The Smiley Smile Message Board

I have been a Beach Boy fan my whole life. I just recently stumbled upon a video of Stevie Ray Vaughn playing "Pride and Joy" on MTV Unplugged. While watching the video, I was totally amazed at the talent of this man. His confidence on stage of his playing and vocals is just great.

Now, I have been collecting Beach Boy concerts for a while now. I have always looked at these recordings as gems. Being a huge beach boy fan, I think anything they say into the mic is great. However, after watching this amazing video and comparing to the talent of our boys, I often wonder how they sold any seats at their concerts at all. Listening to Mike Love make fun of the band and their songs, and hearing him totally fold all over himself when trying to sing easy bass lines pisses me off. Dennis was a horrible drummer. Al was a mediocre guitar player, and bruce....well..................that might be a tad too easy. It is sad when I have to hope for "good spots" where they all do their job.

Dont get me wrong, I will still be the biggest beach boy fan ever. I just wish they would have either stopped touring, (like the Beatles), or at least hire some better back up guys.


windchimes

I hope you are talking about 80's and 90's BB -- in the 70s they were simply amazing live.

Wrong, try again.

I don't understand the logic behind this at all.. I've never thought the Beach Boys were bad at their instruments. I've listened to lots of cover versions of Surfin' USA, and none of them have Dennis's amazing drumbeat. Simple is not necessarily bad.

And Bruce hardly plays the keyboard in concert, he's like Brian but more obvious. When I saw him the other day, he was away from his keyboard 70% of the time, moving to the side of the stage inciting the audience to clap and such. For a song or two he even played tambourine, nowhere near a microphone!

Have you heard "Let The Wind Blow" from the 73' concert official release album? It's stunning.

I don't really care for live music to tell the truth. I've been to only a hand full of concerts and they bored me to death. I'm much more comfortable slipping into my own world with an album rather than a loud volume concert with a bunch of sweaty people. So as long as the playing on the album meets the requirments for the songs I'm happy.

Wild Honey is an album full (or rather un-full) of drums. You'll hear a snare every so often, and it is most likely played with the ability of a three year old. Though it's not some technically proficient drummer, it suits the songs and pleases me.

The bongos/congas in Wild Honey really fit/mold the atmosphere of the album.

Just the fact that you are comparing the BB's...whose core group hit the top in 1963/1964...to Stevie Ray Vaughan...an '80's musician...is completely wacky and lacking context. Dennis was NOT a horrible drummer...Al was fine as a guitarist...all the original BB's were competent musicians. If you're looking for hot guitar solos and wicked drum fills...maybe you are better suited to be a Rush fan...or something...but the BB's were fine at what they did. When they went minimal in the '66 to '67 with the barely there drums and guitars its because that's what Brian reheased them to do...he wanted the emphasis on the vocals...and he told Dennis and Carl to keep it mellow. But in '63 -'65 and again '68 to '76 they WERE one of the best live acts going. You won't get any excuses from me for anything after that.

Ok first off, I am not just blabbing on like a crazy person. I have been a musician my whole life. I am a music major at the University of Nebraska. Playing snare on the drumline and playing set for many bands gives me at least a little competence in this area.
PLEASE...do not think that this is just some un-educated babble.

I will stand by my remarks. Dennis was a horrible drummer. If you listen to any given concert, he pushes the tempo. I understand that simple isnt alwways bad, but in his case it is.  Notice he plays virtually the same simple grooves working back and forth from shuffle to rock. If you ask me, any joe off the street can play a dennis beat.

Al and Bruce as guitar players also makes me wish they would have had other members in support. Notice.....in my comments I mentioned the years I was talking about. I realize that they were a great live act in the 70's....Why? Better backing band.

Lacking context??? How so?  They are both payed to play............Plus, some of the greatest guitar players came out of the 60's.....so I dont think time frame is an issue here.

Also, you said that vocals were the emphasis of the 66-67 concerts (which is pretty much what I am talking about)
Well, if you've listened to any of those concerts, the vocals arent exactly at a public performance level. Some songs I wonder if they even practiced....(numerous false starts..............alternated endings nobody was told about) I doubt Brian had anything to do with that. Catch my drift?

One last thing.......


Fine, dont use SRV as a comparison. How about the Hollies?

