The Smiley Smile Message Board

Why have the BBs, almost since their very inception, been a band whose members were not particularly identifiable to many (or perhaps most) fans?
Granted, Dennis in the early days was a sex symbol, and the band got tons of early attention just for that fact alone.

But the fact that Brian, the group’s “leader” could get away with leaving the touring group in ‘63, and just subbing in alternate people (with it seemingly not affecting the machine that was/is the BBs) strikes me as a unique situation, or at least an unusual situation amongst their band peers.

Of course, this situation seems to have benefited the band at many times throughout their history. The band being as anonymous (member-wise) as they have been throughout the years seems to have helped the M&B show keep the ball rolling as they have, since many people have reported audience members not even knowing (or caring) who the band onstage consisted of, as long as it was (and sorta kinda sounded like) The Beach Boys.

Also, the general masses seemed to have not really noticed (or cared) when Carl/Brian/Dennis missed shows in the late 70s/early 80s… I’m sure that *some* fans knew what was going on, but for a band as famous as the BBs, it just seems they have been able to weather bandmates not being present (and have many, if not most audience members not even notice) much more than most other bands of their stature. Even when their “lead singer” Mike Love took leaves of absence for being sick a few times throughout the years, and the band kept chugging on, seemingly unblemished, or unbeknownst to many of the general public. I can’t think of many (if any) huge bands where the lead singer could miss chunks of shows without it being a huge, huge deal.

Ultimately, I wonder this: Why did a band like The Beatles (just to use an example), grow into an entity where each member was super well known, and it would’ve been a huge deal if any one of them missed a show, versus the Beach Boys, whose members seem almost anonymous to the public at large since their inception? Is it because the BB members were just much more boring by comparison, and didn’t make as big an impression to the average fan? Does this say something about BB fans too? Not superfans, but average fans.  I'm sure that latter-day Mike is glad that this unique situation isn't that much of a "problem" for the M&B show.

Particularly after recently reading The Beach Boys in Concert, I just find this phenomenon to be bizarre, and worthy of pondering from time to time.

Good topic--no real answers here. Part of me says its because they aren't 4 "strangers" who united to form a great group (a la The Beatles) but rather a close knit band of brothers (literally), a cousin, and their close friend (Al) or neighborhood friend (Dave). Yet another part of me thinks that would make them MORE recognizable as individuals since you would think of the brothers individually and wonder why was one missing (why no Brian? why no Carl? why no Dennis? etc) 

Most music fans now think of the Beatles as Brian Wilson + others a la Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, yet, as you already mentioned, most who attend an M & B show aren't really too perturbed by the absence of Brian. No way a Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band could be pulled off with no Boss.

Basically I dunno but I wanted to comment anyway, it's a good topic

Well, the only guy with looks and sex appeal (Dennis) was stuck behind the drums. The most important member musically (Brian) was not a particularly good or charismatic live performer. The one with the most charisma (Mike) was also the least talented musically and was a balding dork and was ugly. Al Jardine looks like a midget elf; Carl was a fat kid.

The only bands where all the members personas mattered much was the Beatles and to a lesser extent, the Who. The Stones don't matter to most people past Mick and Keith, all people cared about with the Kinks was the Davies brothers, and the only Pink Floyd member that people care much about is Syd, and that's because he crashed and burned so fast. I guess Roger Waters managed to be belligerent enough with the others that people sort of know and care who he is, sorta.

Of course anyone who is a big fan of a band cares about all the members. But the public at large don't care.

Correction: Mick and Brian

I'd say Keith is the most recognisable member.

Back at their height in the 60's, it was Mick and Brian. Only now it's Mick and Keith, and that's because Brian's dead. Still, Brian is quite popular to fans, albeit not so much the casual fans

As someone who knew jack about the Stones until the last couple of months, I knew: Jagger and Richards, other Mick, "the guy that burned out" (Brian something-or-other), "their bassist who I think quit", and "they probably have a drummer".

And I agree with Kurosawa, how many bands do you know that you can name everyone in without being a huge fan of them?

It didn't hurt that the Beatles starred in a couple successful movies. All the kids saw those back in the day, so it would be hard to walk out of the theater and not be able to tell Paul from John, George from Ringo. The same reason is why the individual Monkees became so well known. If the Beach Boys had done a couple films in their 60's heyday, everyone would have known that Mike was the one with the receding hairline; Dennis was the blonde surfer; Brian was the tallest Beach Boy, and cute in sort of a shy wallflower way; Carl may have been chubby, but girls swooned when he sang. And Al was the short one.

Simple.  It's because the MUSIC is the star of the show.   ;D

I think you hit the spot!



