are so easily disproven.

As I recall from some Janis Joplin biography I read a while ago (I believe it was Scars of Paradise or something like that?), Monterey was originally intended as a showcase for the Haight-Ashbury scene and other like-minded groups until the Hollywood types (read: industry folks) started moving in and took it over, forming the board upon which John Phillips and all those people sat. Of course, this incensed those from Haight-Ashbury and their sympathizers, who felt that it perverted what the festival was originally meant to be about -- and I think a lot of their ire was directed at The Mamas & The Papas (as well a that "San Francisco" song about wearing flowers in your hair) as being exemplary of the antithesis of what Monterey was in the beginning. I can't say I blame them either...

Obviously in the end the industry won out due to the festival's success and fame but I thought it was very interesting to find that out. Of course, who knows how The Beach Boys would've been received by that same crowd. Maybe similarly to The Mamas, or perhaps they'd appreciate The Boys more for being nowhere near as fey, haha.

Cam - Pet Sounds came out on May 16, 1966.  And Best of Volume I, came out in July 5, 1966. I'm awful in Math.  But, if I count on my fingers, it is about 7 weeks.  What is that? No confidence.

Caroline, No came out March 7, 1966. (Summer Means New Love on side B) SDSN - Brian solo single.
Sloop John B came out March 21, 1966.
God Only Knows on July 11, 1966
Wouldn't it Be Nice on July 18, 1966 - although it looks like A and B side single. (wiki has a little conflict with the dates)

4 singles from one album, and a compilation thrown in just prior to a Pet Sounds double hit, even though GOK was not an immediate hit in the States.  It was a sleeping giant.

My opinion is that the record company did not give Pet Sounds the time it needed to become ingrained in the marketplace. Sloop hit #3 in the States and #1 elsewhere which should have provided the momentum to keep Pet Sounds in the limelight without going to the oldies "cash cow" - and it was cheaper to buy the album than each single.  The singles did well.  3 of the 4 were extraordinary.

The chronology indicts the record company.  They could have waited at least six months to release a compilation, and have spaced out the albums, making room for Heroes and Villains, in July of 1967, which followed Good Vibrations, in October of 1966.  And, "teach" the public what the concept of an unfolding story of a musical version of the American story, in a soap opera style (which might sound ridiculous) but spoon-feed the public, as the soaps do, with gradual promotion, rather than dumping this new genre in the ocean and see if it "sinks or swims."  Waiting a bit would have taken the heat off the band with the New project.

Best of Volume 2 came out in July 24, 1967.  H & V on July 31st. Confidence? I don't think so.  How would the public not be confused?

New concepts always require cohesive education and spoon-feeding. The Beatles "new concepts" got the push, as the expense of the Home Team. But, the "cream always rises to the top" as my mother used to say, because Pet Sounds is now so wildly accepted and popular. And SMiLE required an enormous effort to filter into the music scene at a time, which had become insanely over-saturated with new bands, and one-hit wonders.  (Winchester Cathedral!) and maybe Ode to Billy Joe.

It's been awhile so I hope I'm not off too much. As I remember PS was already rounding over in the charts before Best Of was released [or charting?] and PS actually got an upward bump on the charts when Best was hitting its top. I believe Best Of was put together before PS and then held by Capitol when PS began to be put together. Subject to verification.

Also, I don't think comps worked that way in the industry. They were a way to capitalize on a group's existing popularity and capitalize a back catalog when a group was moving new stuff. Not a vote of no confidence. It just seems to me the Boys got a lot of promotion and we now know that PS was not a relative underperformer but performed very well though the numbers were not reported for some reason. Maybe the lawsuit?

At that time, The Beach Boys were expected to deliver three albums a year, for the spring, summer and Christmas markets. The Best Of set was compiled and scheduled as the group's summer 1966 release, as Brian was not going to deliver a new LP for that season. Pet Sounds was delivered late, and as such, released late, too close to the already scheduled Best Of. Capitol should have pushed it back or not released it, sure. But in their mind, the summer and Christmas markets were far more important, as that is when the band's LP releases did the best business.

Not being in the business or knowing the contract language, I am at a disadvantage as to know the production terms.  But, what I do know, is that art can't be rushed.  And that I don't remember these major player bands, for the most part churning out 3 a year.  There was a big build up, prior to release.  And teaser singles, Airplay, and interviews, prior to the LP's to maximize revenue. 

Contract terms can always be amended by agreement of the parties, and I've heard interviews where there was disappointment on the part of the band, with the release schedule.  From what I looked at, the releases seemed unreasonable and did not possibly allow for simultaneous promotion of a new concept album, and a compilation.  JMHO

But do you think that The Beach Boys' non-appearance at the festival had anything to do with their decline in popularity?  I think not.  I guess I shouldn't have said that 'nobody in America' paid attention. but I don't think that the festival made or broke anyone's career.  The publicity helped, for sure, but it surely did not make or break The Beach Boys career at the time, as it did not make the careers of The Who or Hendrix.  

Right. So you had Best of Vol. 1 in 1966, Best of Vol 2 in 1967, BB Deluxe Set (compiling 3 previous albums) in 1967, and Best of Vol 3 in 1968.

PART 4 @ 43:50 mark....derek blames brian and cold feet. says he had a yes from brian but probably it never was a yes and they took too long to say no. mike blames carl and the draft, dennis and his divorce. then he says that he "was ready to go". odd indeed. then he said bruce was back (from where? i don't know but this is what he said). then mike adds that brian was on the board and got cold feet because" he didn't think the money would be handled right." and "sure enough not a lot of  scholarships were given out but people had new homes and cars". then he said there was not a total agreement to do that show.

It solidified their uncool within heavier music circles. But if Heroes had been another Good Vibrations, all of the damage could have been undone. Overall, the importance of Monterey has been overstated. It was a small boulder in a career landslide.

Every major act, including The Beatles and Stones, were expected to deliver three US albums a year (The Beatles broke this tradition at the end of 1966, as did The Beach Boys). As late as 1969, Creedence Clearwater Revival were held to a three-albums-a-year deal. Maybe art can't be rushed, but the Golden Era of pop music took place in a factory-type manner. In general, these type of strictures were good for music, as it encouraged a high turnover, and a healthy artistic competition. Art sometimes should be rushed and scheduled, as a motivational factor. Brian should have been given the same leeway as The Beatles, sure. But some type of deadline should have been held to, with the Smile project, if he expected to stay in the game.

Yep. No new recording costs for the group/label. Getting paid twice [3,4,5...] for the same product, it raises the groups visibility, promotes the group, leads new audience to older albums, creates brand interest and loyalty, etc. etc.. It just isn't the label tombstone that it gets made out to be by us BB fans imo. You could say they have over done it but how to explain that still 50 years later new and old comps still have top sales and interest in the group is still high. The comp might be what saved their careers and allowed them to continue to record over all of those decades.

But Cam, wouldn't you say The Beatles' relative lack of compilations increased that group's "prestige" value? Also, those 3 60's Capitol Best Of sets are very, very poorly compiled, and are similar to the later Pickwick bargain albums. This set a very bad precedent.

Steve, it sounds like Mike was blaming everyone else. Carl and Dennis for having "personal" problems. Still don't see why those issues had much to do with not playing one gig. And Brian just moved into his new house in Bel-Aire and was working on the Smiley album and was smoking a lot of dope and beginning his reclusive period. He hadn't been on the road with them for more than two years - surprised he was even considered for the gig.

So where was Bruce? Mike says he was "back" but he was barely, if at all involved with the Smiley album being recorded during those months and still wasn't around when they went to Hawaii two months after the Monterey gig. Says he didn't like being around the drug situation. So I'm not sure he was "back" from anything, except for being back from recording on Smile months earlier and from being on the road.....

Didn't say anything about Al. Al didn't want much to do with the drug scene up on Bellagio either. What were his thoughts on missing Monterey (which would be near his home 6 years later).

thinks they missed out. it made superstars of  a lot of people and groups. stuff like that.

i liked the comps then myself. i loved stack-o-tracks...really liked close up....and loved 1970's capitol good vibrations lp. i think it did help keep the group in the public's eye for a very small fee. may not have sold much but i sure saw many copies of those lp's in my town's record shop. sure others did also.

I don't think comps had much to do with it, the Beatles had a comp of their own at the same-ish time and no one points to it as a vote of no-confidence/career/prestige killer. To me it seems like that attitude is sort of just a BBs fandom thing. The BBs' comps may have been poorly compiled to some/many but to me they did their job. After decades of comps the BBs have prestige and are still selling comps and new music side by side just like through the decades. Maybe it's just me, but I think comps helped them rather than hurt them, propped up and extended their viability rather than the opposite.

