The Smiley Smile Message Board

Why did Pet Sounds almost top the chart in the UK and barely top ten in the US? And the other albums that sold well in England but not here??? Has NOTHING to do with the music....has to do with poor marketing/promotion in the US, the fixation of vietnam and all the awful music thanks to the hippie bs...the BBs never made a weak album til after Holland..

That's a very complicated subject, there.  Obviously, there's no one clear answer, but a number of reasons.  1966-1971 is my personal favorite BB's era, and in my fantasy world, those records should have been flying off the shelves.  America turned their back on the boys after they outgrew the surf 'n' cars phase.  Apparently Europe saw their music differently.

I'm very unsure about this but I think I once heard that Pet Sounds sold much better than what was said in the 60s but that didn't come out until years later. If there's some truth to it maybe somebody can fill in here. I never quite understood what this was about.

#10 on the charts in the US, #2 in the UK.

Like sockittome said above, there are a number of reasons. You could probably list a half a dozen good ones. Here's one: Brian Wilson had 8 lead vocals on Pet Sounds alone. In the ensuing 9 years (1967-1975), how many lead vocals did Brian have on Beach Boys' albums?

This has got to be the most perplexing part of the story.  How can those figures be equated with failure, which is what many people make PS out to be sales-wise?  This is a relatively small dip from previous albums, and what band wouldn't be happy with a #10/#2 charting?

You are right-it's a complicated subject. My favorite era would go something like 65-72, but one part of an answer may be somewhat linked to the times and what was going down in America between late 66 up to the early to mid 70's. Nixon, Vietnam, racial tension, demonstrations, etc., Outings such as Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends, 20/20, and Sunflower, in spite of their merits(except SS) did not jive with the times. Kids were growing up, turning on, and had a wide range of "hip" music to accommodate their inner rage at the system. I cannot tell you the difficulty in being a huge fan back in those days and the hard bark one needed to shrug off the snide remarks made about your favorite band.

true..

My favourite era ran from Little Deuce Coupe [which to me was the first GREAT BB's lp] to Holland.  That said I had to pause with my enthusiasm when both Party and Smiley Smile arrived.  I was usually impressed with the growth of the content in both musical and production quality and with the lyrical content.

I'd have been 14 when Pet Sounds was released.  2 of us in our ltlle pack bought it.  The rest listened to it and enjoyed it.  Who knows?  Maybe later in life they bought it too?  The marketing over 'ome/across the foam was pretty smart.  Over here it was pretty much reputation alone which sold the new allbum to existing fans.  All we knew was it was the new album and that it had Sloop John B on it.

It seems there were 3 things which hurt the group's perception with people I've spoken to about them years after the facts. (1) Those early surfin' and car tunes typecast the Beach Boys with a segment of the N. American population.  Subsequent hits didn't change that...not even Good Vibrations just 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 years later.  (2) Those dumb-ass 'outfits' they wore on stage dated the group into a laughing stock pit...so that while the initial 'In Concert' album was a HUGE seller it also presented the boys as fashion dinks. and (3) There were some people who just didn't like the nasal sound of the Mike Love leads and that turned them away.

T'was those 3 things and poor choices made which hurt the Beach Boys.  Monterey?  The huge time-frame between Good Vibrations success and the release of the next single which over half a year later turned out to be Heroes and Villains.  The even bigger gap between Pet Sounds and the Smiley Smile release.  What was that 15 months w/o a new album?  In THAT era?  Smiley Smile INSTEAD of Smile?  Smiley Smile?  Really???  After THAT long a spell of inactivity the home run was very much needed...not the bunt.

There was enough stuff to keep going and Carl and Dennis added some know-how and Jack Rielly almost turned the ship around but ultimately after Holland [and after Jack] without a fully involved and committed Brian...it was hit or miss.  The damage was done.

But the tours were GREAT.

The reason the albums didn't sell is the same reason they DID sell. 

There's no reason somebody should record an album, and then millions of people buy it and worship it like we all do, all the time.  It's just a few guys making music, but yet everybody in the world builds them up to messiah level and we act like it's the best stuff we've ever heard, etc. 

It's a pop culture thing, it's the definition of pop culture.  No band can get anywhere near as big as the Beach Boys got in the early 60's without a huge swath of people buying their albums, going to their shows, and listening to their songs simply because everybody else is doing it, and it's cool.  It's the thing to do in those times. 

When the pendulum swings the other way, and the times change, and other things seem more important or more cool, those same fans (who may have been TRUE fans and truly enjoyed the music) may not buy as much or attend as much, or listen as much.  It's what pop-culture is all about.  They had their time... actually they had their time, SEVERAL times.  Every band goes through this, but hardly any are as resilient as the Beach Boys were with it.

Like others said, it didn't help much that the band's management (including the band members) made some poor choices, their entire career.

It didn't happen in England as severely because they're less inclined to sway with pop culture.  America lives and dies on it. 

So was the promotion of the albums different in the UK, or was it all due to the public response?

When the accounting that resulted in PS being awarded a platinum disc was being done, it was discovered that it had sold enough to go gold in the summer of 1967... but as Capitol never requested an audit, it wasn't ratified as such.

Also, not all albums that sold poorly in the US did better in the UK: in fact some that sold well in the US didn't sell AT ALL in the UK - of the seven albums released in the UK 1962-65, only one (LDC) charted at all - granted, the British album chart back then was only a Top 20, but even so...

Thanks! That's what I thought about but I never can remember it exactly....
So it was a steady seller after reaching it's highest chart placing I guess?

Entered the charts May 28th at #106, dropped out February 25th - a 39 week run. During that time, it was in the Top 40 for 21 weeks and in the Top 20 for 12 weeks. One week at #10.