In this thread, it's about the view of the casual fan.

Well, Casual fan in the 1960's when the Stones were at their best. But I guess not now

Since their inception?...

I'd love to get some input from some of the back in the actual day fans who come here - being born in old '71, it was before my time;  but I don't get the impression our boys were publicly unindentifiable back in the day.

Listen to the cheers for tiny Al Jardine getting up to sing Runaway in Chicago '65; check out the personalised back-cover liners on Summer Days; behold the news coverage of one Carl Wilson, arrested for resisting the draft - this was a band whose members and personalities were as out there and publicly known as the Beatles.

Now, the Beatles - those jammy blighters who stopped touring and then broke up for good or bad - weren't subject to the commercial and artistic struggles that those "classic" or enduring bands who kept going (BB's, The Who, The Kinks) suffered due to the myriad changes in musical fashion from '66 onwards. 

The Beatles have an accutely defined legacy, and an appointed caretaker to protect the grail; as opposed to the BB's who to this day remain a (cough) dynamic entity willing to (umm) compete in contempory "markets".

I think due to recent band self-reflection (at least during C50), the input of Alan Boyd and Mark Linett, and the support of the broader fan and historian community, the lack of band awareness that may have plagued the 80's,90's, early 2000's is behind us and the band's public history and awareness is restablished.

At the end of the day, any further BB full or partial live, studio or repackaged efforts, is ultimately about the music - and I think the latter day Mike's and Brian's and Al's and Bruce's and Dave's are aware of what they're up to.

*PS, not having a go, good pub topic  :beer

I don't think, growing up as a regular music fan in the 60's and 70's , that I knew the names of all the band members of any band I liked. I listened to the radio, bought the records, but didn't necessarily "follow" the band. And yet, I knew all of the Beatles. It all comes down to what sells and awareness is a matter of publicity level and hype. You really couldn't escape the Beatles. I really think they were the exception rather than the rule for me and most of my friends.

Bands were generally whole entities. But, "Hard Days Night," "Help" and "Yellow Submarine" plus Tiger Beat and other teen mags fueled the Beatlemania engine and created sort of manufactured public personas for the individual Beatles: Paul was the cute one, Lennon was the rebel, George was the mystic and Ringo was the lovable dork. Most bands didn't get that kind of PR. Aside from some of the key members, you didn't get so many teen idols from most bands.

It's funny that Brian, the shyest of the boys, has emerged as the current media darling. I guess, in the long run, the public loves a comeback story.

They were hardly "anonymous." During that era, not unlike baseball cards, which were originally "cigarette cards" used to stiffen cigarette packs, post the Civil War era, when the cigarette roller machine was invented. This was as a result of no more slaves to pack tobacco products. (Just for background.)

Bubble gum replaced tobacco products for these collector cards, and there were Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beach Boys and Dave Clark Five in bubble gum packs.  And the ladies knew who the band members were.  We swapped these cards. Tiger Beat magazine, and the rest, of these magazines targeted to  teeny bopper and pre-teen crowd were marketed heavily as these guys appeared on black and white TV on Ed Sullivan and other variety shows. 

Oh, we knew who the band members were.  They were never anonymous.  :lol

The Beatles were more popular than Jesus.  Lennon was right in a way.  Look at Billboard #1 songs for the years 1964 and 1965. 

I Want To Hold Your Hand...#1 from Jan 26 to March 14, 1964
She Loves You...#1 from March 15 to March 28, 1964
Can't Buy Me Love...#1 from March 29 to May 2, 1964
Love Me Do...#1 from May 24 to May 30, 1964

I Get Around...#1 from June 28 to July 11, 1964

A Hard Day's Night...#1 from July 26 to August 8, 1964
I Feel Fine...#1 from December 20, 1964 to January 9, 1965
Eight Days A Week...#1 from March 7 to March 20, 1965
Ticket To Ride...#1 from May16 to May 22, 1965

Help Me Rhonda...#1 from May 23 to June 5, 1965

Help...#1 from August 29 to September 18, 1965
Yesterday...#1 from October 3 to October 30, 1965

The Billboard chart for the week of April 24, 1964 had records by The Beatles in the top 5 positions.  You'll never see anything like that again.  The Beatles blew everybody away during that timeframe, and a string of hits like that has never been duplicated (and never will).  Unless you were around in those days, you cannot begin to imagine the hype...TV, movies, cartoons, bubble gum cards, and non-stop radio play.  It's no wonder everyone knew their names.  I don't think the general public knew the names of all of the members of any other band in those days (except, you know, Peter, Paul, and Mary or Simon and Garfunkel). 