See, like the Greatest Hits comps, Stack-o-Tracks from 1968 could be considered a revisit to older material too. A novelty record, but also a desperate last ditch effort by Capitol Records to try anything to sell Beach Boys records.

Many think the ill timing of Beach Boys Greatest Hits Vol. 1, even though it may have been pre-conceived before the release of Pet Sounds, actually hurt sales of the Pet Sounds album, Cam. Capitol staying with the surf/cars/girls genre when Brian was trying to move forward with more mature sophisticated material.

Getting off topic a little here, but....

And yes, before the decade was out, Capitol squeezed in two more comps - "Beach Boys Close-Up" in 1969 and the aformentioned "Good Vibrations" in 1970. These truncated compilation albums would continue into the 70's and 80's.

OK. I disagree. When I was younger and I'd see sealed Beach Boys compilations in the department store 99 cent bin, it just reinforced my negative perception of the group as a cheap oldies act. And two Best Ofs in a row during the greatest period of groundbreaking experimentation in the 1960's, that is just unacceptable.

That was a great and clear explanation. Thanks!  I didn't understand that it was an industry standard, and I was just becoming a consumer in this market in 1965-1966.  It didn't seem that The Beatles were coming out with 3 a year after Rubber Soul.  And people do need some boundaries.  It may be that the artistic "intensity" was ramped up contemporaneously with both bands. They should have been given equal leeway.  I agree.  

But, there is such a thing as confusion in the marketplace, when consumers get overwhelmed, as now, with iPad mania.  In the double-LP or even triple LP scenario, which is what SMiLE might have been. It might have been compared to a trilogy such as Kyzyztof  Kieslowski's Three Colors  films. (As for 1967, it is moot.)

And, it couldn't be compared to the early albums when the theme was so large.  But, after Good Vibrations, and Surfs Up (Leonard Bernstein) how could the record company have imagined that Brian would regress compositionally to the earlier work, and expect him to churn out 3 a year, as the circumstances had been materially changed?  And one album might really be three, in terms of work.

Mikie - that would be my single exception to the stereotype of a comp. I always looked at Stack-O-Tracks as Beach Boys karaoke! Did they invent karaoke?

And, I'm not critical of the comps, especially for those fans, who like the music as party music, and that is fine, but only that the timing of the releases collided with the extraordinary stuff such as Pet Sounds and SMiLE. And I think that the company had a duty to properly market the product.  And, I don't think they did just with the chronology.

yeah..i know what you mean about promoting newer releases. but hell....even up to today it is the comps that are the biggest sellers. and the group was promoted well some of those years from '66 to now. but the public buys the comps. always have and probably always will. head scratcher it is, isn't it?

I agree.

You know, I think they did, Filledeplage. And Capitol also inadvertently invented a bonafide collector's item!

But you know, they included the real music tracks to the songs. Plus, they included not only a booklet complete with the lyrics to the songs, but the music sheets for piano and guitar for up and cuming musicians!

The idea that Mike not wanting to support Coke is the or even a major reason for the BB to cancel their Monterey appearance strains credulity.  Brian was on the Monterey Pop board - more of an honorary position - their publicist was a major player in putting it together, Derek Taylor - to suggest that if Brian wanted the BB to perform he would allow Mike to veto it on such a flimsy excuse is as believable as Mike scrapping Smile against Brian's wishes because he didn't like the lyrics to Cabinessence.  Mike was interviewed the weekend after Monterey and made no mention of this important political stand he got the group to take, and no mention of this in any Mike interviews (or Brian interviews) since - i'd think if this was a major reason Brian would have readily used Mike as an excuse for their no appearance when he was asked in subsequent years about it.  Just doesn't pass the smell test.

Yes, I bought it, when it was released, but can't find my sheet music.

Inadvertent karaoke pioneers!  ;)

That's something.  It started out as a music festival for the San Francisco bands and then the L.A. crowd joined in.  Of course, most of the record companies were in L.A.....but still.

COMMENT:  So now I'm just writing BULL sh*t! because it sounds like that to you.  Not just your normal BULL sh*t but the ABSOLUTE type (comes in a fancy bottle from Sweden, I guess).   Doesn't conform to your view of history? so it's bull sh*t?  Do you know to whom you are talking?  I was paid to be there, were you?

My source for making this statement on the very friendly Steve Hoffman board (they don't think I'm a bull sh*t artist over there) was American Productions. When not in the studio working for The Beach Boy Corporation, I worked for American Productions, the touring company owned by TBBC.

If you're interested in Monterey Pop historical perspectives, you might check-out our discussion at the Hoffman board. I wrote around three pages of what I remember of that day as an engineer.

Having been preparing for the boys to be one of the lead acts at Monterey, word came late from headquarters that The Beach Boys would not be at Monterey. All management said to me was Mike does not wish to lend his celebrity to some of the sponsors, such as Coke, Dr Pepper, Pepsi, etc. -- that is sugar laden soft drinks in general. All the other concerns cited in this thread were certainly in play, but all management (Nick Grillo) said was Coke and Mike don’t mix.

I wrote on the Monterey Pop Festival over at Steve Hoffman's board because it was a discussion about Hendrix and the sound system, not the Beach Boy pullout.  I wrote about The Beach Boys in passing . . . that is, the reason I was there with all the equipment was because of a prior contract MPF had with AP. 

My statement is not official Beach Boy history. It's my recollection of how I experienced that day -- a day that will never be again in music history. Yes, it's too bad The Beach Boys missed out, but let's not make a federal case out of what I said. You all just read all your books, interviews and second-hand information sources all you want. Construct BB history however you wish. But I'll continue to remember that history as best I can and pass my memories along to you -- Just don't call it bull sh*t. I've got better things to do with my time then dispense bull sh*t.

For what it's worth,    ~Stephen W. Desper

i enjoy your writings. please keep them coming. people here can be dumdasses at times with their posts. esp when they weren't even around back in the day and want to spout out their theories.

Stephen,

I appreciate everything that you have posted and documented for us on this board in so many threads.  I just want to thank you on behalf of the quieter members here.  Sure, we're not vocal, but we certainly don't think what you have to say is bullshit.   Thank you.

On the topic of MPF and Coke, EVEN IF that excuse were bullshit, (Mike's BS not yours), then your firsthand knowledge proves that was the excuse offered at the time regardless if that was the band's true motives.  It's what you were told and I totally believe that.  However, I think it may have been a convenient excuse for the band.

COMMENT:  I don't doubt the sincerity of members here, that's way I responded the way I did.

Management called me about the change because it meant I need not take all the Beach Boy equipment and instruments to the venue. Wheather a cover story or not, that's what management said and that was good enough for me. I had to make a few last minute equipment decisions, otherwise and after the event, not much was said about it thereafter. Mike did talk about his stand against the evil Coco-Cola Company at dinner a few days later. That's all I remember. ~swd

Stephen, thanks for checking in with your eyewitness account of the Monterey "Coke" incident.

Isn't it possible that Mike was being made a scapegoat because most of the Beach Boys' organization (including the business part, represented by Nick Grillo) were enabling Brian's increasingly erratic behavior?  Better to blame Mike than let people know what was going on with Brian in private.

 This is SO typical of the thought process here: Everyone seems to feel that they know more than those directly involved.   
Are you seriously coming out and calling Stephen a liar or simply being the devil's advocate?
  Barring a personal reply from Mike Love or Nick Grillo stating that the whole Coca-Cola thing was contrived, it seems to me you have to go with Stephens' eye-witness accounting: 

No, I"\'m not calling Stephen a liar, that's why I referenced Nick Grillo. Stephen said that's what he was told by management (and I believe that's what he was told), and Grillo was one of the people who said it.  I'm just conjecturing about management's motive for saying that (as in possibly shielding Brian from criticism, or shielding Carl from additional criticism for his CO status if they believed that could be an issue with some people). I'm sure they not only told Stephen that, they no doubt told others the same thing, that Mike didn't want to play a festival where soft drinks were the sponsor. In later years, different parties had different stories about why the Beach Boys didn't play Monterey, but that was their management's official answer at the time. 

Stephen, thanks for checking in with your comments.  I'm the guy who said the story that the reason the Beach Boys pulled out of Monterey was because Mike Love did not want to be associated with Coke, stated to be one of the sponsors of the event, sounded like absolute bullshit to me.  In addition, I said I hoped you would read this thread and provide elaboration, which you did, but I obviously inadvertently upset you, and for that I apologize, as that was in no way my intent.

I hope you understand that I was not stating that your recollection of what you had been told was erroneous or in any way BS, but when I said I was wondering were you got this info, the question I wanted to know was who was responsible for telling you this story?  And you answered the question by saying that it was Nick Grillo and American Productions.