By comparison, the first Best Of... charted for a total of 35 weeks, of which 18 were spent in the Top 40 (non-consecutivve), 9 in the Top 20 and 6 in the Top 10.

Given that Best Of... was certified gold on April 12th 1967 (because Capitol asked for and funded an audit), a summer award for Pet Sounds is unquestionable.

Obviously they've been so certain in their opinion that Pet Sounds wouldn't sell, they didn't even bother to check how it did! Unbelievable!



That's subject to opinion, though. There is a number of albums I find weak in that era. And I don't mean the Party album that many people loath.

thats insane! So capitol pretty much dropped the ball on PS in the US for no legit reason,  the sales were made but not reported correctly?? Didnt that cost them an insane amount of money and notoriety?

 In my opinion the Beach Boys were hurt by their name....... the Beach Boys and all the baggage that came with it ( clean cut, square striped shirts etc)  .   To the average person it conjured up something passe and square. What if they were called something such as  " Hawthorne " or even "The Wilsons"  Having the word " boys " in your name or "kids"  is gonna be a drag once you are men.
 Plus a lot of their music was actually too subtle or sophisticated for the average ear.

Andrew - I'm glad to read that it was platinum-worthy in 1967.  Thanks.  Looking back, it makes perfect sense.  There were three singles (I'm excluding Caroline No) that were solid, including that side B (GOK) and always cheaper to buy a $3.00 LP, if there were multiple singles, at $1.00 each.

But,it smacks of colossal incompetence to not have that audit in place.  But something is wrong. If they were producing them, and selling them, no one noticed the profits? That is just not credible, and a huge disconnect as between the sales and the non-promotion. If (I'm wearing my "other hat") there was an "agreement" to not promote the BB's newer work, to their detriment (BB's) it might have been intentional, to advance the work of "others" under contract.  

At that time, who would have known this marginalization of the work, could have been happening.  But the facts do speak for themselves.  And those idiots, releasing GH pack-ups, as the BB's are impressed that they are on their way out, as their best work was developing and emerging.  I'm looking up at my old $3.00 Pet Sounds, and it still aggravates me.

Guess they call that sabotage.  Thrown under the bus by those who were in the position to be advancing their work.

Some advice - if you want to be taken seriously here, and not invoke my ire at the same time, try reading what I actually posted correctly. I said that by summer 1967, the album had sold enough to go gold, not platinum. I realise English isn't your first language but even allowing for that, there's a considerable difference - if only visually - between "gold" and "platinum".

Moving on... Best Of... may have, at best, equaled the sales of Pet Sounds but it sure as hell turned in a much bigger profit, as the tracks were already "paid for": all Capitol had to do was choose the tracks (with a pin, apparently), pull the masters from the vaults, band it, do some speedy artwork and hey presto - an album ! Pet Sounds incurred additional recording and mastering costs.

Ouch!  Talk about getting skewered for a simple mistake!  And I think fille will be surprised to learn that English isn't her first language.

Andrew - my bad in substituting one precious metal for another.  As far as I'm concerned it is "de minimus." The point is lost in the nitpicking. That raises my ire.  Isn't it the concept in discussion as opposed to the form. And while we are nitpicking, someplace on this board, you wrote "Surfin U.S.A.." and we consider the period in an abbreviation sufficient for punctuation. A little tolerance might be in order. None of us is perfect.  This isn't a Warriner's English class.  ;)

The point is that, according to your earlier post, Pet Sounds did better than ever acknowledged.  And that seems vexatious, to me, given those years.  

And, linguistically, I realize, that the British spoke and wrote English, before the Americanized version of English evolved. We aren't here for that, last time I checked.

"Gold" and "platinum" are numerical values in the industry, metaphorically speaking, as well as precious metals. Best of vol. I, was released less than two months post Pet Sounds.  Hardly a vote of confidence.  

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Beach Boys highly respected in the states through the end of 66, if not a few months into 67? Wasn't there a lot of anticipation for Smile at the time by the hip crowd of the time? Was Pet Sounds album of the year, or was that just in the UK? And the number one vocal group or just in the UK? I still believe a lot of their image was squarely on themselves. Had Smile been finished and released in the spring of 67 and they stopped wearing matching uniforms on stage it would have made a world of difference. What they wore on the cover of Pet Sounds or Smile era photos would have been good enough to help keep them hip along with Smile. That's my theory and I'm sticking with it :)

This is a gross oversimplification, and merely my semi-informed opinion, but the BBs fate was sealed in summer 1967 for the following reasons:

lack of Smile...

dropping out of Monterey Pop...

Sgt. Pepper...

I'm of the belief that had they playes Monterrey with their live ability at that specific date, it may have done even more harm. Once they added auxiliary members though they were golden.

You're very probably right.

Yes, showing up at Monterey Pop in their striped shirts singing Barbra Ann would have been worse! The band probably could have used 3 months off to practice as well. Maybe from December til the festival. Improving their live show would have helped.

Probably would have been worse...although Sha Na Na went over well at Woodstock. 

Maybe it's because I wasn't around back then, but I highly doubt showing up at Monterey would have had any positive impact on their popularity (assuming everything went well) aside from a few hippies in the area.  As others have said it was because of the long wait from Pet Sounds to the next album, and all of the excitement for SMiLE only to seemingly have it replaced at the last second with Smiley Smile.  America had moved on after that point. 

The reason the Bb didn't sell in America is because of that other "bea" group. I think they were called The Beatles. Money wasn't unlimited, and the kids decided to spend it on that British Group.

I was at Monterey, and it would depend on "how" the Beach Boys would have shown up and performed as far as how they'd have been received. Monterey was the festival that was all peace and love.  The police had flowers on their helmets and motorcycles and the audience was very mellow and really receptive.  Hostility would have been the most uncool thing possible there. It was quite an experience just being there.