No surprise.  Even amongst hard core Beachboys fans, Zeppo Wilson remained a little known figure for many decades until his contributions were revealed through diligent research by prominent posters at this very site.

(see the special thread discussing his often unappreciated and behind the scenes contributions)

Evidence of how fungible the members of the Beach Boys were is that they had no problem issuing an album in 1965, Summer Days, in the midst of their hot streak, without Al on the cover. Yeah, I know about him stricken with the "flu bug." i find it interesting that they took photos during the cover sessions on the boat with Bruce. Can you imagine the Beatles putting out an album at the time without George on the cover? I think the anonymous nature of the group members was a function of Murry's light touch as manager. The emphasis was on the Wilson brothers, his kids. Also, the plain truth is that, unlike the four Beatles, the five Beach Boys were not each dynamic, likable personalities. Didnt make much of an impression on fans.

Kiss
the Monkees
the Bee Gees
Led Zeppelin (with John Paul Jones as the other guy)
Abba
the Eagles (almost)
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young

With Kiss I think the drummer is the other guy. I'm not a Kiss fan, but I know just Gene, Paul and Ace.
With ABBA I seriously don't think so. Other than that, I think you're right

LostArt nailed it perfectly. That's why they called it "Beatlemania!". But fille de plage is also right--the fans of the BBs knew who the "boys" were.

My theory is that Ringo was the one who made the mnemonic work...John, Paul, George and Ringo had the perfect oddball euphony to stick in the minds of people from seven to seventy.

Maybe if Dennis had changed his name to Zeppo... but that's another story--and another can of worms!!  :3d

Well, you forgot about Art Haack.

I think it was essentially done to themselves. I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet but, look back to when AL was filling in for Brian in 1963.

Filling in is not in the vocabulary for Beatles concerts. It happened once with Jimmy Nichol filling in for Ringo and got SERIOUS press attention and dissapoint amongst fans.

The Beach Boys had disposable personalities and fairly average traits. With the exception of Mike and Brian's voices...none of the others exactly stuck out in the very early days.

But I think this lack of proper self-promotion is to be expected. From 1955-1962 The Beatles were undergoing countless name and lineup changes. They had seven years to get their sh*t together. The Beach Boys didn't really have that. They were launched into stardom of the music scene whether they liked it or not, and look what it did to Brian. I'd say constantly replacing Brian has made them anonymous.

But in recent years, I would also blame the advent of the backing band as early as 1967. Having a backing band would be a joke to The Beatles. They had Billy Preston on the rooftop in '69 and made everyone quite aware of it. "Get Back/Don't Let Me Down" The Beatles with Billy Preston.

I think the public has not cared to distinguish backing band members from original band members...and I don't blame them! A true rock BANd should not need another BAND to back them up!!!

Fungible is probably not a term I'd assign to them. Fungible generally connotes some commodity such as grain, or money. One dollar bill is the same as the next.  They have pretty distinct personalities, and talents.  Who knows why the cover was released without Al? The Beatles didn't do the hands-on work that the BB's did.  Bands often wore "uniforms" to distinguish them from other bands, and even the Beatles had a "suit" phase, and they seemed to move away from that contemporaneously.  If I remember, one of the Beatles wore a white suit on Abbey Road, a while after the BB's had been wearing those suits, likely the influence of Carnaby St.  

And, I beg to differ. With the exception of Carl, who was really a kid, in the early days, in the shadow of the older guys by about six years, and they all had a personality, especially Mike and Dennis.  Al was a folkie, with that laid-back folkie personality.  And Brian didn't seem to have a hard time telling an emcee of a TV show, what they were working on and what inspired whatever song they were going to sing.  Some stuff is hard to find on YouTube, but there is enough to see differences among them.  They didn't get the "from without" press, as much as the Beatles, except they were around longer.  They had a "sound" that was cohesive, but that doesn't mean they had no personalities off-stage.   ;)

Well, we know that they had personalities. But why would the general public care? Did they care about the personalities of the members of the Dave Clark 5? Tommy James and the Shondells? The Four Tops?

It took until the late 60's/early 70's before there was enough of an active rock press to publicize the individual members of rock groups, and by then, for the Beach Boys, it was 9/10 Brian the genius, 1/10 Dennis and his Manson connection. And by the 80's the Beach Boys might have as well been the Andrews Sisters -- an overall name, and the music attached to that name. No one cared whether Mike was going through a divorce, or whether Al had an opinion about Walter Mondale.

People have made good points In this thread, especially concerning how other bands of the time similarly weren't super well known for their individual members.