Many great rock drummers push the tempo, that's the nature of live performance. Keith Moon? John Bonham? Ringo? They all did. Rock is about playing what is necessary for the tune. BBs live 63-65 required Ramonesy speed, power-pop to the highest power. Dennis played a throbbing surf beat perfectly, that's what Brian wrote the earliest material for. His drumming on the TAMI show footage is some of the most intense primal pounding I have ever seen. It's ROCK AND ROLL, baby! Not that bullshit wank-off professional "virtuosity" that strangled and killed REAL rock and roll. I't all about the passion, not the chops. f*** chops. Gimme Denny yellin' his head off, hair flyin', playin' Dance Dance Dance over Billy fuckin' Cobham any day.

Bobby Elliott sped up the tempos too. Seen the NME Pollwinners 64 footage?

Every member of the Beach Boys was AMAZING at that show. The verses to 'When I Grow Up' are so amazing on that one from Dennis' simplistic drumming. If the Beach Boys' records required technique rather than what they had then Brian would've surely made Hal Blaine play it. 'Wouldn't It Be Nice' for the majority of the song has a very simple drum beat, yet it's one of the greatest songs to tap along to with your hand ever.

As a comparison listen to The Beatles in Japan (1966).  Doesn't exactly smoke does it.  Now does that piss you off?

Obviously the BBs were good enough live to sell out shows for 40+ years.  Therefore....they are either better than you think, or their fans are suckers.

I've seen the band a dozen times or more over approximately 30 years...they aren't slouches.  IMO...Dennis was a much better drummer than he ever got credit for.

To answer the original question, NO!! Not even the tiniest bit. I loved it all, from the rawness of the '60s band, through the Carl-led rock band of the '70s and early '80s, and even the so-called "live jukebox" mid-'80s through '97 (but not the cheerleaders, who always managed to block my view of the very men I paid my hard-earned money to see).

Perfection is for the studio, imho. Live music is about the emotion as much as anything, and mistakes are part of the experience.

Your mileage may vary....

I say it's fucking rock music, man. Who cares if somebody sped a tempo or somebody missed a note? Yeah, you want it good, and the BBs made it good enough. But if you want and need it perfect, you're missing the point of the genre. Don't overthink it.

Carl Wilson did. And I think Jeff Foskett does. And Darian.

Anyway, windchimes made his point, and I'm gonna back him on it. It's not a popular view on this board (criticizing Dennis and The Beach Boys musicianship), but I share his view.

This is how I rank the Beach Boys' drummers:

1. Hal Blaine
2. Jim Gordon
3. Ricky Fataar
4. Bobby Figueroa
5. Mike Kowalski
6. Dennis Wilson

It didn't take Brian long to replace Dennis and the rest of the band in the studio, not just to emulate Phil Spector, but to make the best recording possible. And the best (but not all) Beach Boys' records feature Hal Blaine and Jim Gordon. And when The Beach Boys were arguably at their peak as a touring group, Ricky Fataar was the drummer.

Also, I have noticed that the best musicians in the group have been the backing musicians. Mike Meros, Daryl Dragon, Carly Munoz, and even Billy Hinsche on keyboards. Blondie Chaplin, Jeff Foskett, and even Ed Carter on guitar. Listen to Ed's guitar work on Live In Knebworth. He rocks out like Carl rarely did. And don't forget David Marks!

God i hate this "i'm an educated musician" sh*t...I bet half of us here are...so what? I had my first guitar lesson in 1966, my first band band in 1972, I'm getting five figure royalty checks in 2006 for stuff I recorded in 1983...do we need to swap resumes? I know a happening drummer when I hear one...and whether or not they push the timing has zero to do with it. Practically every musican i know with any heart would kill to have a drummer like Dennis Wilson to play music with. Blaine? Figueroa? Kowalski? Ask those guys about Dennis as a drummer, I have, I've talked long about him with each of them...I've seen their eyes light up when they talk about what passion, and what power he played with. They all absolutely dug his drumming because it moved an audience, and it drove the band. Are you a better judge than those guys?