Now those of you who were fans at the time will remember (if you're too young to know the climate then, all you have to do is look at the vintage magazines from that period and you'd also see) that Brian was considered VERY cool during this period.  He was the genius in everyone's eyes.  Derek Taylor did a magnificent job with that PR during that period, just like he had done great PR for the Beatles, and the music proved him right.  If the band showed up doing quality versions of the new stuff, they'd have done well.  If band members were insisting on something else, then I understand why Brian pulled them from the festival. 

I have no idea what the band's plans were then, or how many of them were on board to do the new music as Brian likely would have wanted. I wasn't at the Ivar offices until '69 and certainly wasn't in on much of the business dealings even then. I'm just passing along the public mood and attitude towards Brian and the Beach Boys then, and the general mood of the festival.  "Fun, Fun, Fun" in striped shirts definitely would have confused the audience with this "retro too soon" presentation.  It would not have been cool.  "Surf's Up" would have had them out of their seats with those ethereal vocals and lyrics.

Sadly, Monterey was part of the woulda', shoulda', coulda' from that period.  How much of the problem was Brian smacking up against a wall of egos and blow back from some of the family and business people when he tried to get people onboard for a new direction, I really don't know, as I wasn't there.  I just saw the results when I arrived and have my own opinions as to what happened.  It's complicated, and we all know the value of a lot of opinions, so I'll leave it at that.

The Beach Boys squandered the public's ears. Pet Sounds was a big image change that the public wasn't completely ready for, but then "Good Vibrations" won America over. Then BBs squandered that by releasing THREE noncommercial albums. Smiley Smile was way too weird for a pop group. Wild Honey was half-assed. Listen to "Darlin'". A great song at heart, but basing the arrangement around Brian's basic piano pluncking? And why do the horns during the second verse so weak and neutered? It just doesn't make sense, really. Brian finally gets his production act together for Friends, but the songs are proto-Love You in nature. I adore Friends, but I can easily see how it wasn't a hit. In a sense it was a really bold, risky move.

And really, 20/20 is just a mess, too, for that matter. "Do It Again", like "Darlin'", was at least a step in the right direction. People wanted awesome songs about love from the Beach Boys, but Brian increasingly wanted to write about world peace, being friends, and birds or water. And he wasn't arranging like before, either. He was really leaning on his piano as an easy crutch and the group wasn't getting the same sound quality on his recordings as they did in the group's heyday. I listen to "Do It Again" and wonder why it doesn't sound as awesome as what the Stones were doing. Compare it to "Honky Tonk Woman".

Really, only a couple BB songs did dramatically better in the UK. I think, probably, their was no negative stigma about the surf image in the UK to overcome. They looked at it as fun exotica, not representative of a lame, outdated lifestyle.

Things changed very quickly in '67. For example, the reputations of the Mamas and the Papas or the Association as they stood at the beginning of '67 versus how their reputations stood by the end of the year. The Beach Boys were by no means alone.

It's not discussed as often, but pop music in America changed just as drastically in '64 as in '67. Beginning of the year, you couldn't get much cooler than the Ripchords or Jan and Dean, by the end of the year they were washed up.

The Beach Boys made the transition in '64, but didn't in '67. The late 70's did in Dylan and the Stones. It happens to everyone.

I would be more inclined to compare "Wild Honey" to McCartney's first solo album than I would compare "Do It Again" to the Stones.  Paul even made reference in his biography to the kind of disintegration that takes place when an artist has reached a peak and then takes a new direction.  Brian's peak, "Smile" was a cohesive and coherent work like "Sgt. Pepper" and his lyricist was every bit as clever as Lennon/McCartney, if possibly somewhat less commercial.  Would it have been over the fans' heads?   Maybe.  We'll never know.  "Do It Again" certainly doesn't strike me as any new direction Brian was taking.  

As far as "Pet Sounds'" reception, who knows how much was a bungled presentation by Capitol and some convenient accounting that was later corrected?  Keep in mind that the BBs were trying to start their own label, so we may never know what was going on with the promotion.  As you say, "Good Vibrations" certainly wasn't a dud in sales.

Like you, I personally loved "Friends" and so did Brian.  I feel a bit like he was gently soothing himself with that record as much as he was those of us who loved it.  Things had already gone south on Brian by then and to put it bluntly, he was in the game but "playing hurt."  Was he also pretty angry about the position he was in?  You'd have to ask him.  I certainly would have been.  20/20 also had some beautiful stuff.  Was Brian's heart in it?  Maybe parts of it, maybe not.  There are songs on all of those records I adore, in any case.

Clack did hit on something in that there is "a time" for everyone.  Teddy Kennedy even said that about his family in politics.  There are times when you click with the public and times when you don't.  On the other hand, if "Smile" had come out it would have been a real turning point.  It's reception then?  We'll never know, and as I said about Monterey Pop...I have my own opinions as to what got in the way.

Interesting that you mention what they were wearing. Carl had a 3/4 coat known as a "bench warmer." Everyone wore one. I thought Carl was so cute, wearing "my" coat!

But among all the other album covers competing for visual space in a record store, the green cover didn't "pop." Red catches the eye. That is why traffic lights and stop signs are red. Album artwork is huge. It's the book cover. And people do "judge the book by the cover." Who's the competition? The Stones, The Beatles, The Supremes.  Ricky Nelson. Dino, Desi and Billy.  Competing for the $3 from babysitting or an allowance. A kid's "disposable income."

Most primary (red, yellow and blue) colors, do catch the eye.  Eye popping psychedelic artwork was emerging.  Smiley is green. A year is almost a lifetime in music. Someone mentioned the other B band.