But I think my original point of this thread was, the fact that the Beach Boys seem to have been the biggest and most high-profile band that I can think of of their era, to be as anonymous as they were/are.

From Brian be easily able to slip in and out of the band at will in the early days, to Al Jardine's nonappearance on the Summer Days album cover, to their lead singer Mike Love missing some concerts and having it not be any kind of big deal whatsoever in the media, to Mike and Bruce playing hundreds of shows without many audience members really noticing or caring who is onstage. I think this band is a league of their own for being as famous as they are, and as iconic as they are, to have been able to "get away with" this type of anonymity. And I guess I am searching for an answer for why this is, because it is such a bizarre situation.

I'm sure that the band is keenly aware of this themselves and they clearly have taken advantage of this over the years, because truthfully it benefits them to be able to use the band name at will without all members. It certainly may not benefit the brand name of the band in the big picture, from a quality control standpoint, but it has certainly provided short-term "benefits" and cash for the band over the years many, many times.

The Carl of the early 60's was not the same guy when arrested for Draft Dodging.  He became known for his position and it was front page news.  And, similarly situated individuals wanted to hear news of his progress with the case.  My first BB concert was the same week Carl was arrested.  The press gave these band lots of press in the late 60's.  They were consumers, and on the cusp of voting.  The demographic was changing.

The competition in music was fierce, and survival was the name of the game.  Press was paying attention to the Vietnam War.  The music was the emerging vehicle for activism. But there were were a number of one hit wonders.

Dennis was the king of American drummers.  And, after 1965 or so, Brian wasn't on the road.  They weren't the Andrews Sisters.   ;)

But, the premise of the thread is about why the "public at large" never came to know the individual members. Not big time fans. I was young when the Beatles and the Beach Boys were at their height. I wasn't a teen and wasn't in the position to follow them as a real fan. I knew the bands as whole entities because of airplay on the radio and appearances on TV, but the only band I could actually name individual members of was the Beatles.  That was down to the publicity blitz that surrounded Beatle mania.

I guess at some point I became a card carrying, swooning, Tiger Beat buying preteen, but by then the idols had changed to the Monkees, David Cassidy and Bobby Sherman. And, yeah. I knew who they all were.  Not so much the bands. But, by then, I was no longer the "public at large" and was a tween/teen fan girl of the latest crazes. I'm guessing the "public at large" weren't as aware of these guys as I and my friends were.

I guess a modern equivalent would be One Direction. I know who they are. I know they're a band and that they are hot right now with the kiddos. I have no idea who the individual guys are.

Exactly for the reasons you just enumerated.  The Monkees, and the bands became entities. People knew the Monkees. Weekly show, big promos.  It was too late for me, a second-generation fan.  We discussed the music in high school and weren't reading Tiger Beat any longer.  And, looking in music for a "message" such as with Buffalo Springfield who toured with the BB's.   We knew who those guys were. If people liked the albums well enough they looked on the back of the LP to figure it out. I think it went from "amusement" to a "work-in-progress" for protest and picked up where the folk singers who cultivated enormous power with PBS, left off or who were leading the way with music activism. Another exception was the Cowsill band.  People knew who they were.  Not many escaped the "entity" anonymity.

What I think is that generally, the public knew who Dennis Wilson, Brian, and Mike were, and from there, read about Carl in the media, and later Bruce with a Grammy, while on his sabbatical.  And, Al from Rhonda.  I have no idea about One Direction.  My kids are older, and have figured out what they like.  As preteens, I guess that I would know what they were buying as CD's.  And bringing one of my sons to a Smashing Pumpkins concert, about an hour away, killing time, shopping, and telling that one (and his friend) to stay away from the "mosh pit." Ya, right.   :lol

NKOTB became like the Beatles, again.  The kids knew who they were, by name and promo stuff. 

The Beach Boys did get their portion of Tiger Beat features, and Dennis I guess did flutter his share of 12 year old hearts, but he was no Peter Noone.

Carl's draft problems did make the news, but it didn't make him a media personality. DJs playing Beach Boy songs on the radio would occasionally mention Brian's name. Brian was the "star".

Why are fairground and seaworld audiences willing to accept Mike and Bruce as "the Beach Boys"? Same reason they accept "the Grass Roots" or "Herman's Hermits". Those audiences are hicks.

Kiss I'll grant, and the Bee Gees too. CSNY by design is that sort of band. Abba, I know none of their names, just the blonde and the brunette, although I like their music for what it is. The Eagles...sorta. The Monkees I'll also grant.

Led Zep you are right about but their massive amounts of plagiarism has tainted them to me, even though I think Jimmy Page is a really funky guitar player and a good produicer. I was one of those Zep kids when I was a teenager, but I've lost some respect for them as I've gotten older.