Dennis was primitive and there are certain musical types who can't get past that...or his funky technique and tendency to vary in tempo. But what he gave to the music was beyond all that. And Brian didn't "replace" him early on. He supplemented him with great studio drummers. But Dennis played on his share of the records...and many of the best ones...When I Grow Up is a great example...I love his drumming on that record...its as real as you can get. 

 

..

EXACTLY.

Jon, speaking of Dennis "funky" technique, have you found out about some of the things Dennis did came about, like how he'd sometimes use traditional grip with his right hand, and how he often played "open" not crossing the right hand over to play hats, instead using the left?  (Which is actually now thought of as an advanced, progressively-minded technique.)

The way Dennis played was fascinating.

Count me in as another highly-trained conservatory-educated classical musician who loves the Beach Boys musicianship.

John Bonham was a "primitive" drummer, and you'd be hard-pressed to find ANYONE who doesn't consider him one of the greatest rock drummers of all time.

I would rate Mike Kowalski at the bottom of that list. Not only is he by far the worst drummer I've ever heard play with the BB's, he's the worst live drummer I've ever heard playing with even a half-way successful or notable band. Interestingly, the examples of Kowalski's drumming during his first stint with the live group in the late 60's/early 70's sounds pretty decent. But when he returned in 1982 or 83, and since that time, his drumming has been awful almost uniformly. He drops beats, often sounds awkward in general, and sounds stiff overall. On *some* of the BB stuff, it's pretty easy to just do a basic 4/4 thing and make it sound decent, but Kowalski has often managed to make even that sound pretty subpar.

Since we're talking live shows here primarily, I don't think it works to even rate the studio drummers like Blaine against the live drummers. As far as live drummers, I'd say Fataar and Figueroa were somewhat comparable (they even played together for a time, as did Figueroa and Kowalski), and Dennis at his worst was still somewhat better than Kowalski. Dennis at his best was, in my mind, pretty darn decent. Listen even to shows from 1980 when he was starting to really go downhill, and he still pulls it off pretty well.

I've given a listen to a relatively huge number of live BB shows, and I think that the BB's could be pretty impressive and sometimes quite horrible. In the early-mid 60's, they sounded quite solid, if not as polished as the studio recordings. If you listen to, say, the Michigan '66 live tracks, you hear a pretty polished band, especially considering that by that time they were playing "Good Vibrations" and some "Pet Sounds" stuff. Interestingly, the 1966 BB's were probably a more solid live band thatn the tired, ragged 1966 live Beatles, even though I feel the Beatles were all better musicians. This is proven (in my opinion) by the fact that if you listen to the Beatles' 1969 rooftop concert, which is the closest approximation to what the Beatles could have sounded like had they toured in 1969, the Beatles smoke compared either to past Beatles shows as well as any circa 1969 (or earlier) BB show.

Around 1967, the BB shows started to mirror the contemporary recordings of the time, thus a more laid-back, sparse sound. This could still sometimes sound tight, while other times it could sound pretty sloppy.

By 1968-69, they were sounding more solid again, as is evidenced by the generally enjoyable "Live in London" album. Of course, it was in 1967 and into 68 when they started to use backing musicians.

The pre-Blondie/Ricky early 70's shows were pretty impressive, with the band pulling off tracks like "Surf's Up." When Blondie and Ricky joined, they did hit their peak in terms of musicianship, a more rocking sound, and what was one of the last times their sound was really in line with the contemporary sound of live shows.

When the "Brian's Back" era hit, the BB's still had a bunch of backing musicians, but it seems as if Brian either directly or indirectly brought the quality of the live shows down with him. Carl sounds mildly drunk at shows as early as January 1977, culminating in the infamous collapsing incident in Febuary or March of 1978 in Australia. Carl got his act together soon after. Brian, who had been pretty active in live shows in 1977 and part of 1978, withdrew more by 1979 and was usually just off to the side adding a few vocal bits on songs like "Sloop John B" and "Surfer Girl." Dennis was absent for around a year from mid '79 to mid '80.

Many see 1980 as a turning point with the live band, but I think even in 1980 they sounded pretty strong overall. The 1980 tour was one of the last times that the actual BB's on stage outnumbered the backing members, as there were usually 6 BB's and only 3-4 backing musicians.