But, my question is what happened between the release in 1966 and 1967, where were the "bean counters" who should have had it numerically down?  Where was the massive promotion? There were three solid singles: Sloop, WIBN, and GOK.  Paying for the LP got you the whole enchilada, whereas the singles only got you a few songs.  Pet Sounds was out on May 16, 1966.  Smiley came out September 18, 1967.

Was there a PS promo tour in 1966? Was there TV variety show promo tour hitting all the hosts, like Merv, Mike Douglas, the teen shows, etc.? Every week matters, when Cousin Brucie, on WABC, in NY, Arnie Ginsburg in Boston, are analyzing all those new songs with newcomers, jockeying for position in the weekly Top Ten Hit Parade? You are up one week, and down the next.

Without this promotion, and support, they may have lost hard-earned traction and momentum.

The work, itself, eventually "righted the ship."  ;)

I get what you're saying. My point was just that "Do It Again" should've rocked more. The songwriting was right on with that song, but it sounds lo-fi compared to what the Stones were pumping out. I believe I actually got into a long discussion on here with Desper about this. Even listening to the mono version of "Honky Tonk Women", it really pops out of the speakers in comparison. Brian was going for a Spectorish vibe, perhaps (I don't know), but that time had long since passed. And personally, I don't think "Do It Again" sounds as good on my speakers as "Help Me Rhonda". It just isn't what you expect from the Beach Boys.

"Pet Sounds was out on May 16, 1966.  Smiley came out September 18, 1967. "

Pet Sounds was at least given a little fanfare when it was released...and it came hot on the heels of Sloop John Bs scaling the record and radio charts.
 Smiley Smile was pretty much snuck onto the record store shelves under cover of the night.  They included Good Vibrations because...well..they had to.  It deserved to be included on some kind of 12 inch presentation even if it was that awful excuse for a release.  Heroes and Villains had come and gone so there was NO flow from hit song to immediate lp release as had been the case virtually with every album which preceded that green bomb.  At that time I was [and remain] a died-in-the-wool Beach Boys fan.  I bought everything they released the moment it arrived in the stores,  I didn't even know Smiley Smile was 'out' until I accidently found it while renting a PA system  in a musical instruments store for a gig our little band was doing...in MID OCTOBER.  Great lp cover...artistically speaking.  The contents?  Laughable.  [in a very bad way]  Never had I been so disappointed with a BB's release.  In fact with the exception of Party...which struck me as a WTF throwaway release...I had always been pretty happy with the sounds and the progress.  It was if the 'boys' were maturing with me.  I was expecting something resembling the album we had all heard SO MUCH about...ie: Smile.

So...for me...as staunch a fan as any...I waited 17 months for a piece of rat sh*t.  [or a "bunt".]

As for wanting Do It Again to sound like a Stones song?  That was never going to happen.  Nothing the BBs ever did sounded remotely like a Stones song.  Do It Again was Mike driven.  He wanted to go back and do it again.  Given what was released in the fall of 67...I'd have wanted to go in that direction too.  The boys were sailing a ship with NO rudder.   As great an arranger as Brian was...and seems to be again...he has never been one to record and finish a ROCK song.  He never was great at getting a BIG drum sound.  But instrumentation and vocals?  Step aside world and learn how it's done.

I still maintain that Brian stepped away from touring and appearing live because the group and backing band could NOT deliver performances worthy of Brian's skill, his unique ear and his creative imagination.  They just couldn't.  Now he has a band who can...and he tours.

Add Some, I went through the same exact thing you did with Smile/Smiley Smile. Totally agree with your post with the exception of nothing remotely sounds like a Stones song. My first reaction to "Mess of Help" was that they were trying very hard to copy their sound. A bit of tweaking here and there could have produced a nice hit, but the stations wouldn't play it.

Ah yes OSD...Brian was perhaps less involved at that juncture?  More Jack influenced maybe?  Still...as cool a rocker as that Carl and the Passions song IS...it ain't the Stones.   It's the Beach Boys just expanding their own horizons.  I guess it would be kinda like sayin' the Stones were trying to sound like the Beach Boys during their We Love You/Dandelion phase.

This is what I've been thinking about the post-SMiLE Brian for a long time but failed to put it in words as striking as yours.



With the same arrangement, recorded in a professional studio, Brian plucking a grand piano instead of that old upright, IMHO Darlin' would have sounded as great as Brians 1965-65 productions. About the horns... I don't think you'd find any more neutered horns/trumpets/trombones than on TLGIOK, so that would probably not have been any better on Darlin'. And personally, I agree with your statement about the Wild Honey album. If it sounded like "Old Man Sunshine" production wise, whoa, that would have been something!



I agree with this on the song, but not on the album. I recently bought the new vinyl print of the Friends album, heard it with kind of fresh ears, and found that most of the album has production value on the backing tracks on the level of the Party album. Just compare the bass playing with SD/SN or Pet Sounds, you might get what I mean.



As 1968 songs, I'd rather compare it with "Jumpin' Jack Flash" and "Revolution" (single). It does sound pedestrian compared to them, but at least not as dull as 1967's "Hello Goodbye".

I think the fact that The Beach Boys were far less successful in the UK en Europe than they were in the US before 1966 might have a lot to do with their success in Europe from 1966 onwards. To give you an idea: 'Sloop John B' was only their third top 10 hit in the UK and Germany and their very first (!) in The Netherlands. The Beach Boys were much less burdened by prejudice and by their old image in Europe than they were in the US. Europe might be a little bit more open minded than the US are to begin with, but I'm sure that it didn't hurt the sales of the 1966-1973 albums that Europe just wasn't really overtly familiar with the sun & fun hits.

Ultimately the group was dependent on their distinct sound and on the creative skills of its songwriter.