Really the only band where every member was vital and they couldn't exist without the full original lineup was the Beatles.

Agreed about Led Zeppelin. The plagiarism has ruined their reputation for me, and those arrogant hardcore Zeppelin fans piss me off to an extent where I just can't listen to Zeppelin anymore.
With Kiss, the drummer is forgetful.

At the height of their career, Peter Criss was more popular than Ace.  He not only had the easiest identity to figure out (a cat compared to a "demon", "star child", and "space ace") but he also sang two of their biggest hits ("Beth" and "Hard Luck Woman"). 

As for Abba, being from the U.S. and considering how big they are overseas, I thought they might be household names there.  I guess it's not the case. 

And Zeppelin is what it is.  I'm not a fan but that doesn't matter in terms of this discussion.

The premise of the thread is about why the "public at large" never came to know the individual members from the bands inception onwards - and, I don't think that's an established/establishabe fact, it's an opinion that can be countered by ancedotal and hard evidence.

I think knowledge of the BB's membership, and many bands, was diluted the longer they stuck around, especially as the BB's split into a distinctly recording versus distinctly touring entities, and as members.  Especially when they all went mega-beard during the '70s, how the hell could you tell anyone from anyone?

I would also suggest the definition of what constitues a big time BB fan has shifted (and will continue to shift) a fair bit through the BB's career; in the eyes of the band and the fan community at large.

Personally, I was a bit taken aback by how many of my fellow Australians attended the C50 gig to seemingly hear Kokomo - but the same crowd were enthusiastic in greeting the lesser known members and were reverently aware of who Carl and Denny were during the tribute videos.

And, Bill F - I didn't notice George Harrison on the cover of the White Album  :lol.  Having said that, Bruce Johnston has noted (several times) that Paul Macca told the BB's to take more care with their album covers; an indicator of the long-term contribution of product-packagin to maintaining a band identity.

.

On Brian Wilson alone, I'd say. Here in Germany you could even take ten strangers from the street, ask them if they knew who Brian Wilson was, and none of them would.

"Hicks" as you say, is a pejorative term represent a "Midwest Farmer's daughter" (son) demographic that was envisioned by the band from the "inclusiveness" of fanbase lyrically.   There was a focused intended purpose in them.  The car thing targeted a non-coastline dynamic and the girl-boy theme appears universal.  They are not a one-trick pony.  I highly doubt that even songs such as "Back Home" envision a solely and wholly urban connotation.  It seems so intolerant and I'm a dyed-in-the-wool city girl.  I just saw my first country fair show a couple of months back, and have seen some of the big bands in Disney. (not the BB's unfortunately)  Even Carl and Brian have said they wanted to appeal to fans, from all walks of life.  Mike put that philosophy to work, lyrically.

Brian was not the star.  That is revisionist.  As I've said earlier, I'm a "second generation" fan.  I never saw Brian for twenty years, not once, between 1967-1987, when I think he was with good old Doc Landy, and came onstage for a few songs, then for the encore. Then, not until Brian toured solo, after Carl died.   

The BB's were an entity, but, by that time people got to know the members as a result of activism, with Carl, and the usual Tiger Beat drivel, but they never got the constant attention of a Peter Noone because there was this seemingly endless industry compulsion to market the "latest flavor" of musical heartthrob.  Davy Jones, Peter Noone, etc. 

The BB's had an "endurance" factor that over-swept them all.  They definitely were in the top three bands with the Beatles and the Stones, but as each new "star" was created, those guys got the press, with the "dolls/action figures"  :lol and the whole soup-to-nuts menu.  The Pet Sounds factor weighed in large, even then, because of its' sustainability.  Many of those other bands, I consider those guys "oldies bands" (Monkees, Herman's Hermits, etc.) but never the Beach Boys, in any configuration.  Brian's band, Al's band, or the Touring Band.  JMHO  ;)

I don't think it's revisionist. Look at the Today! cover and read closely, listen to Mike's introduction of the live Graduation Day...

Brian wasn't there when the band opened for the Grateful Dead and the Beach Boys got a good reception. Do people think Grateful Dead fans are hicks? Granted, that Beach Boys didn't play Kokomo, but the point it, they did okay for decades without his presence in their live act. I don't think people gave it a lot of thought, if they even knew who Brian was.

'Caroline No' was released as a Brian solo record.

 Radio DJs occasionally introduced a Beach Boy record as being "Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys", just like they did Frankie Valli with the 4 Seasons, Eric Burden with the Animals, Diana Ross with the Supremes, before those groups changed their names officially.