I believe 1981 was the turning point both in terms of setlist and performance quality. Carl left, and the BB's performed what has to be their worst-sounding live show that was ever broadcast, the July 5th Queen Mary show in Long Beach. Everybody in the band sounded horrible, including several of the backing band (Baker, Knapp). Carter, Meros, and Figueroa were still on their game, but it wasn't enough.

When Carl returned in mid-1982, one of his conditions for returning was that the band rehearsed more. This sounds to be the case, as shows from 1982 into 1983 sound markedly better, helped by the addition of Jeff Foskett in late 1981 and the return of Billy Hinsche in 1982. But by this time, a live BB show was really hit and miss. In general, especially by the late 80's, they usually sounded the same: Generally tight musicianship-wise (save Kowalski's drumming), and vocally middle of the road. They were certainly able to pick up their game, as is heard from the late 1993 "boxed set tour" shows.

BB shows from any time period could occasionally sound pretty dreadful, and this was the case moreso in the post-1975 period as Jon Stebbins referred to. But this generally had little to do with Dennis' drumming or Al's guitar playing. Dennis often had a second drummer in later years, and when he didn't have a second drummer, that meant he was on his game. Al's guitar playing, which is actualy quite solid, was never a big part of the mix (and I'm talking literally about the sound mix), nor was Bruce's keyboard. Carl was always solid on his few lead guitar spots. By the time they had a significant live backing band by the early 70's, the BB's could never bring a show down themselves based on their musicianship. The main thing the actual official BB's brought to the shows was their vocals, and this is what they often succeeded and failed on.

The BB's are about vocals and the songs, while Stevie Ray Vaughn and those of his ilk are much more about the musicianship; the virtuoso nature of one player. To me, I'd much rather hear a good *song* without any virtuoso musicianship as opposed to some flaming guitar playing with mediocre or repetitive song material. In terms of Stevie Ray Vaught specifically, for someone who isn't a fan of his, I've ended up hearing and watching him quite a bit because a friend of mine is a big fan of his. He was a great guitar player, but I just could never enjoy a full set of his music. It's too much 12-bar blues stuff with busy guitar playing all over it.

Anybody who listens to live recordings or goes to live shows primarily to hear a live act whose main showcase is musicianship more than the actual song material or group vocals, is going to be disappointed by most live BB material.

When I listen to live recordings by the Beach Boys (especially from the late 70s and the 80s and 90s), I mostly hear a band that lacked the self discipline it takes to put down a good, tight and solid show.

Not totally on topic, but did you ever wonder why the live band got so boring after Brian left in '64, but before they were really smoking ? From '65-'68 they really weren't goo to say the least...

It's true that they hired god/better players to back them live. I agree, and think many people do. I talked about this the other day--they were competent-to-good players (different members to different levels on different instruments), but they had the good sense to supplement as necessary or helpful. I don't think that's such a sin. And I.  guess they didn't either, or they'd have all sat home and sent a cover show out there. They were good enough to be a kick-ass rock band. Sometimes they made a mistake. Big deal.

(And yes, I read your "Carl did, Jeff did, etc. thing. But while OF COURSE they wanted things played properly, I'd bet each and every one of them wanted things played in the spirit of RnR more than note-perfect. After all, it isn't like they couldn't have gotten a band to do just that, if it's what they wanted most.)

Just to address a couple of your points, Luther...

Sometimes, when I would see The Beach Boys live, which was post-1977, I used to think that the best musicians on the stage WEREN'T EVEN The Beach Boys, but the supporting musicians. When Dennis would step away from the drums to go to the piano, and Bobby Figueroa would sit in on drums, it was like "Wow, what a difference!" And I would marvel at some of the piano fills of Mike Meros and Billy Hinsche, and wish that just once, Brian or Bruce would cut loose with something like that. Same thing with Blondie Chaplin and Ed Carter (in the early 80's). I would see/hear them do things on the guitar that Carl and Al (obviously, he was rhythm guitar) wouldn't even attempt. Why is that?

I know this is really gonna get me in trouble, but the same can be said about the vocals also, especially post-1976. Do you know who was doing a lot of the falsetto work in the late 70's/early 80's? Bobby Figueroa. When you listen to a Beach Boys' live bootleg (not the post concert/studio sweetened Live In Knebworth), it sounds pretty ragged. Also, when you attend a Brian Wilson solo concert, do you ever think that Brian is probably the worst (I say that sympathetically, I don't know what other word to use) singer on the stage.