The problem is primarily with Brian; he had a big ego.

Brian had gone from cutting edge to cutting edge. He had always pushed the envelope and progressed the groups sound with the times while still making it sound like the Beach Boys.

[Surfin' USA - Fun, Fun, Fun, I Get Around, Help Me Rhonda, California Girls, Wouldn't It Be Nice, Good Vibrations] were all a seemingly progressive style which went from the surf rock to the baroque pop, but each stage was linked to the previous. The gradual step was not that significant.

However Brian's artistic ambitions were becoming huge. He wanted to be best: both critically, artistically and commericially. He had come to expect success no matter what he did. Pet Sounds was him pushing in a new direction which he thought would receive all of this. It partially did, but he wanted to wow audiences more with the followup Smile. He teamed up with another big ego; Van Dyke Parks. They collaborated under the premise that 'you are the best, so am I. together we can do anything'. Both of them wanted to be at the pinnacle. For well known reasons this relationship broke down and Smile collapsed once Brian couldn't hold onto his mojo.

Heroes and Villains was doomed to fail. Regardless of what version would come out it did not fit into the 'distinct sound' all the previous hits had contained. It was simply far out and disconnected with the publics perception of their sound.

I agree that Friends wasn't as good of a production as Pet Sounds or even SD/SN. BUT it's way better than Wild Honey. The production sounds competent and professional.

That would've been better, yes. But after listening to James Jamerson's Motown work, I can't help but feel that Brian's pretty rudimentary piano playing on the song held it back. I don't actually know who plays bass on "Darlin'", but it's in Jamerson's style (at least in the verse, when the bass mercifully has a little freedom), and to my ears it sounds restrained by Brian's own bass notes.

"Heroes and Villains was doomed to fail. Regardless of what version would come out it did not fit into the 'distinct sound' all the previous hits had contained. It was simply far out and disconnected with the publics perception of their sound."

Heroes and Villains peaked at #5 in Toronto.  It was in the top 10 for just 2 weeks.  I guess that would be seen by some as a failure after Good Vibrations but really?  A pretty decent showing in the summer of 1967 for a song with no drums...no lead guitar...none of the typical basics of a hit song.  The version released was also, in retrospect, kind of 'off'.

Wild Honey really was the opposite of the Smile [not smiley smile] production values.  Just a back to basics, inexpensive, quick little production done, I guess, just to get  the group back working in the studio again.  I like Friends and did from the get-go.  It was the first Beach Boys' album I had to buy a 2nd time due to wearing it out...on vinyl.  Subsequently I had to buy a 2nd cd as well.

Except for Transcendental Meditation...which doesn't really fit...I still like the album plenty.  Little Bird was a real eye opener back then.  Dennis?  Wow!!!

My opinion is there is something "different" about the Beach Boys to the average "serious" music listener. I've never been able to put my finger on it ... I've often tried to win over skeptics with the good stuff, but it sometimes goes right over their heads. I feel like the upper-range vocals, harmonies and complex/ethereal backing tracks are just *not* rock-n-roll enough for some people. I think the very thing that makes Brian's and the group's music stand head and shoulders above anything else to some people like us serious fans, are the very things that make them a little weird for the average music listener.

I also feel that Brian's music has an innocence and vulnerability that really speaks to me that is absent in most other music. I know this is going to sound strange, but the only other music I have found something like this in are the songs of Mister Rogers, which I also really love. I think the works of both men offer comfort and healing.

And thanks Debbie for adding your thoughts once again ... I always find a lot of insight in your posts.

Is that why the Beach Boys had 3 number one hits and many top 40 hits while the Beatles were a band? Is that why several other groups were highly successful in the late 60s? I understand that money is limited,  but I don't think that was the downfall. 

Growing up in those times, to me it seemed to be mostly a perception problem. They didn't look hip, act hip, sound hip (instrumentally). The Beach Boys are not edgy and that is really what most "hip" people were into. On AM radio they weren't bubble gum enough for younger fans, weren't poppy enough for the older non-hippy folks. This is why Jack Rieley was so successful, he changed the perception of the band. Took them to the young people by playing the college circuit. Letting them see and hear what the Beach Boys were all about at that point and time. He gave them a bit of edginess and promoted the Smile myth. But this is a cycle that many good artists go through throughout their careers. Sinatra is the first one that comes to mind. Even a band like Chicago had to through it in the late 70's and early 80's before they got their second wind in the mid to late 80's. 

Folks seem to view late '60's Beach Boys as being some sort of failure -- their concerts weren't drawing, their records weren't selling, they were no longer seen as cutting edge.

But if you view them in the context of some of the other bands of the era -- say, the Dave Clark 5, Herman's Hermits, the Monkees -- all of them as commercially successful as the Beach Boys, and all of them done by 1970, then you might say that the late 60's were a triumph for the Boys. Against the odds, they survived when so many of their peers lost their record deals and disbanded.

Well, we're talking strickly in the U.S., but the reason they were able to stay together was:
1. They were family
2. They still had a big fanbase outside of the U.S.
3. Mo Ostin loved them and took a chance on them by signing them to Reprise.
4. They had a manager and a plan to regain their popularity in U.S. after 1970

Again...they went for 16 months...17 if you weren't really, REALLY on your TOES...'cause there was NO hit song heralding the arrival of a NEW Beach Boys album.  Heroes and Villains had already come and gone and there was NO follow up.  Why?  Because Smiley Smile didn't contain anything worthy of single release.  [and precious little worthy of release period...but that is only *MY* opinion.]  This album was ever-so-quietly snuck out onto the record store shelves.  No fanfare.  No promotion of note.  No one singing its praises.  It was just..."Shhhh...it is here.  We don't know what to say.  It's got Good Vibrations on it.  Gulp!!!"