Brian was the "star" 1963-67, and especially after Pet Sounds. People who listened to top 40 radio knew his name, and they probably didn't know the name of Al Jardine or Mike Love. Even in the 70's, when they were opening up for the Grateful Dead and Brian wasn't onstage, the cult of Brian the genius figured highly in the musical press. It was Brian that Rolling Stone put on the cover.

Just for some context of this thread, on Roku, I watched a Time-Life (promo video) channel with Mickey Donlenz hosting,  video, of a lot of these groups, who wore "uniforms" as part of their performances, and most of them had a similar suit, or shirt which sort of identified them to an "entity" not exactly rendering them anonymous, but, still to remove confusion about identity.  It does serve a purpose.  They didn't need that thing after a while, after they all became famous.  Even the Beatles had a suit that looked identical.  

Brian, became "conspicuous by his absence" and, myths evolved as to the reasons for his absence from the road, SMiLE becoming an evolving question, as to "when" was it being released.  (I had some fun with one of my kids, the youngest who was a sophomore in high school, while driving him to school, and I told him that I waited since I was a "sophomore in high school" for SMiLE to be released. )  He used to do the Mrs. O'Leary's Cow imitation all the time and found it hilarious.
That said, the Brian mystique I think was a function of "absence making the heart grow fonder" and the concept of Brian holding back the release.  

And, I think the real explosion of super star status came forth when the public saw him emerge after Carl's death, almost like a man who had walked though fire and was still standing.  I mentioned that I didn't see him from 1967-1987 and then not until around the Pet Sounds tour.  It worked for him.  Now, you mention Mike's intro, and of course the guys in the band, knew that his work was cutting edge.  But, it seemed to take a really long time for the public to get beyond not seeing him.  I just accepted that he was writing.  And the touring band were "out there" competing for audiences among the music explosion.

And the Boys' concerts were just extraordinary, so if Brian was writing for them to perform this stuff, fine by us.  Once Brian was solo, there was press coverage, and people got "to know" the composer who was in "the shadows" emerge in triumph.  Then, he was a superstar, with an interesting story to tell, from a new perspective. The real "solo" Brian was on the Leonard Bernstein special from 1967, when he did Surf's Up.  Before the VCR!  :lol

But I think it is sustainability factor, that his and their work has achieved "classic" status.  Not every band enjoyed that status.  In a sense they made each other successful. The live touring kept Brian's name out there, when they didn't have him on the road.  And, he was there for them, working on new music.  But, if you check out that Time Life promo, you can see how fierce the competition and the talent was on the scene at the time.   ;)

There's a difference between stars with the public at large and people who get written about. "Pet Sounds" wasn't a big hit album, and at that point in history, it was mostly the Beatles that dominated the album market. Album oriented rock was a couple of years or so away.  Rolling Stone magazine wasn't around yet when "Pet Sounds" was released, either. Some fans read magazines, most do not. Or they would read something like "Hit Parader," which was about Top 40 singles hits and had the song lyrics of same printed in there, along with a few softball articles. Brian Wilson had and still has a cult, but he doesn't have the mainstream recognition of the public at large that bought millions of Beach Boys' singles early in their career, or bought "Endless Summer" later. Or they know who he is and what he did, but it didn't matter that he wasn't in the live band. Whereas I would think the public at large would have had a problem if even Ringo was missing from a Beatles' line-up.

From my experience, yes. A lot of mystical romantics who live in rural areas seem to be their biggest fans (ie: Madeline Island Wisconsin or Grand Marais Minnesota). Second to those folks seems to be white corporate sales reps acting like they are loose and free (but really are controlling sociopaths). Last, they seemed to attract swingers and perverts hoping to get some action (under the guise of really liking GD concerts). Yes, these are my experiences with GD fans. I apologize if this offends any GD fans in advance.  :angel:

I think saying he was the "star" is revisionist. He was the acknowledged "leader" and that's a whole different thing. Anytime a "leader' was mentioned it was Brian for sure. But in the rise to fame and Beach Boys "mania" days of 63 - 65 Dennis was the closest thing they had to a star. Just read the concert reviews and press accounts from those days and it's mentioned over and over again that Dennis was the most popular with the audiences (yes a majority of them were teen girls, who were also the majority who bought the records and made them hits). I was around back then and I remember the BB's everybody knew were Dennis, Brian and Mike...in that order. I've been told by multiple family, label and management sources, and you can also find mention of this in the early to mid '60's press... that Dennis received as much fan mail as the rest of the group combined. Brian himself recounts being knocked aside by fans trying to storm the stage to get to Dennis. watch the TAMI show or Xmas '64 Shindig footage...the camera lingers on Dennis the most  and it's not an accident, its a direction by the director. Because back then the star was Dennis. Not the leader, that was Brian. Not the front man, that was Mike. But in '64, if you polled BB's fans...whether hardcore or casual...Dennis would have been the Beach Boy with the highest name recognition.