So I am in no way saying that your reporting of what you were told by American Productions 45 years ago and have posted on the Hoffman board is in any way circumspect.  Instead, what I was saying is that the story you were told by Nick Grillo and American Productions back in 1967 sounds like bullshit to me, a PR excuse to avoid additional questions as to the real reasons why the BBs failed to appear.  And that's just my opinion, as stated, based on the points I made in my earlier posts.  And like I said in my post, I obviously wasn't there, I'm simply reacting skeptically to the official line American Productions gave you at the time.  As I said in a previous post, you have been an incredible asset to this board, and your reporting of American Productions stated reason for the Beach Boys non-appearance at Monterey adds yet another fascinating element to the story.

And yes, I do know who you are!  You and I have corresponded by email in the past, the first time quite a few years ago, with me lauding the incredible engineering work you did on Sunflower, which is my all time favorite album by anyone, anywhere, at any time, both for the musical selections contained within and also for the fabulous sound stage and overall sonic splendor provided by your engineering work.  I own your Recording the Beach Boys book, have the consumer version of the Desper Spatializer hooked up to my audio chain, and I have recently written to you stating that I'm looking forward to the revised edition of Recording the Beach Boys.  So I have the utmost respect for you, your work, and the wonderful job you have done adding to the historical record of the Beach Boys.

Totally off topic, but something I've been wanting to ask you for awhile, did you ever do engineering at Doug Weston's Troubadour in LA?  In the never aired TV special, "Easy to Be Free," covering Rick Nelson and the Stone Canyon Band's late October thru early November 1969 tour, (produced by Rick's brother David), there are a couple of quick shots of a guy doing the house engineering at the Troubadour, and it looks like a lot like you, but the shots are brief and from the side, so I'm not certain.  This would have been during the time when the album Rick Nelson in Concert at the Troubadour 1969 was recorded.

And, again, in closing, thanks for adding so much great info to the BB's historical record!

COMMENT:  All is well here.  We'll just chalk it up to a poor choice of words -- We've all been there. Thank you for your response and understanding. There are certainly a great group of people posting here.

I did do some PA house mixing at Doug Waston's Troubadour. It was on and off, and not too many times, just a handfull.  Don't forget the FLAME played or even were introduced by BRI at the Troubadour. And if memory serves me right, someone, maybe Alan, did a show or three at the Troubadour. Nevertheless, if a film camera caught someone who looks like me, I doubt it's me as I was only there once in a while.

What I'm really excited about is Brian's win at the Grammy's.  So long overdue!  This year's awards couldn't have gone to more deserving people as Brian, Alan B. and Mark L.    

. . .  now if someone could just get Mark a decent tux . . .

~swd 

Thanks for all the interesting info in this thread.

On ebay, there is for sale under entertainment memorabilia, a newspaper article whose headline is about Carl's trial.  Complete with photos.  Hard to read, but it gives a sense of what was going on at the time.  ;)

$35.00

Key words would be Beach Boys Carl newspaper article original 1967

I just want to add that whoever compared the answers to the question "Why didn't The Beach Boys perform at Monterey?" are along the lines of the question "Why wasn't Smile released?" was right on. Honestly, for both if not many of these similar questions in the BB's history, there is no single reason and I doubt there ever can be with all factors involved.

I did want to chime in too about the whole Haight-Ashbury/ San Francisco versus LA issue around Monterey Pop. For the record, this topic fascinates me, and I have corresponded in the past with Jason P. the creator of this thread and one of the most knowledgeable folks I know about this issue, and have studied this a great deal...so if any info is wrong, please correct!

The Haight-Ashbury vs. LA deal may have been a factor, but ultimately it might be better called a "red herring" of sorts because of one group of factors:

Money, access, influence, politics, and power.

Essentially I think Monterey Pop would *never* have happened had the power brokers in LA's pop music scene not stepped in...Not to offend anyone but in the first half of 1967 there may have been a scene going on in SF but they did not have the right machinery in place to stage and pull off such an event. There were folks who could organize communal living arrangements, organize community health centers and VD clinics, safe houses and clinics to treat those who had taken some intense acid trips and needed help coming back, those who were drifting in and out of the city and losing everything they had in search of the promised land...but they simply did not have the resources to stage a major multi-day event.

I also think if Mike had an issue with Coca-Cola or whatever other companies were involved, his anger was either misplaced or a complete load of hypocrisy.

Every single venue except perhaps high schools which the BB's played and made money on tour up to Monterey had to have some kind of agreement with vendors who would work the shows and sell food and drink. That is the way of the world, period, end of story. Every arena has this in place...did Mike question this at any other arena or venue in the year before and the year after his issue with serving cola at Monterey?

On to business, once you get certain names on that "Board Of Governors" or whatever they called it, guys like Lew Adler and Phillips and that whole crew, you gain immediate access to teams of lawyers, agents, contract specialists, negotiators, certain politicians who they may or may not have contributed money to in order to gain support and help with logistics like police and security coverage for the event...

Remember in 1966 going into 1967 guys like Adler and John Phillips and Brian and the rest were literally swimming in cash...and spending like drunken sailors as they bought expensive toys and diversions like sports cars on a whim. Buy a Rolls Royce? Sure, I'll buy TWO!...that kind of thing. With that kind of money and young millionaires throwing it around comes a degree of access...not to power exactly...but to those in power.

San Francisco's music scene in the first half of 1967 was who, exactly? Was there mainstream success? Were there key bands to compare with those coming from LA? Was there much money flowing in *at that exact time*? I'd say no to a degree, and the real attention came after Summer 1967 when it got mainstreamed and the media showed up.

For proof of this, there is a *fascinating* CBS news documentary which was shot in and around the SF scene immediately after Monterey Pop. The style is classic CBS News from the 60's, looking and feeling much like "Inside Pop" which had just aired in April '67. Among the cornerstone events in the film is a free outdoor performance from The Grateful Dead, who were young, not all that different or outstanding (Bob Weir wasn't all that good, honestly, and was still a kid at this point...), and whose featured offering was a cover of Dancing In The Streets.

If I'm wrong, please correct here especially, but apparently the Dead did not have access to a decent sound system and I've heard that they "borrowed" if not took without proper channels part if not most of the sound system components from Monterey Pop so they could stage this "event" while CBS crews were there.

Bottom line, to suggest the LA hip and rich crowd like Adler's crew and the rest of the governors somehow "stole" the festival concept and execution from the SF scene might be a little bit true, but ultimately there was no way the scene in SF...*at that time*...had the resources, the connections, or the funding to stage anything like that. The Dead's influence in '67 amounted to taking a sound system, saying in Micky Rooney's style "Hey kids, let's put on the show right here!", and setting up a public show for CBS, in town to film hippies.  :-D

And part of hosting such an event is funding and logistics, obviously where food vendors and other sponsors are required to be on board. Some may say Mike was taking a stand, others may feel it was naive if not hypocritical to make soft drink vendors such an issue...at least until someone can dig up proof where he staged a similar stance at any other venues where the band signed a contract to play in 66-67.

The guy who hatched the festival was Alan Pariser, an LA entrepreneur, as a pop/rock version of the Monterey Jazz Festival. A for-profit enterprise. It was always an LA-supervised trip, power-broker from the start. The problem was that the promoters had to step lightly around the SF scene, because the tastemakers held that whole thing under sway, people such as Ralph J. Gleason. Considering this, the SF bands had an extreme importance to the festival, simply because of where it was held. Popularity in mainstream terms didn't have everything to do with it, because the groups coming from the underground were a big attraction, and everyone involved with the festival was interested in being as hip as possible.
Jefferson Airplane were already mainstream stars with a Top 5 hit. The Dead were an underground act with a big reputation, an acid dance band. They shouldn't be put down for that reason, and for the sound they had. I think they were great at that time. Their performance of Viola Lee Blues at the festival is as good as anything performed there by any act, save Otis Redding.

Popularity had to have something to do with it because if the bill did not include big names and "hit" artists, you'd have a very hip festival bill packed with lesser-known or just-breaking artists who everyone needed to hear but not as big of a crowd or nowhere near the attention the festival needed to exist.

The Dead were fine, if not at times pretty damn terrific as a house band in the acid scene, but they were nowhere near the draw necessary to bill such an event, and the whole of the SF scene - again at the exact time the festival was being planned - was more of an underground, localized thing.

Again, it's not to say anything negative about the quality of the SF bands or the scene, I'd never suggest that except to look back at the Dead playing for CBS and thing "What was all the fuss about?", and feel they were still working hard to reach what they needed to break out of the West Coast and acid scene and tour as they would soon do. Weir was just not ready, the band overall had terrific moments but weren't there yet. IMO.