Everthing else they did in the 60s was taking them in the right direction...although it was a bit of a trip, stumble, fall, get up and keep on truckin' kind of post Smile daze. which found them re-emerging with Sunflower, Surf's Up, Carl and the Passions, Holland and a fanatastic live album which all added up to signal North America and the world that one of the BEST live acts of the entire decade was ready to get 'er done.  [and they did...in spite of themselves]

The talent and body of work prevailed until 'stupid' finally took over.  [everyone contributing to some degree to help give stupid the power to reign supreme.]

The Beach Boys put the general public to sleep for too long.  By the time they were ready to roll again...the general public had moved on to the flavours of the day. 

Please explain how they put us to sleep? It is not like they didn't release singles to go along with the albums released. Some of those songs did quite well everywhere but here in the U.S. Some did do well here. Maybe not like 1966 and prior, but Heroes, Darlin' , Do It Again and I Can Here Music did decently well. Cottonfields was top 5 in many countries, yet didn't make a dent here.

I like your sentiment -- especially the hippie BS part!   :rock 

It's part of the equation -- not the whole equation, as others have detailed -- but a piece of it.  It was Politics.  Music was now "important."  Important to mobilizing the youth.  It became the soundtrack to the movement -- useful in teasing the otherwise non-interested into action.  And Brian Wilson's growth wasn't useful to that agenda.  The soundtrack needed to motivate disobedience and anti-American, anti-Capitalist social behaviors.

The Beach Boys didn't fit the agenda.  Musically, you're right, the Beach Boys were in fantastic form.  But they weren't deemed useful. 

"Please explain how they put us to sleep? It is not like they didn't release singles to go along with the albums released. Some of those songs did quite well everywhere but here in the U.S. Some did do well here. Maybe not like 1966 and prior, but Heroes, Darlin' , Do It Again and I Can Here Music did decently well. Cottonfields was top 5 in many countries, yet didn't make a dent here."

When did Good Vibrations slide off the top 40 charts?  2nd week of January 1967 about right?  Wasn't that about the time 'Smile' was supposed to arrive on the store shelves?  GREAT lead in.  Perfect.  Home run?  The plan marches on.  The Beach Boys are totally valid and they have the entire worlds attention.  Smile is accepted.  The Beach Boys  'bury' surfin' music before anyone EVER hears of Jimi Hendirix...who, instead, got to do it for them.  But THAT didn't happen.  Instead DICK-ALL happened.

When Good Vibrations had completed it's run as one of the GREATEST singles ever recorded...The # 1 song in N America was I'm a Believer by you know who.  By the time they finally squeezed Heroes and Villains onto the upper reaches of the charts for a few quick weeks....The Doors had lit a Fire.  Jefferson Airplane were pulling Rabbits out of a hat.  Traffic was singing about a Paper Sun.  The Box Tops were mailing Letters.  Procol Harum had a different 'take' on a whiter sand Pale and Glen Campbell had launched a successful solo career.  That's a lot of sh*t to have happen while the boys just spun their wheels in the sand.

From Pet Sounds...back in the late SPRING of 1966...to Good Vibrations in the late/fall winter of '66, which made the Beach Boys 'all that' in the UK, they followed up with???  Almost nothing.  Back then...singles drove album sales in a meaningful way.  Darlin'?   It did OK....more than a year after Good Vibrations was at its peak.   [Wild Honey?  A bit of a failure in terms of singles chart success]    6 months later....Do It Again?  Not a bad result.  I Can Hear The Ronnetes?  50-50.  Bluebirds Over the Mountain?  Whoops.  Friends?  Not too many left.  The excellent Add Some Music to Your Day?  Huh?  Add what?  I need to explain?

They had the music lovin world by the short and curlies...panting for MORE...as 1966 drew to a close.  And they gave them...after keeping them waiting close to a year and a half for a new album...Smiley  >:D Smile...followed almost as if they were embarrassed by the kind of hastily tossed together Wild Honey album.   Too little...way too late.  And I need to explain?

Explain what?  That the world had passed them by?

Only the heavy duty fans remained...hoping for better.  We would be rewarded.

Everybody else?

Crickets.

I never said the world didn't pass them by, because in fact, they did. You and I have a different perception of "doing nothing" and "spinning wheels". While I agree with you that they didn't strike while the fire was hot in late 66 through early 67, they did in fact keep quite busy with two albums in 1967 and one each in 1968 and 1969. None of the songs that they released were terrible songs, they just didn't fit in any one category like hard rock, bubblegum, soul, etc. Even to my own friends who knew how much I loved the band and heard their music through me, never did they think that any of it was cool or relevant to the anti-war or hippy movement going on in the U.S.. Back then if you didn't fit into a label, you were nothing. Well, I take that back, they were labeled, "Square" and it killed their reputation as a rock band.

The music was hardly a failure.  What may have failed was this stereotypical imagery that the public had, and the total failure ( strong but probably accurate) to maintain traction and momentum by the record company, with Pet Sounds and Smiley in particular.  And, although the Beatles shed their suits, the BB's weren't allowed to do so, without being perceived as hypocrites and fakers.  From striped shirts, to suits, to street clothes. 

Cottonfields was one of those songs that was in the old American folk song catalog, but taken in context of the racially inflammatory US, it went right under the bus, as any song such as "Jimmy Crack Corn and I don't care, my Master's gone away" among others were purged from music anthologies in schools.  Cottonfields is a great song, but the connotation was exactly wrong in this country (US) at that time.  In fairness, we didn't know that half the nursery rhymes had some double entendre as well.