Finally, your point about not wanting things note perfect is well taken. I suppose there is a happy medium. I think Carl was striving for a liitle more "note perfectness" when he left the group in protest in 1981.

 

There is a simple answer for that....

Bruce Johnston doesn't have a rock and roll bone in his body.

Brian on bass absoultely propelled that band live.

And yet, I thought Bruce was  a Rock And Roll Survivor?

Was his Rip Chords and Bruce And Terry stuff rock and roll?

One point that somebody made up the thread needs addressing...that the Beach Boys "sidemen" or "backing musicians" were better players than the Beach Boys themselves...DUHHH!!! Who do you think hired those guys? Of course they hired better musicians than themselves...they handpicked these people. Bobby Figueroa told me about going to an audtion for the BB's in '74 and there were tons of drummers auditioning, he thought he had no chance and was headed back to his car...guess who came out to the parking lot and told him he had a job? Dennis.

Another point...The Beach Boys of 1964, with Brian on bass were incredibly exciting live . But the reason they became "less electric" in the following couple of years wasn't because Brian left...there was a shift in the live presentation when the screaming girls began to lessen. Brian still rehearsed the live band, even when he wasn't touring in the pre '68 years...and it was brian who asked that they emphasize vocals...and it was Brian who told them to dial back the loud drums and guitars...and present something more compact and less frenetic. That was his call. The mellow, mellow sound you hear on Lei'd in Hawaii is something Brian pointed the band to. Personally I prefer the BB's punk rock sound of '63/64. Carl insisted on the change back to something more dynamic in '68 with horns and a big drum sound again. But the purest rock and roll BB's in all their Denny-bashing, Fender/Rickenbacker chopping glory is the 1964 T.A.M.I. show. To me that's the "pure" BB's live peak...no sidemen needed.

I don't think this really goes against anything I said. I agreed that the hired musicians were great and technically better than the BBs. And I doubt anyone could dispute that Brian is the worst singer in his own band these days.

Being the worst singer in Brian's band isn't exactly an insult!

Does it piss me off? Sometimes. Then you have to ask yourself could they have made it sound exactly like the record? I doubt it.

I agree that they weren't much of a live band, but as has been mentioned they were more of a band that relied on the songs, not so much instrumental prowess, but imagine what they could have added to the music if they had been of Stevie Ray Vaugh caliber. I always wondered how they would have sounded if Brian had relied on them, rather than using studio musicians. Yesterday I saw Godards "One Plus One" where you see Stones develop "Sympathy For The Devil" in the studio, even though it was mostly Mick and Keith calling the shots, the rest was also involved. I wonder if that had also been the BB's modus operandum, would they have developed more as musicians. As it was, they were more Brians messengers and that might have stifled them in their growth, as opposed to a situation where the whole group  developed the tracks together, with little interference from studio musicians.

Søren

To answer the initial question: I don't know about "piss me off", but sure, some of the BB's shows were better than others.  This is true of any musician or group.  No explanation necessary; it's called being human, and everyone has an off night.

That having been said, I am REALLY sick of people taking cheap shots at Dennis' drumming because he wasn't "a drummer's drummer".  Unlike people coming up today, there were not dozens of rock drummers to emulate as Dennis began.  Sure, there was Buddy, Gene, Max, Louie Bellson, Joe Morello, etc., but those were jazz guys.  Maybe DJ Fontana with Elvis, or Jerry Allison with the Crickets?  But my point is that Dennis was largely finding his own way, with no lessons to my knowledge.  Just that is impressive, IMHO.

Personally, I've been playing drums for over 30 years, and it's still a matter of opinion.  What a non-musician likes is no more valid than what a musician likes.  I love Dennis' drumming.  Lots of what I've heard live is exciting as all hell, and that is what the BB's needed, not Steve Gadd(though I'm sure he would do a good job, as well).

Ultimately, to complain about a band's lack of musical instrument chops when they sang like no one else on the planet is simply missing the point.



Dan

Well Mr. Stebbins......
Swapping resumes wasnt exactly what I had in mind. Just wanted to give you guys a heads up so you wont just throw this post aside as stupid babble.