As one of those teen girls "back in the day," I agree 100% with Jon's assessment. DW was indeed the man we screamed for.

However, I learned early on who all the BBs were and knew that Brian was the principal songwriter and producer for the band. It wasn't until the mid-'60s that the media focus shifted to Brian. That was at least partly due to Derek Taylor's p.r. Taylor's hype-heavy style of writing backfired on me (independently of content), and it worked, unfairly, to the detriment of the other band members, imho.

This topic brings up something I'd often wondered: On a few occasions I've read things where Brian says he was driving around with VDP, or someone, and this thing I read said they'd go to a drive-through to get a burger, or something. Whenever I read that I wondered, did anyone at these drive-throughs ever recognize him?

In a way it must have been kinda nice to be so wealthy and "well-known" but still have lots of anonymity. The Beatles went through hell because they couldn't go anywhere without half the population recognizing them and screaming/running after them. On the other hand, being a BB, if you wanted to you could still lead something kinda-sorta resembling a 'normal' life.

Brian was great.

Great post, too bad the Dennis 1964 image stuck. By 1968 he was doing so much more.

Agreed 100%.

Partly due to this seeming "anonymity" issue that the bandmembers had/continue to have, I have experienced an unintended positive result (as a current-day fan), since I can have the pleasure of seeing someone like Al Jardine (or even BW) play solo shows at The Roxy without it being too much of a circus/hassle or costing too much, relative to if it were one of their '60s contemporaries like The Stones or The Beatles.  Even going to see Brian sign autographs at record releases (I went for Imagination in '98 and GIOMH in '04) was not too big of a deal to get into. Part of me wonders if Murry hadn't sold the catalog (and Brian had much deeper pockets), would he be this accessible in 2013?

Obviously, even though the BBs were once considered by many to be as popular, or in similar leagues to those bands, they sunk back from the stratosphere that they reached at their height, and this being the case has made it much more of a pleasure to be a fan. Compare to the utter circus that happens when 2013 Paul McCartney plays an outdoor set on Jimmy Fallon (I think that's what show he recently played on?)... I consider seeing BBs members performing to be as magical (or even more magical) an experience to see when compared to seeing a Stone or a Beatle play live, so this seems to work out well as a fan.

Don't forget Larry King's great question on his show to Brian if at one time the Beach Boys went by "Glen Campbell and The Beach Boys".

I think a good "anonymous" supergroup comparison to the Beach Boys is Pink Floyd. How many regular people know who Roger Waters or David Gilmour are, never mind Nick Mason or Rick Wright? And Floyd has had two of the biggest selling albums of all time in Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall. Despite this, they were able to tour in the 1980s and 1990s to stadium size crowds without Roger Waters, their principal songwriter,

Syd Barrett and Roger Waters seems quite famous to the general public. David i'm not too sure, but definitely not Nick or Rick

They were able to tour because everyone knew David Gilmour would be there!

I think it was because it was Pink Floyd touring, and Pink Floyd was a massive name by then and everyone wanted to see them.
The general public were for the most part unaware of the problems Pink Floyd had in the 80's, they were even unaware of Rick Wright's departure until the Final Cut came out!

But did they ? Two anecdotes spring to mind: during the making of the 1968 comeback special, Elvis kept saying how he was trapped inside because he was recognised wherever he went. Steve Binder pooh-poohed that and bet him that he could stand on a Hollywood street corner and no-one would recognise him. Elvis took him up on that, and no-one did. After 20 minutes EP got bored.

Secondly, The Queen is probably the most recognisable woman in the world (doubt me ? There are tribes in Papua-New Guinea who have never heard of Gaga or Madge, but have pics of EIIR in their homes), yet she can go shopping in local villages when she's in Balmoral or Sandringham untroubled. One woman did remark  once "you know, you look exactly like The Queen", to which Her Maj replied "yes, it has been remarked upon several times". I think she's a lot more fun than she lets on...

My point ? Celebrities like The Beatles and - from the sublime to the unspeakable - Katy Perry might be mobbed if they go out in their star threads (and so they should - it's their job), but if they don't try so hard and dress normally, chances are no-one would notice (especially the latter, who looks close to plain without the slap).