The whole affair needed people selling Coca-Cola, they needed KRLA to cover it extensively and publish a full issue of "KRLA Beat" devoted to the festival, they needed a film crew with the skill of a Pennebaker to capture it, they needed the lawyers and contract/legal folks to get everything together, heck The Beatles even needed their own film crew to return with their latest supply of LSD concealed in the lenses... ;D

And I don't think there was any of that - no matter how good or even fantastic the scene was in SF in early '67 - in place to really pull it off beyond having it become another local "Be-in" type of outdoor event which were happening on a weekly basis in some areas.

Do we think the media helped sell it, create the legend, and spread the word? I'd say yes, and argue the people involved from LA were the reason that all of that was already planned and in place for the festival itself.

Yeah, I wasn't arguing about any of that. The LA people could have staged the festival anywhere. Staging it in San Francisco meant they had to treat the SF bands as superstars, and give them very prominent places in the lineup, and curry favor with all of the SF tastemakers, keep them happy. The Airplane were one of the three hottest bands in the country at that point, so they likely would have headlined a night wherever the festival was held.

True, the Airplane were definitely at the forefront and were selling records like crazy at that time - if anything they would or could have been the headline draw for any event around that scene. It's funny looking at the "oldies" kind of scene over the past few decades, "Somebody To Love" sometimes seems to get lumped into the LA psych bag more than the scene they were actually in, especially with compilations, greatest hits, etc packages of hits from that era.

When Monterey was planned and when it happened, LA and all the power players were spending 1966 money which they had begun to sow into '67, including our Beach Boys, and San Francisco's scene in 1966 was underground, artistic, and not making near the money. All that would change soon after summer '67, obviously!

One semi-related question, which I could look up but I trust folks here even more... :)

When did the Dead start to use the services of "Bear" Owsley and his incredibly expensive and innovative live sound system(s)? I'm thinking into 1967 Owsley was still making his regular secret trips to the bus terminals with his supplies, was busy with all his "blue cheer", "orange sunshine", and all the various "barrels" he was soon producing, and raking in a fortune in profits. If I recall, he and his theories on sound and mixing combined with his budget which allowed for the finest audio equipment of its day to be bought and used may have been what really helped put the Dead on the bigger stage musically, at least where they went from borrowing PA systems to using what was top-of-the-line sound gear with a mad audio genius at the helm.

I'm talking 67-68-69...Owsley and his sound joined forces with the Dead, I'm curious when this happened, or how soon after Monterey. Or was Owsley involved that deeply with the band even in summer '67?

And thank you for your response, Stephen.  Glad to hear that all is well here.  This board is filled with a bunch of "Beach Boys geeks" who are anxious to learn about the history of the band and its music, and you are an invaluable resource in adding to the historical record. 

Owsley joined up with the Dead during the acid tests in early 1966. He started building electronics for them immediately, and funding purchases of equipment for them with his family fortune and personal fortune from his drug dealings. He seems to have worked with them for intense, but intermittent, periods through 1970, when he was arrested and sent to prison for two years. His famous "wall of sound" system was created after his release.
From everything I have heard, his sound systems for the Dead were incredible and groundbreaking....when they worked, which was about 50% of the time. They required a tremendous amount of stage power, which had a tendency to blow all electric circuits and halt proceedings indefinitely (which happened at Woodstock).
The best example of the early "Owsley sound" (something that the man himself didn't need to be present for, just that his equipment and sound design concept be utilized), in my opinion, is the GD release Two From The Vault, capturing two extremely intense shows at the Shrine Auditorium in August 1968.
Owsley also worked with other SF greats, and without his input, it is hard to imagine the quintessential roaring ballroom attack of Big Brother's Cheap Thrills and, especially, Quicksilver's Happy Trails (the ultimate SF guitar album).

Also, I'd like to recommend the version of Cream Puff War that can be heard here, some of the most wild pre-punk fury that can be found. Closer to the MC5 than say, The New Riders Of The Purple Sage:
http://archive.org/details/gd1966-11-19.fm.9730.shnf

Hello, and this is my first post. Good to be here. Apparently some here enjoyed a blog post I wrote about the BBs and Kinks parallel "golden era"s (best music, worst sales). Anyway...Monterey. A few thoughts:

1) I think a well-played Beach Boys set at Monterey would have been regarded similarly to The Association's set.
Nice, but not game-changing (me, I'd rather watch The Association's dorky "Association Machine" schtick than the Hendrix guitar burning.)
2) Who were the big noises at Monterey? The ones who broke stuff. The Dead were given a prime slot, but no one remembers them because they only played songs.
3) The video on You Tube of the Dead's "Viola Lee Blues" at Monterey (a poor quality outtake) ends with them all up against their amps, making pure feedback--their early love of noise isn't usually part of their legacy.
4) In the last 2 seconds of that clip, you see someone walking onstage. Who's that? PETER TORK!!
5) WHY OH WHY doesn't film exist of that awkward 2 minutes where Tork kind of tries to admonish the crowd for getting rowdy while Phil Lesh tells Tork that he's gotta chill out. I made a YouTube clip of the audio of that interlude, but I've never seen a photo or a clip.
6) The Monkees at Monterey would have kicked ass.
Ever hear I'm Not Your Stepping Stone from their summer '67 tour?
It's closer to the Velvet Underground or Syd-era Floyd. Unhinged!
7) Top 5 "wish they were there"s of Monterey:
1) Monkees 2) Kinks 3) Velvet Underground 4) Beach Boys 5) Pink Floyd

Great post there SNTB, and welcome to the forum! I would be interested to read your essay, as though I've never considered it, the Kinks and the Beach Boys did sort of hit their respective low ebbs commercially as they were making the best music of their careers. Sad, really.

Speaking for myself, I would have liked to have seen the Doors, Love, Gabor Szabo, the Yardbirds, Phil Ochs, Captain Beefheart & the Magic Band and the Peanut Butter Conspiracy appear at Monterey the most. Unlike most here, I don't think a Lei'd in Hawaii styled, stripped-down Beach Boys set would have gone over particularly well with the crowd there. Most of the artists present came with a high energy set, and those that didn't (thinking Laura Nyro here) did not go over well, and from the clips I've seen, Laura was brilliant. It just wasn't that sort of a scene.

However, a striped shirt hits extravaganza along the lines of what they had just finished touring over in England probably would have wooed the crowd, who seemingly had no problems accepting the slicker acts such as the Association or Lou Rawls. This would change by the time of Woodstock, but in 1967 such a thing was still quite acceptable to all but the most hardened SF scenester.

The Monkees at the time would have been crucified by the press, regardless of how good their live show was. Tork and Dolenz caught so much undeserved flack simply for showing up. It seems stupid that at the time the supposed "love crowd" couldn't open their hearts to such a great group of guys who were just eager to please, but I can understand these people were weary of the hype machine. The Monkees were being shoved down everyone's throats by NBC, and the fact that the relatively weak More of the Monkees was the biggest selling rock LP of all time, indicates that the average American rock fan had something of a legitimate reason to hate the group. The real tragedy is that more people didn't grasp the innate greatness of Headquarters and PAC&J, Ltd.-- two albums that have more than stood the test of time, while many of their psychedelic contemporaries have fallen by the wayside.

It's bullshit that the public couldn't accept the wonderful pop music of the Beach Boys, the Mamas & Papas, the Monkees or the Association in conjunction with the harder rock sounds of the Dead, the Who and Hendrix. But tastes back then were ephemeral, and the strong reaction against "hype", and a failure to buy into the American corporate way led towards a dividing line of Us vs. Them, and too many of these brilliant pop groups got caught on the wrong side of the zeitgeist. Worse, AM radio's abandonment of said artists (who didn't ever stand a chance on the FM side of the dial) caused massive problems for these bands. Thankfully, their recordings still exist and can be enjoyed today.

Could you link us to the Dead/ Tork clip you referred to in your post? Thanks.

I agree, an appearance at Monterey wouldn't have been a game changer or had much effect at all on the career for an established act like the Boys just as it was not a game changer for the established acts that did appear. Breaking acts got their game changed, if anybody.

Oh man, I'm sorry--I got lost in other things and forgot to reply.

1) Gabor Szabo? I need to see what he's all about.
2) Here's the video I created to accompany Tork interrupting the Dead's Monterey set:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKc6bpIRUAo
3) and here's the Dead doing Viola Lee Blues--literally at the last 2 seconds you can see Tork walking out on stage--I wish a better quality version of this would surface...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W58nWaU2Xo

thanks, and I'll try to keep on top of stuff from now on....