What is amazing is that they heroically went to Prague, in 1969 a move that couldn't have been more "activist" but never really got the accolades they merited for thinking globally.  There is still an article from the Prague -Post with a pretty poor quality photo.  Two students had self-immolated in protest of the Soviet Invasion.

And the UNICEF concert in Paris in 1967, showed that they were acting socially responsibly by "paying it forward" but never getting credit or seeing really favorable press in the States.  Only marginalized as the old "live for today" and as self-absorbed hedonists.  Had that concert taken place in New York City, and broadcast nationally, the story might have been evolving differently, at that time.  Those concerts would have hit YouTube had it existed at the time.  There was no "equalizer" such as the World Wide Web, then. 

Carl Wilson, the "draft dodger," performing for UNICEF, might have created uncontroverted evidence that he was "giving back" in Paris, and "subverting Communism" in Prague. The Vietnam War was about "fighting Communism." And defending American ideals, or "perceived ideals" even if it was a sort of propaganda.

They did what they had to do, likely being given lip service and lame promotion by the record company, who made millions on their recordings.  They were undermined, in my view, to advance the agendas of others.  JMHO

Who could blame them, after working hard on more progressive music to attempt to regain traction in the industry, to find that "familiarity" factor that made them successful in the first place? At least no one could call them hypocrites with Do It Again, or I Can Hear Music.  And it was a place for solid fans, to "mark time" (patiently march in place) until things would be "made right."  ;)

Exactly, and when it was "made right", they have been knocked ever since as being the Live Jukebox. They can't win, really.

You know, it would've been interesting to hear Al Jardine redo the Wild Honey album. As strange as it sounds, in interviews Al seems to have had a good handle on the Beach Boys struggles. He said something along the lines of how all of sudden everything Brian did had to be underproduced, with that detuned piano or organ on everything. Look what he did with "Cotton Fields".

Wild Honey is absolutely perfect, just as it is.   :thewilsons

No "do-over" necessary.

That's debatable and subject to opinion. No "do-over" necessary? Probably not, but it would have been interesting. I'd like to hear Rick Henn's version of the instrumental tracks.

I love Wild Honey, but I don't see it as a commercial album, except for "Darlin'". I can't imagine playing it for my friends and having them be overly impressed.

You can lead a horse to water...

If you love it, maybe they will love it too. As Carl Wilson used to say, "It is what it is". ;)

Mr. Cohen - you can't impose your obvious good musical taste on your friends.  They might love the Greatest Hits.  I've developed low standards for my friends.  (I don't even discuss the BB's.)

Now there's this great networked group of well-informed fans, on this forum, or at BB/BW/AJ concerts, who know the catalog, inside out.  It's just fantastic.  

People just gravitate to what will form their musical tastes.  I had the old LP.  The newer CD had some bonus tracks from Smile.  But, like religion, you might be trying to convert them.  Give them a CD.  They might listen (or not) and be converted.

And, I give CD's as gifts but know who to give the GH ones to, and the ones to whom I give Pet Sounds to.  If they "get" Pet Sounds, they may seek out the other stuff.   ;)

Anyway...I think we agree Dr. Beach Boy that the world passed the Beach Boys by...while they were sitting in a garage trying to figure out whether to rebuild the engine or just change out some parts...or not 'fiddle' with the formula at all.

Whether you wish to refer to it as doing nothing or spinning their wheels is not the point...is it?  The world decided.  The boys were ready to pounce on a golden opportunity...one which would have changed a whole heap of different courses...and history.  And...they didn't do it.  They didn't jump.  That the majority of what they would go on to realease after Smiley Smile was outstanding through to 1974 matters not to the over-all scheme of things or to the perception of the Beach Boys at that time.

The world...for the most part missed it.  The group had to come to terms with the results of their own undoing.  The thread is about why certain of their albums didn't sell in America.  They looked their golden opportunity square in the eye and basically just blew it.

Fortunately they had the talent and the tunes to still make a go of it.   [just not anywhere near to the level of success that they might otherwise have achieved if Smile had been completed in a timely fashion and come out as scheduled.]

Well, actually Brian blew it. The band went as Brian went. Again, the albums from that period fared much better everywhere else but here. Brian was never going to write music in the style of Steppenwolf, Hendrix or Iron Butterfly. By the time of Crosby, Stills & Nash, where Brian's music matches better, the band's cred was shot. I'm at peace with it 45 years later. It used to eat at me back in the 70's, but fine with it all now. I like what was created during that period. I makes me happy and at this point all I can do is point people back to it and hope it makes them happy too.

"They blew it?" I don't buy that, don't agree, and that sort of smacks of "victim blaming" or spin, when there is a power grab in motion.  It is the old "divide and conquer" modus operandi.

Pet Sounds was under-promoted, released May 16, 1966, and Best of Vol. 1 on July 5, 1966.  Good Vibrations single, in October of 1966. Mega hit.

Best of Vol. 2 came out  on July 24, 1967.  Smiley Smile, on its' heels,  Sept. 18, 1967, was a "bunt instead of a grand slam" (words of a BB) and now that the sessions have been released, likely should have been a double LP release anticipated.  I don't know if it was contemplated as a double LP.  At the time, they had a lot going on.  And music was changing at warp speed.  

The chronology of the releases tells a big story.  And the lack of promotion is glaring.  The SMiLE Tour happened in 2004.  Brian and his great band made that happen.  They did the job the record company should have done. JMHO

They aren't any different from anyone else.  We all decide one way or another what happens in life, but sometimes external forces and unforeseen circumstances get in the way.  I'd never blame them.

Well Doc...I wouldn't blame it all on Brian.  We've heard what he did...with a little tinkering...all those years ago.  Pretty danged impressive.  No need to once again go into what all impacted on the decision to finally walk away from the project and subsequently suggest that we weren't ready for it...but that we were ready for Smiley Smile.  A terrible 'call'.