Has anybody else noticed that they had a hard time ending songs? Stopping together, you would think, would be something to practice. I guess what I am trying to say is that they are VERY inconsistent. Dont get me wrong, I wouldnt collect liver shows if I didnt love them. But sometimes it gets to me when you here Carl forget the words to Wild Honey, Dennis going long after a cut off, (Shindig "Papa Ooh Mow Mow" or "HAwaii" Lost concert), or maybe the almost never tight harmonies. Yeah, when they sand the four freshman stuff, it sounded great. But why did they have such a problem switching that over into their own music? I could talk about everything that I think is bad about all of the concerts I have seen. I just wanted to see if anybody else noticed. Does anybody know what their practice habits were? Maybe there lies the problem.

Uh.............. fascinating?

Steve Gadd......Neil Peart......... now those guys are fascinating. That is talent.

Plus, Dennis does the same damn fills for every song. Dont throw me that "its simple" nonsense. Fascinating? Why dont you come listen to my little brother play. You might like that. Hes got da passion.

I agree.  And since I also find Dennis' playing fascinating, it gives me more pleasure than I might have had if I didn't.  So I'm filled with pleasure and fascination, and you're pissed off.  So there it is.

The funny thing (to me) is that I don't find either of those two remotely fascinating. Not at all.

So there you have it.

May I ask what fascinates you about his drumming?

Do I smell irrelevance?

I don't know what you smell. Why don't you tell me? But if you're saying my taste and opinion is irrelevant and yours somehow isn't, well...ok. I guess it is.

Sincerely,
Mr. Irrelevant.

Just about everything.  I mentioned his unorthodox stick grips, I think it must be interesting how he came to his technique.  He also has the most distinct and recognizable right foot I've ever heard.  I can tell it's Dennis' kick drum easier than I coould pick out any other drummer's kick.

I totally agree with Josh -- I find his drumming very interesting. I like the way he fills -- solid and loud and on-point. I find those other drummers you mentioned equally lifeless -- I like Rush fine but the drumming almost never enters into it. Slick, adept but almost never ear-grabbing at all. Irrelevent? Dude, Rush is hardly the hippest of the hottest.

UGHHH! Everything I hate, everything that isn't rock and roll.

I don't remember which song it is, but one of the songs on Surfin' Safari is just Dennis smashing the crash and/or ride cymbal(s) the entire song. Primitive, simple, unlearned? Yes.

But he kept a steady beat.

Yeah that and the wicked power in his right hand. Bobby Figueroa described it to me as..."like a canon going off"...no need to mic his snare. Lots of anecdotes about Dennis ripping his stick through a snare skin with a single strike. Hal has a great story about Dennis borrowing one of his kits for a session, and how Hal's drum tech was mortified because Dennis had pummled it into a complete wreck in only an hour or two.  I'm sorry, but its great fun to watch a guy go animal on a kit...isn't that why we liked keith Moon so much? Go up to the Youtube thread and watch how much fun Dennis has in the I Get Around T.A.M.I. show sequence. Drummers weren't shattering sticks and tossing the shards over their shoulder in 1964...but Dennis did. He was punk rock long before it exisited. Rock and roll is supposed to be joyous, dangerous, passionate...Dennis had all of that. He was one of the first rock drummers to bring the focus onto the drummer...and it sure wasn't because he was boring to watch. Even Mike and Brian are constantly turning around and watching him, and they're usually grinning while they're doing it. The BB's in 1964 with Dennis on drums are a happening rock and roll party. If you can't dig that...then there's no explaining it to you.

Another perfect post. Right on, Mr. Stebbins.

As a drummer of no little brutality myself I have a LOT of time for Dennis. Listen to the Live In London version of Do It Again - that is SO rocking. Ricky was better technically but Dennis was no mean drummer. Look at the Knebworth DVD as well. Steve Gadd may be a great drummer but he was never in a great band. He just played FOR great people.

Disregarding drummers like Steve Gadd, Terry Bozzio and Neil Peart just because they are 'technical' sounds as wrong to me as claming that the Beach Boys played retarded surf music.

There's room for everybody, even Dennis Wilson.