Thanks for posting that Tork audio, I thought I had not heard it before but after listening I remembered someone, somewhere had that (probably a Monkees site).

The one part which I think got lost in the posting was I believe Tork was asked to make that announcement by "official" channels because the organizers and security were worried people would get hurt or collapse a fence, or something similar. So it's not like Tork randomly pulled an ego-fueled Abbie Hoffman at Woodstock and interrupted the music on his own terms, I *believe* he was asked to do that to avoid a bigger problem but any clarification is of course welcome!

I wanted to mention the Kinks in all of this as well: I've been reading "X Ray", Ray Davies' bio, and specifically around these years I got the impression The Kinks in general were being shunned if not treated poorly out of spite by American acts and surrounding interests beyond the dust-up they had with the union who "blackballed" the band. That book suggests they were viewed as more young English interlopers or carpetbaggers who threatened American acts for the sheer fact they were British and selling records in large numbers.

Among these bands shunning them, according to Ray, was the Beach Boys, whom the Kinks were fans of as most bands of the mid 60's were it seems. I wish he had gone into more detail, but he describes being treated coldly if not outwardly hostile by Mike Love (and perhaps Dennis too, I'll have to re-read that section) when the Kinks met up with the Beach Boys in person.

It's odd that The Who, being also a young English band, seemed to escape this kind of hostility at least on the surface, yet The Kinks felt like they were getting the cold shoulder when they were in America. I have to wonder if the union problem filtered down to the actual band members like The Beach Boys getting word that these lads were no good?

I just think that adds more weight against the Kinks ever performing at Monterey, even hypothetically, because it seems they didn't have the support of their fellow musicians.

And I'll agree to disagree on the Monkees - the bloated San Francisco scene aside, these guys may have had a backlash from all the hype but at the same time I think among a core group of those we'd now consider "hip" musicians in LA in 66-67, they were friends and part of the scene itself, and I believe whatever backlash there would have been at Monterey was probably fueled by the San Francisco hipper-than-thou journalists and musicians who had an axe to grind that went beyond The Monkees.

A book NO ONE should be without!  No one!

I was just thinking about this today.

I was thinking they might have done something which met with praise from the crowd if they did a sort-of "Baroque Pop" set. So they arrive at the festival, and the only instrument they bring is a harpsichord. They do Wonderful, WIBN, IJWMFTT, Caroline No, You Still Believe in Me, and maybe Fun Fun Fun. Also it would be near to write a new, long song just for the festival, with super-duper hairy harmonies that the crowed could really get into.

And then, for the finale, the entire Wrecking Crew arrives onstage and they do an extended version of Surf's Up (presuming they completed it first). Or maybe Cabin Essence.

Damm Smile addict,.... sounds pretty good!

What  no one has mentioned is that The Beach Boys (without Dennis) DID play the 1970 Monterey Festival, and were warmly received. I have the show on cd, and they were very well received, not only by the audience, but also by the other artists.

How good is the quality of that?

the beginning of the revival....

I don't think its a contextually relevant comparison between the Monterey Pop Festival 1967 and the Big Sur Folk Festival at Monterey 1970. They were entirely different scenes. The former was in essence a cutting edge rock festival with numerous "hard rock" acts on the bill, while the latter was a "folk" festival with no hard rock at all. That said, it did garner the Beach Boys some positive cred and press with the softer end of the counter culture.

Saturday, October 3, 1970: “Celebration: A Day of Music,” Big Sur Folk Festival, Monterey
Fairgrounds, Monterey, CA, with Kris Kristofferson, Joan Baez, Mimi Farina, John Phillips, John
Hartford, Country Joe McDonald, Mark Spoelestra, Linda Ronstadt, The Beach Boys and Merry Clayton (Two
shows)

That is exactly my point....if the '67  was a "hard rock" festival, the BBs were a lousy fit on that bill. They bailed for a number of reasons, but the one that has always made sense to me was that they did not fit with that bill. They were still wearing the Kingston Trio shirts then. By 1970, even though they were on the ropes in terms of record sales, Monterey began to build them the respect that they needed from Northern California hipsters, who were the arbiters of underground music taste back then. They had a great review of Sunflower the previous month, and got some good alternative press notices because they met the San Franciscans "halfway in Monterey." They did it again Holland, and Rolling Stone named it one of the year's best albums in their 1973 year end music review.

If The Association could fit well into the '67 festival and be well-received, I see no reason why the BB's could not also.

I can totally see the Beach Boys being welcomed and received well at the festival, maybe even in the striped shirts.  The attendees were, by and large I would propose, at the festival to have fun.   The Beach Boys are fun (fun, fun), or certainly were; corny fun perhaps, but fun nonetheless, so why not?  However, handled correctly they also could have used the opportunity to perhaps surprise the audience (in a good way) and take a giant step outside their "image" and present a newer one in its place - still with many of the old attributes (even the Beatles were still the Beatles no matter how much they changed over the course of their career), but with alterations akin to the times and changes happening both outside of and within the band itself.    I think they could have done this even with it being Smiley Smile instead of Smile as the r most recent record.   I honestly think such a move could have (at the very least) gone down well.  
But darn that Coke, they messed everything up!  :ohyeah   ;)
Why must "Beach Boys" always mean surfin' and cars, beach bunnies and clambakes?   Because that's what the long term marketing push has been.  But could they not have molded a new perception of the band?  They almost did in the 70's, but had they all united and committed to a decision to broaden their horizons back in 66/67 (recognizing that things - the music - had already changed) - could they not have pulled it off earlier and much more successfully than their "almost but not quite" 70's attempt?   A beach is way more than surfin' and chicks (both lovely things mind you) - it's symbolic and metaphoric and euphoric and alas poor Yorick....a beach is a place where a man can feel he's the only soul in the world that's real.     That's a lovely line, not a Beach Boys line, but lovely nonetheless.  Because it's true.  A beach is a place where you look out into that giant swelling body of water.  You become entranced, hypnotized, awe struck and overwhelmed by the eternalness of it all.  It emboldens you even as it frightens you, enlarges your vision even as it makes you feel small...a cork on the ocean, rock in a landslide, leaf on a windy day......(also very lovely lines).  
So I don't know, perhaps, maybe not.  Playing my own devils advocate I'd present the case of, funny enough, Coke!   They stuck with the same recipe to great success for umpteen-however many years, then changed it and it caused a mighty backlash.....so, maybe playin' it safe really is the way to go.   :spin

EDIT:  and yes, I do perhaps over use the word lovely as a descriptive term..... ::)

^
Y'know I've often thought similar things. I don't see why they couldn't still have done some beach and/or surfing songs once in a while - just make them highly sophisticated beach or surf songs.

For example, I could imagine a song about a surfer riding the waves, and he's way far out, and suddenly the wind and waves pick up and he's not ready, and he's not a super-expert surfer, so he's trying desperately to get back to shore before it gets worse, and the seagulls overhead are "laughing" at him, and the beach is empty so there's no one to rescue him, so he has to rely on himself, and he's afraid he's not going to make it. And once he gets wiped out by a big wave and thinks, for a moment, that he's going to drown, but he doesn't, and finally he just barely makes it back to shore which gets him thinking about the special-ness of life. But the whole song is metaphorical, and now and then some lyrics are inserted into the song telling the listener the song is *really* about something else.

Stuff like that.

Off-topic, sorry.

I still say the Boys got invited because they were who they were and did what they did. If they had appeared they would have been as warmly received as anyone on the bill just performing and wearing and doing what got them invited. 

Thanks, Jon, for that clarification and distinction as between the two "Montereys." I think that the latter folk festival might have been the one Mike discussed in the Gaumont Palace Ina.fr interview which had concert footage.  Not too long, but had Country Air, (rare) and a few other gems. 

It's always been my opinion that the former one in 1967 while Carl was under scrutiny under a draft evasion charge, and corresponding Conscientious Objector defense, that it would have been a really poor move to attend. This was America's TV war, where the big three broadcast outlets had news correspondents in the fields of Southeast Asia, taping actual conditions and reporting nightly on how many soldiers had been killed or wounded in the undeclared war.  It made the combat real, and removed much of the "propaganda effect" of the government.

By 1970 there was a fully engaged anti-war movement which helped support the peace movement.  And the "folkies" had huge ties to PBS as a media venue, and free expression platform, which had begun to turn the tide of public opinion, which was less critical of Conscientious Objectors.

According to Carlin's 'Catch a Wave', Mike was initially opposed to taking part in the 1970 festival as well -- he thought Baez et al were a bunch of commies.