I have read stories about where certain Beatles would go somewhere and be relatively unnoticed. Such as the story about John Lennon (in 1969 I think) who went to a flower stand at an outdoor market in Paris to buy flowers for Yoko, and the woman selling him flowers had no idea he was John Lennon (for all we know, she didn't even know who John Lennon was). But there were other people in the market who knew him (including someone who took a photo), it's just that they decided to leave him alone.

But let's face it, even when the Beatles went places as plainly dressed as they could, and tried their hardest to be/act anonymous, there would always be at least a couple people around who would recognize them. They might just decide to leave them alone. The BB's, on the other hand, were so completely ordinary-looking, with so few people really aware of who they are and what they looked like, that they could go out into the public anonymously much easier than the Beatles. It's all relative.

And I'm sure that's true today,too. If Mike went out in public without his baseball cap, no one would recognize him.

I saw Paul McCartney and Heather Mills walking down a relatively busy street in California probably 8 years ago or so, he didn't appear to have bodyguards, and nobody bothered him. 

My Mum and sister saw David and Victoria Beckham one Sunday in Marks and Spencer's at the height of their fame sans bodyguards etc as well.

Who?

One of the worlds most famous soccer players?

(You can tell he's famous because I said soccer, and am clearly an American who cares f-all about the sport.  ;))

Oh. Soocer. Who gives a rat's ass. This is, last I checked, a BBs board

I love Peter Gabriel!

  Has there been a better film made than Elvis meets Nixon? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ3Tu-VSOPI&list=RDqQQPky5BzqU

I may not be a Soccer fan, but how can you not know who David Beckham is???
He's one of the world's most famous people, and is an household name!

I think the general public who maybe just listen to classic rock or oldies radio might just know the names of bands and some, or several, or many of their songs, but anyone who considers themselves a music fan certainly at least knows the names of the various band members. All it takes is a quick look at an album jacket or CD insert. Let's keep in mind, the members of Pink Floyd, for instance, were on most of their album covers (or in the gatefold, in the case of Meddle and AHM) up until Dark Side, so pretty much anyone who had their albums at home knew what they looked like and what their names were.... Even Dark Side had their faces on the posters that came in the sleeve etc etc.... Same with The Beach Boys.

I think the Beach Boys 'anonymity' is directly related to the lack of BB t-shirts with cartoony versions of the boys with their names under their faces.  T-shirts like this!!

(http://a1.s6img.com/cdn/0012/v/3645872_12728480-tsrmw109_l.jpg)

The Beatles have a thousand shirts with their faces on it, it's almost impossible to find a BBs shirt with them on it.

(and by the way, if you like my shirt, go buy it here! http://society6.com/dellydel/Alan--Dennis--Brian--Mike--Carl_T-shirt#11=49&4=78  )   ;D

In summer of 1970 I was at old ASCOT raceway in the south bay area of southern California at a dirt bike race. I was standing in line to get something to drink and 5-6 people in front of me was Dennis.. I didn't know this until he walked by me. I went Hey Dennis.! Not real loud but I got his attention.. He went into the crowd and  vanished like a ghost..  He did NOT want to be noticed and I was the only one that did.. Dressed like he appeared  in  Two Lane Blacktop.  In 1976-77-78 at Brother studios Dennis would eat at a little café up the street walking there and back. Very few people knew or at least reacted to who he was..  The Beach Boys back then were easy to meet .. Just go hang around Santa Monica..

This will always strike me a bizarre beyond belief.  I mean, I read Al was sick for the photo shoot, so, GEEZ the brain dead people in charge of their schedule couldn't reschedule it???  Amateur hour.

Al wasn't at the All Summer Long cover photo shoot either. His photos were "flown in" from a separate shoot. Notice he's not in any of the cover photos with the other Beach Boys.

This has mystified me for years. It's funny the things that bother you...

First, if Al was "sick", how long is one USUALLY ill? A day? Two days? And they absolutely couldn't re-schedule the photoshoot? ::)

Second, ironically, the Summer Days album contained two of Al's best and most popular lead vocals, "Help Me Rhonda" - only a Number 1 single - and "Then I Kissed Her", another single. :o

Third, talk about a lack of respect. Think about how Al must've felt... :-[

Late to this party but many bands are huge but the members are not well known. U2 being an example, Pink Floyd even, all the big ones.

Everyone knows "The Beach Boys" and Brian Wilson is very famous and that's all that matters

There's no way that would've happened if it were any other member of the band who had been sick. They most certainly would have rescheduled the shoot. Mind you, I'm talking about the same era, mid 60s.

Maybe it's stuff like this that led Al to have a big chip on his shoulder for years, as has often been claimed. I can't say I blame him.