"Brian was never going to write music in the style of Steppenwolf, Hendrix or Iron Butterfly. By the time of Crosby, Stills & Nash, where Brian's music matches better, the band's cred was shot."

Brian wouldn't have HAD to have written like those artists did.  There was room for what they were all doing...and Smile...Like Sgt Peppers would have been viewed as a leader and an important moment in the hisrtoy of music...just like Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations ARE.  CSNand Y?  Same thing...although THEY might have had to have worked a little harder had Brian set the pace...and the BAR..


Filled...That you don't or won't blame them is your call...and likely that works for you.  No problem with that from me.  I, on the other hand would suggest that the artist or artists have to accept some of the responsibility for their actions and for the choices they make/made.  They weren't a team.  They weren't united.  They didn't share the same vision.  The creative foundation of the unit was de-frocked and set adrift by the very people he needed to trust and count on...and I don't mean the not ready for prime time 'playas' at the record company. 

After all of that was said and done...they did OK.  Better than most.  It could have been a whole lot more though. 

That said ... we still love 'em.  Because we know.

It is also because the chronology sort of intertwined with The Beatles Sgt. Pepper's on June 1, 1967 by EMI (Capitol) and widely promoted.  It inspired Edwardian era fashion, modeled after the album's fictitious theme.  And an album cover by Peter Blake which stood out on the record racks. 

It is very complex.  But, I don't know whether there was a team or not.  I wasn't there.  We can tell from the vocals that they did great work.  Every one of them.  I think they did their best to keep the music out there.  The old setlists show they did perform a lot of the Smile work in concert, despite being limited on actual stage time, by the other performers on the billing. 

Had the Pet Sounds and Smile project been given the promotion we know they merited, things might have been different.  But, it might have turned out better, being released decades later, because so many people (such as on this forum) saw the merit and beauty of what was not released, and helped make it happen. 

Just so we're clear, when I say Brian, I mean his songs, his arrangements. I mean, many of the songs on Smiley are Smile songs with different arrangements. Same with Wild Honey, Brian's songs and arrangements. Both albums were his call regarding what would be on them and how they would sound. This is why I never understood all the hoopla about the band being somewhat negative towards Smile, yet not with Smiley Smile. All of that has to be way overblown. There is no way that they liked Smiley more than Smile.

"There is no way that they liked Smiley more than Smile."

That's a fact Jack!!! 8)

The vibe I got with Smiley Smile is that the band didn't know they were recording an album, per se. In an interview one of the band members (I think it was Al) recalled being under the impression that Brian was recording some home studio experiments to add to the stuff he'd recorded for Smile. The only Smile songs he completely redid during the sessions were "Wind Chimes", "Wonderful",  and "Vegetables" (except the tag). "Heroes and Villains" was a mix of everything.

Brian, at that point in his career, never really told the band what he was up to. They did what he said or there was an argument. I think they went along with Smiley Smile because a) they were desperate to get Brian recording again, and b) they didn't know they were recording an entire new album. I doubt they were thrilled when Brian presented the master to Smiley Smile, but they didn't have the ultimate choice.

I like that reading of events because it makes sense, too. It was a  tricky way for Brian to get the Smile monkey off his back without actually returning to the Smile tapes. Once Smiley Smile was out there, he could say that Smile couldn't work as a new album anymore.

AGD, was an audit ever requested for Party!? I think it was in Timothy White's book, where there was mention of 500,000 promotional popcorn bags being printed, or something like that.  Barbara Ann was a pretty big hit.  I remember talking to Mike about it one time, and he felt pretty sure it was a 'two for Capitol, one for the band" type accounting happening.

What ON EARTH are you talking about? Hardly any of the groups were really anti-American. Seriously, who are you talking about? Bob Dylan? Cuz last time I checked he LOVES America and is proud of the musical tradition. The Beatles, because they sang "Back in the U.S.S.R."? Or because they said they wanted to make Apple Corps "a kind of hippie socialism"? And since socialism is such a no-no in America (well unless you're old and you collect Medicare and Social Security...and then still complain about "socialists"...HA!) they musta been anti-capitalist, anti-American. Right. And because many artists in the late '60 and early '70s were against the bullshit Vietnam War, well shoot, THEY must be anti-American too! Because if they don't wanna send our young men everywhere around the world on killing missions, they must be anti-American too, right?

Jeez man, give us a break. It's not like Pete Seeger* was one of the leading lights of the late '60s music scene. You just have that victim mentality that is all so prevalent amongst WASP-y conservatives these days. You know, "everybody hates America and they wanna take my great country away from me!"

Gimme a break.



*Pete Seeger wasn't anti-American either, and was actually a pretty great man, and a great American. However, when I hear people spout what you were saying there, I started thinking of Seeger and the Weavers being blacklisted.

Hey SweetDude!  Thanks for asking.  I'm talking Politics, which happens here on Earth quite regularly.  Unfortunately.  It's a nuisance.  Saying it doesn't exist though, doesn't provide any advantage, unless one wishes to advance it.  (Ironic.  You gotta say it, to slay it.)

Ok, real quick... The strife, tension and turmoil you mentioned was the opportunity (open wound) to inject/infect western culture with an agenda.  Entertainment and academia was what young impressionable minds consumed -- so this is where they gravitated.  Today, these institutions (especially academia) are closed, solid propaganda camps.

Political types go where the audience is (see: NFL).  There weren't enough people still listening to the Beach Boys in the late 60s and 70s -- and the Beach Boys didn't appear to care about political messages, just good music.  The Beach Boys sensed this and tried to inject more "important messages."  But it didn't stick.

Did that help?  Again, not the whole equation, just a part of it.