That cracked me up! True, many of them had "leftist" (way leftist) tendencies.   :lol

But, by 1970, Dan Rather was working for CBS, and the war issues had filtered into everyone's living room.  So, "moderates" had more information with which to make personal decisions, and the absolute unfairness of the draft policies hit home with many parents, whose kids didn't get student deferments, and ended up in "Nam."

My 2 cents: I think there was a plethora of reasons the buys missed Monterey and Mike's thing was just PR cover for the real issues like Brian shutting down, Carl's draft and Dennis' divorce.

I do think some of you guys are understating the importance of Monterey and its legacy. It would have done the Boys a world of good to attend, to promote a new image and a new sound to the cool new hippie crowd. To be seen forever more in the film with Jefferson Airplane, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and the other hot new bands of the age. They could've been seen as champions of a new style had they finished SMiLE and played it/PS at the concert. Even if SMiLE wasn't finished, they couldve done something with their back catalogue.

The fact is, despite the rumors of being booed off the stage, even Laura Nyro got a warm reception. As long as they ditched the shirts, I see no reason the Boys wouldn't either. It was a huge mistake any way you slice it, but what's done is done.

I'd love to hear the Stones and Pink Floyd at Monterey too...but that's not realistic seeing as they were UK bands. Love and the Doors would've been great though. And not showing up definitely hurt Love's career. The Doors survived and thrivex, but they didn't make the mistake of turning it down--they hadn't been invited.

It's possible the Boys get upstaged by Hendrix ala the Association. And it's possible they play a drugged out version of H&V, GV and Brian does a piano solo of Surf's Up that blows everyone away. The right mix of their old rockers, the melancholy pop symphonies of PS and a few psychedelic freakouts from SMiLE (had it been finished or not) could've reaffirmed the band to a new wave of non-surfer fans.

Been a while since I've seen the film, but Laura Nyro did get some booing and harassment.  As I recall she broke down in some amount of tears - which was a shame because her performance  was ahead of it's time IMO, she was great.

She was upset with her performance for whatever reason and tin interviews has claimed she was booed but according to the film and others who were there it never happened.

The film I saw, there is a point where you can quite audibly hear a voice, perhaps more than one, calling out what sounds to be put downs.   She appears to become visibly upset, maybe losing her confidence....this is what I recall seeing, but it has been quite a few years since I saw the film, so....i dunno.  Anyone else see the film and know what I'm referring to?

Speaking generally now, and not aimed at any posters in this thread,  but I'm not sure which is the more irritating - people who were "there" (say, at a recording session...) saying nothing happened, or people who weren't "there" saying it did.  ::)

Yes there's a lot of different kinds of annoying posters on here, surely...

I'll come back to some points that were discussed in this thread a few years ago, just a few pages back. Monterey Pop took on an "importance" far beyond what it was at the time because it got filmed and distributed to the mass public so people anywhere outside California could see what was going on. There were other festivals going on in 1967 that had terrific lineups, everyone from the Doors to the Mothers to the Airplane and beyond had been playing these types of gatherings even before Monterey, shows like the Fantasy Fair, gatherings like the Human Be-In and handfuls of others, both around LA and SF and also on the East Coast to a lesser degree. Not all of them were as stacked with talent as Monterey, but the Doors were mentioned as not having played Monterey yet they were playing other festivals at this time which just didn't get promoted and distributed as well as Monterey.

This is not to diminish Monterey, but it wasn't the only show in town in 1967 as far as rock festivals.

So a band's playing or not playing at Monterey seems like a big deal now, but in the context of 1967 there were other festivals happening that could possibly have been just as influential in rock history had they been filmed and distributed. Were the Mothers or the Doors at one of these any less intense and incendiary than, say, any of the landmark Monterey Pop performances that we still talk about? As they weren't filmed for the most part, we just don't know.

According to many of the people who were there, musicians and attendees alike, Monterey was one of if not the best of these festivals. Grace Slick, as Jefferson Airplane's leading lady, was at many such concerts including Woodstock and said Monterey was the best by far. Anecdotal evidence, but take that for what it's worth.

Either way, I think it's indisputable that canceling was a mistake in hindsight. It's understandable why they didn't make it, but there's no denying it would've boosted their career. There's a persistent attitude that the BBs are not and never were "cool." I think to new fans (both in '67 and '14), seeing them perform VT and SU at the same concert that debuted Jimi, Janis and the Who would've helped their image in that regard.

On a separate note, I really wish the '68 Newport Festival had been filmed. Apparently the Airplane had a pie fight with Crosby, Stills and Nash.

Off-topic: More fuel to add to the Laura Nyro at Monterey thing, I remembered reading this RS review and found it in the book, then found the excerpt online. The opening paragraph from Jon Landau's review of Laura's album from September 1968:

"I wasn't at Monterey. Consequently, I don't really know what Laura Nyro did there that turned so many people off. She must have done something, because the word was so thick that it convinced me that there wasn't any point bothering with her first album. It took a lunatic friend of mine, barging into my apartment a couple of weeks ago, frothing at the mouth about the record, to get me to listen to it seriously. All I can say is I'm glad he did."

She may not have been a crowd favorite, but part of her performance is on YouTube and theres no booing.

I think The Beach Boys touring band in 1967 wouldn't have been well received if only because I recall their live performances from '67 being rather thinly executed. Perhaps if they had a fuller band at the time, as they would even a couple years later, they might have done well for themselves.

That's a fair point. Perhaps, if nothing else, Brian could've showed up as a representative of the band and directed some of the wrecking crew musicians who were there in some of the SMiLE material (had it been released or not) and taking to the piano for Surfs Up as a finale. Of course, that didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of happening, but it's a nice dream.

Realistically, if they didn't think they could "rock" hard enough, they still could've sang some ballads and perhaps debuted some Smiley material. Obviously there was no way for them to say, upstage Jimi or Janis, but they could've still made a respectable showing. They may have even made a performance art out of it--start off with some Smiley songs, after say, Gettin' Hungry, do a few old hits, transition to some Pet Sounds (as more and more instrumentalists join the stage as the music gets more complex) then a SMiLE remnant or two with full Wrecking Crew accompanyment and finally clear the stage for Brian to do Surf's Up Wild Honey style for the finale. Again, wishful thinking perhaps...but my point is they could've played a great set in some fashion if they tried.

The REAL reason Brian cancelled was that he found out it wasn't a soda pop festival.

Or the audience would have chanted "Play the oldies!" :)

Ok, one minute you're all saying they'd be booed for playing those lame oldies, next that they'd be booed for not doing so...so which is it?

I'm glad I waited on this, because I wanted to try shedding some light on the whole Laura Nyro at Monterey mythology. I remembered Lew Adler - the guy who invited Laura to play in the first place, and who was one of the key figures if not the mastermind (and a lot of the money and clout behind it) - had talked about it and gave what I thought was the best rundown of how it played out, and possible reasons why. Instead of posting what I remembered, I did some digging and found the actual quotes online. Lew's answers are in bold, I'll comment a bit afterward.

Lew Adler 1:
You didn't see the Association in the film. You didn't see Lou Rawls in the film, you didn't see Laura Nyro. That was an unfortunate story. Laura came out not really knowing what the rest of the artists were going to look like, the music that they were going to perform. She had sort of a New York look to her. And it was very stark. She didn't have time to rehearse. She was one of the only acts that used a backup band that we had put together, and she didn't have full arrangements for the band. So it wasn't a very good performance. But she was devastated by the performance and carried it for quite a long time.
Then when D.A. Pennebaker and I were putting together something for VH1 and we went back and looked at the performance, what Laura thought she was hearing were boos from the audience, and it turned out that there were two people that were yelling "Beautiful!" to her. Pennebaker called her and said, "Just come in and look at it." And unfortunately she passed away before she had a chance.


Lew Adler 2:
"Everything that I hoped she would bring to it, she didn't bring to it," he says, "in the sense that I saw a girl sitting behind a piano singing some great songs. She brought a nightclub act. She came in a long black gown. She brought background singers. It pretty much stood out as New York and not California."


There were more facets to the story, as is usually the case. We know she wasn't booed or heckled, but Laura from the stage thought she heard boos or heckling, and it upset her, which basically collapsed and already shaky set.

Why do I say "shaky"? She was still in her teens, it was one of her first major performances of this type, she was coming into a scene that turned into a "Rock" more than "Pop" festival remembered for intensity, destruction, and blues-based heavy performances, and she comes from a New York stage performance background with an under-rehearsed backing band she had not performed with and with a "revue" more fitting of a supper club or as Adler says a Vegas show. Her look was sophisticated, long gown and all that at a festival where performers and crowd were letting their freak flags fly, so it seemed "showbiz" enough to look out of place with the acts who were throwing all of that convention out the window, including proper stage wear in favor of whatever they wanted to wear.

The tension was already there because, let's face it, it was a daunting scenario to come from the east coast to play what was thought to be a pop festival but which turned in other, heavier directions. It wasn't even "rock and roll", that term was 50's...this was "rock", a new and less formalized take on that 50's label.

Lew Adler spells it out quite well, I think, perhaps the definitive words on the myth: She took the stage with a Vegas act, an under-rehearsed backing band, and he invited her expecting something more akin to the style Joni Mitchell would soon own, that of the singer-songwriter performing her songs, which is what drew Adler to Laura enough to invite her as an unknown to perform.

And she didn't do what I think Adler expected to see, and as an unknown it may have caused a more "polite" response from the audience than perhaps what Laura needed to hear. It definitely was not hostile, there were people who really dug it, but...

As soon as she perceived that hostility, it shook her up to the point it shattered the performance, and that may be what caused the mythology to turn into the infamy it became, when there really were no boos or catcalls. It's a shame that after Pennebaker and Adler screened the unused footage decades later, and saw/heard the proof of this, Laura wasn't able to see it.

I think the infamy came from the performance collapsing after Laura got shaken up on stage, not the audience reaction, though that's what the mythology turned into until the actual film proof appeared.

Ultimately, though, look how it played out. Her songs got placed within the Lew Adler-Johnny Rivers-Bones Howe pipeline that was as strong as it ever was in the late 60's, and her songs got recorded by the 5th Dimension, via Rivers, put together by Bones, and they're classics which I'm sure helped pay her bills. David Geffen and Clive Davis were among those who saw her at Monterey and were so impressed they made offers, leading to her own albums and various Columbia artists like BS&T covering her songs.

I think it worked out, until she quit the music biz in disgust a few years later. But the mythology in these cases usually carries the most weight until actual proof or evidence to the contrary surfaces.

And that's about all I can say about busting the Laura Nyro got booed myth.  :)

Not a biggie -- but it's Lou, not Lew. :p

Great post. Thanks for confirming what Ive been trying to say.

Wait, I was the only one who said they might have been "booed" for not playing the oldies. I'm a bit off the timeline there (for joking purposes), as this happened mostly during the Reilly era of the early 70s. Says so in Jon's and Ian's book.

Here's a first person account of the festival from none other than Robert Christgau. I for one had never seen this until I spent an evening poking around his website.

Fans of Peter Tork might be advised to proceed with caution if they don't like seeing their hero get badmouthed.

http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/music/monterey-69.php

Appreciate that link. Thank you

What he wrote about Peter Fork explains why Brian may have feared a bad reaction at Monterey, considering the Beach Boys also didn't play on a lot if their records and some of the  hippie wannabes like Christigau may have considered them LA plastic, too.

Bingo. Yes, he mentions something along the lines of a lot of L.A. acts were getting nervous in the wake of the San Francisco bands' response to the festival, and then states the Beach Boys dropped out right around this time.

Although I thought Christgau's response to the JHE was interesting to say the least.

 Christgau, always the ass. Still, the two of you are  supposing Brian was SO prescient that he knew what Christgau was going to write, and THAT is why he pulled the BBs performance? 
Doesn't wash

I think a version of 'Let's Go Trippin' could have caught people off guard in a good way. Check the 1964 live album version.  Imagine the intro...let's go trippin! !  Now only if they could pull it off as heard on the 64 record but with a slightly harder edge

Since the Beach Boys were considered too square to go over at Monterey, maybe they should have hosted their own festival, featuring all the critically derided bands like the Turtles, Paul Revere and the Raiders, Gary Lewis and the Playboys, and the Monkees. Band that IMO made some pretty good records.

Come on, I didn't say that at all. Nobody knew who Robert Christgau was at that time. The point we're trying to make is that Brian or sombody in the Beach Boys/ Brother organization felt the pressure coming from the Bay Area bands. It's not like they were the only ones either; it seems to have been well in the air at that time. Read what Christgau says about what happened when Dewey Martin tried to get up and sing at the Ark in Sausalito. It was a full scale culture war between the Bay and L.A. and the Beach Boys were on the losing side of it, rightly or wrongly.

They did (in a way): Lei'd in Hawaii

Wow, so much to cover... ;D  (Good to see Jason posting here too!)

I think there is much ado about a little something regarding the Bay Area bands, and the whole scene of Monterey being an LA versus SF kind of thing. I don't want to over-extend this, but it's a topic that I think gets into how and why certain things were written and then passed into what became a history of it rather than what was actually going on. I'll try to keep it to the point, but that's tough with me sometimes...

First, there have always been "battles" between bands from different regions and areas, from the neighborhoods to communities to sections of the same block. In the big band era, 1930's, there were battles between big bands where you'd have Count Basie and Chick Webb having cutting contests at places like the Savoy, all in good spirit but which gave their fans a sporting event kind of thing to root for their favorite. Same thing with the doo-wop and streetcorner groups, within the same neighborhoods in cities like Philly and New York you'd have the groups from one area of the same neighborhood throwing down with other groups for bragging rights. Surf groups around the early 60's, same thing, and the BB's engaged in that kind of bragging rights competition.

A version of school spirit and rivalry, we could call it.

Now we get Monterey Pop, and the notion of LA versus SF, or whatever.

But what truth is there behind it?

I'd argue some of the most prominent acts to come out of Monterey Pop had nothing to do with LA or the Bay Area...as Paul McCartney was one of the "governors" who was advising and organizing the whole thing going back to his hanging out in LA with John Phillips, Lou Adler, and someone named Brian...he had known of the Who, and Hendrix, and had seen them in the London clubs like Bag O' Nails which was a scene the USA had not yet experienced. So Paul was one who suggested inviting them to play Monterey. Same with Andrew Oldham, another "governor" who pushed for these acts from across the ocean.

Adding in Janis and Otis, who I wouldn't consider LA or Bay Area (especially Otis who brought the Memphis/Stax vibe to Monterey), who else made such an impression via the film as the Who and Hendrix?

We always hear of the Airplane...was their impact anywhere near what happened to Hendrix or the Who? Remember, those acts were still much better known in the UK than the US, and Paul Macca having witnessed their acts in the UK knew they were something special and pushed for them to play the festival. After that, they became the Who and Hendrix of legend, again thanks quite a bit to Pennebaker and his film.

*Big point*...The Monterey Pop festival itself when it was in the planning stage was to have been exactly that: A "pop" festival, bringing together many styles and variations of pop music, or what was called pop music at the time. It was also planned to lead to various distribution and broadcast deals (some of which fell through) which would have funded some kind of foundation or organization for promoting and supporting pop music and pop musicians, that according to chief organizers and backers like Adler, Phillips, Andrew Oldham.

Then it turned into this throwdown, it became a "rock" festival, you had as I described Laura Nyro showing up in a cocktail gown with a Vegas-style act assuming it was indeed a "pop" festival and getting a puzzled (yet polite) response to her probably based on her stage look in some circles (like Adler who invited her) before she sang a note.

And the critics and writers, like Christgau for one, took it beyond what happened to suggest "real" acts like the Airplane or whoever versus the "plastic" acts from LA and the studio scene...

I say, hogwash.

Consider how many of these rock journalists were actually from the SF area, which would eventually gel together into the Rolling Stone staff of writers and critics.

Consider that if you're active in the music scene of a particular city or area, you'll naturally hang out with and get to know (and part with) bands from that area.

And when it comes time to write about those bands - your friends who may have rolled you a joint the night before you sat down at your Smith-Corona to write a review of their latest show - that connection will run through your words.

You had it in LA too, look at 1966 and 1967 and what got published via Cheetah magazine, the LA Weekly, Tom Nolan, even KRLA Beat. These writers were hanging out with guys like Brian Wilson, David Crosby, etc as part of the music scene.

But when it came time for Rolling Stone's staff to do a retrospective of things like Monterey, what angle would they be pushing, apart from what they needed to do to stay somewhat neutral?

Naturally, they'll paint it with a broad brush...where San Francisco acts simply creamed the plastic, manufactured LA scenesters. Where the Dead and the Airplane and Quicksilver were setting the tone, shaping rock history, and the LA bands were still California Dreamin' and making manufactured pop.

See where the Monkees backlash and mythology could fester from that mindset as well? Never mind they made some damn fine records, they weren't doing gritty, loud blues based jamming on Bo Diddley songs and worse, so they weren't in the same pantheon because they were "plastic". And, horrors, they were not from Haight Ashbury and didn't go to Bill Graham's parties.

That's a stretch, I'm being sarcastic, I know, but there is something to all of that.

Monterey started out as something to highlight and promote the different styles and sub-genres of "pop" music, and elevate the form, similar to what Inside Pop tried to do. It was envisioned that way by the so-called "Board of Governors" when you'd have Adler, Oldham, Phillips, McCartney, Paul Simon, Wilson, et al having informal discussions that turned into meetings that turned into organizing this thing beyond saying "hey kids, let's put on a show right here!" in a Mickey Rooney-Judy Garland fashion.

And if what got written as critiques and reviews and analysis well after the fact had an agenda that went beyond reporting and got into attempts to shatter and lessen what these writers considered "plastic" music versus "real" music, I'd suggest reading between the lines and finding out where that mindset was coming from.

I might agree more with those journalists if the bands and artists who made the biggest impact were actually coming from San Francisco rather than London, Memphis, and even Texas. But since they did not, it's hard sometimes to agree with an analysis pushing a certain regional battle that turned into a "real" versus "plastic" comparison (or 'rock' versus 'pop' perhaps...) based on that writer's perspective at that moment.

Just food for thought...

It wasn't LA vs. SF, really -- it was counterculture rock vs. commercial pop (and yes I know those are problematic terms, to say the least). Move it forward a decade and it would be the Clash, say, vs. the Bee Gees. A decade after that the Pixies vs. Poison.

Ideological, in other words, rather than territorial. Canned Heat  -- from LA -- weren't considered "plastic". Paul Revere and the Raiders were.

Whether ideological or territorial, there was a notion of bands coming into the LA "plastic" area and blowing away the native bands with their harder-edged (re: 'non-plastic' ) music, and yes there was ideology behind that.

But look at what history has done to all of this.

Where are long, extended blues jams on "Who Do You Love" that could last for a half hour or more placed within the context of rock history? Where are the similar blues excursions and jams placed within rock history? They seem more like time capsules of a bygone era, far less than what some in the rock-critic community at one time thought they would be.

What survived as far as classic recordings and landmark songs? Even when rock music back in 1968 was going back to a more stripped-down, basic sort of thing, you had groups like The Band who were quite capable of jamming a Bo Diddley song for 20 minutes but instead chose to write compact, well-crafted songs that featured little or no extended soloing or blues-based guitar wanking...again, styles they could very well have done. And the styles within rock soon parted ways, and existed within their own demographics.

But in terms of influence, especially in revisiting and re-evaluating music from, say, 1966 to 1970, which forms have really stood the test of time and continue to influence subsequent generations compared to which forms have become a time-capsule curio?

The elements that went into the most basic structures and goals of the so-called "plastic" music have survived, and if anything have grown even more in influence than anything being touted as the rock elixir to the so-called manufactured music.

Aside: I love Canned Heat, I'm a *big* fan of Al Wilson's harp and guitar playing, but remember in the late 60's even they had a rap against them from critics for overly mimicking authentic blues, to the point where some of the reviews harp on their attempts to sound authentic to the point of sounding comedic rather than authentic. All of this despite "Bear" Hite having one of the most extensive collections of rare blues recordings at the time, and Al Wilson having been a true scholar of the blues and blues musicians to the point where he would track down even the most obscure artists to talk to and learn from them, direct from the source...and this was his passion in life.

Yet, Canned Heat was nowhere near as well-regarded among critics and journalists of the time as other bands who were far less skilled in playing blues and boogie but had a better schtick to sell their acts.

San Francisco was a cultural epicenter in the '60s in a way LA was not. LA was where people used their art to make money. Not that SF wasn't, but there was so much happening in SF that was not happening in LA, including the drug scene (or making a public spectacle of the drug scene, at least), which was so important back then.  Not to mention the Berkeley Free Speech Movement. Of course, a lot of the leading lights in San Francisco came from other parts of the country, especially from New York. So, the LA vs. SF thing in the '60s was in some ways the old LA vs. NYC battle. Chistgau was from New York, as was Jann Wenner.

Right, and you see this battle played out in Christgau's article in the phone calls between Lou Adler and Dead manager Dan Rifkin regarding how the money was to be spent, and in the shadow festival at Monterey Peninsula College. (The reveal of the article for my money-- I mean did anyone know about this up until now because I sure didn't!) It seems the Hollywood booking agents or whoever was in charge of selecting bands were approaching it as business as usual, but the SF contingent made up of freaks (I use that word in the positive sense) such as Rifkin and Chet Helms had other ideas on how they wanted things to go. Their anti-L.A. bias was well noted and as you both mentioned is reminiscent of other scene battles that have occurred throughout the years.

That said I'd like to address Craig's point about the 30 minute jams on "Who Do You Love" not withstanding the test of time. I'm guessing that's likely a reference to Quicksilver Messenger Service who also appeared at the festival and were semi-famous for doing extended improvs on that song and "Mona" regularly throughout their career (and both found on their Happy Trails album). While this sort of thing seems quite dated by current standards, I would still make the point that this sort of long-form blues jam was pretty much tailor-made for live shows where trippy visual effects and mind-altering substances were in great supply. In other words it very much of the "now" and not really meant for long-term enjoyment. I would argue Quicksilver's legacy looms elsewhere, in the tight pop songs on their debut album like "Pride of Man" and "Dino's Song", or in later numbers such as "Shady Grove" where they really found their voice.

There's also the image of the ofay white blues dude ripping off black culture for fun and profit, but again a thorough investigation of the talent on display at Monterey reveals this probably wasn't the case as Christgau somewhat implies. Mike Bloomfield, Steve Miller, Elvin Bishop, Paul Butterfield and Nick Gravanites were all transplanted Chicagoans who had jammed with all manner of blues legends prior to forming their own bands, and the fellows in Canned Heat were all rigid blues scholars and collectors as Craig rightly points out. Add to this mixture such highly regarded musicians as Jorma Kaukonen and Jack Cassidy, Al Kooper who'd previously backed Dylan, roots music devotee Jerry Garcia, trained avant-gardeist Phil Lesh and the classically schooled John Cippolina and we can see that many of the white musicians playing had the chops to back up what might be perceived as their cocky attitudes or swagger.

It's interesting too that Christgau's first-hand opinion on what bands rose to the occasion often stands in contrast to today's conventional wisdom. While he spoke highly of Janis's performances and thought the Who did a good job, he also seemed to think that Otis Redding and Ravi Shankar were sort of going through the motions and that Jimi Hendrix was an out and out shuck. Yet he also speaks highly of Buddy Miles and the Steve Miller Band, performers who are seldom mentioned when people talk about Monterey Pop today. It's funny to hear him talk about the "almost offensively collegiate" Association, but he admits their songs were "tightly arranged" and that they received "good applause", and says of John Phillips, "with the eccentric exception of Bob Dylan, (he) is probably the finest songwriter America has given the new pop". So I believe Christgau was at least able to obtain his objectivity and wasn't necessarily approaching the article with a pro-SF slant.

A word about the selections by the L.A. contingent of the Board of Governors: It seems that although some attention was being paid to limit the amount of teen acts (no Paul Revere or Monkees), it is likely that a few bands that should have been there were shut out, perhaps due to what the Rascals describe in the article as "a clique among music people". At this point the Doors already had a #1 album and might not have even needed the exposure the festival could provide, but the Sunset Strip had many other bands to offer that were overlooked. Offhand I can think of Love, the Seeds, the Iron Butterfly, the Leaves, the Peanut Butter Conspiracy, the West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band, Tim Buckley and most importantly Frank Zappa & the Mothers (though Zappa would have to have been persuaded to leave New York for a few days).

Instead it seems like the only true rock bands represented out of L.A. were the Byrds, the Springfield and the Heat, and the rest of the music was geared towards the supper club set, as Craig also astutely mentions about Laura Nyro. Monterey would likely be the only rock festival in history where one would see such decidedly mainstream acts as the Association, Johnny Rivers, Lou Rawls, Scott McKenzie, the Mamas & the Papas and even Hugh Masakela-- fine artists all, but better suited for an evening at the Coconut Grove performing for cocktail sippers than billed alongside Jimi Hendrix and Eric Burdon at a party for the gathering freak culture. Then there was the fabled "Group with No Name", a band which even people who attended the festival seem to remember nothing about, other than that they were cobbled together at the last minute and featured Gary Alexander in some capacity. Though the interjection of these adult-oriented pop acts helps give Monterey Pop some of its unique flavor and differentiates it from the myriad of festivals that followed, surely booking at least a few of those great local bands that gave the halcyon days of the L.A. club scene so much of its character would have somewhat evened the playing field and likely produced a more consistent overall line-up. Why didn't this happen?