Yep, that's right.
Dennis may not have been a good technical drummer, but he was a great rock'n'roll-drummer.
Some Jazz-drummer whose technical very good couldn't have played rock'n'roll the right way.
I think it's just a matter of taste what you like more.

I don't know, I think a good rock drummer, also has to have a sense of swing like jazzdrummers, so they can play more laid back when that is required to push a band, in fact the more rhytmical nuances they master, the better.

Søren

I'm not pissed off at 1:05 into this when Dennis throws his busted stick in the air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlbFGHCJoTY&search=Beach%20Boys

I just watched that video, looks like straight-up heart and soul rock and roll to me, most noticeably by Denny. 

Does the drummer in this clip swing? I think so.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wMGiZLAdF24&search=Beach%20Boys%20Wouldn%27t

This drummer sounds pretty solid to me. Nice kick eh Josh??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqfdIdE5PUg&search=Beach%20Boys%20dance

I always think that the Beach Boys were two (or four) different bands.

1.) The Brian-led studio ensemble. With the BBs only or with backing musician, the main instrument was the studio itself. No one ever sounded like this live. The group that has come the closest is Brian's, although the leader's instrument is understandably compromised a bit by the ravages of time/coke/cigs/cheeseburgers.

2.) The post-Brian studio group.  Again, the studio is used as the instrument, but with less commercial success. As the years go by, some of the focus wanes, too. Eventually, the band is swallowed up into 80-ish cheese.

3.) The early, BBs-only band. This group has raw edges but an undeniable energy and charm. This is the only group that could really be called a rock group in three-guys-with-guitars-one-guy-on-drums sense.

4.) The BBs extravaganza. That is, BBs with lots of backup guys. Starting in the 70s and continuing through the 90s. This is the BBs group with the greatest polish, if intermittent artistic success. In the 70s, of course, they were awesome. Even in the 90s, when I saw them (97, on Carl's last tour) they were in strikingly good voice. The focus shifted from art to entertainment, perhaps, but the latter was still top-notch.

These can be divided up further, but each has a distinctive identity and leader (1 and 3: Brian, 2: Carl and 4: Carl and Mike). A book could be written about each.

Well, I never said that being simple was bad. Nor did I say that dennis couldnt go ape sh*t on a drum set. But who cant? Its just when I here the drummers in many other bands I see TALENT. Not just hardcore passion for the genre. I mean real talent. It would just have been nice to hear something new from Dennis. I will ask this question again. Does anybody know the practice habits of the boys back then? Did Dennis ever practice by himself?

Dennis' drumming aside, that doesnt explain the false starts and inconsistent good quality performance.

I'm thinking practice was rare [or daily on-the-job] when you are on the road for 200 dates a year.

Have you ever listened to When IGrow Up?  That's inventive and unusual (I noticed it way back on first listen) -- and it's all Denny.

So it is with self-taught musicians.  Denny played the way he did because that's the way he naturally did it.  Brian plays piano with a heavy left hand because that's the way he naturally taught himself to do it. 

I don't go to a live concert to see virtuoso performances, you can buy a studio cd for that, in my opinion (and everybody has one, of course) live concerts are most definately all about the feel and the passion for the music.  In those early performances, there were 2000 girls screaming their heads off in front of the stage.  Nobody cared if the song started or ended wrong, it was all about how rockin it sounded, which they pulled off quite competantly.

I guess you could complain about the later band, but I thought they sounded pretty impressive in the 70's stuff I've heard from them on stage. 

I find it fascinating that the early Beach Boys are godfathers of sorts for American punk rock, through their influence on the Ramones. If you aren't familiar with the BBs from those days, it seems rather surprising. Not for me, tho -- I was one of those young gals in the audience digging Denny's every move onstage.

I am new to this board, and I find this question very fascinating.  I guess I would say that the Beach Boy's live playing does not piss me off, but it is very disappointing.  I have heard a great deal of live beach boys music.  Some of it is great, but most of it is just okay.  By 1967, Mike Love spent most of the concert time making fun of all the songs that made them famous - songs written by Brian wilson.  Some thanks that is. I suppose that is a different debate.  The Beach Boys in my humble opinion, were overall a mediocre live act. has anyone ever listened to the Hawaii concert?  They can't even play "surfin" flawlessly. There are live performances of " I get around" where carl does not even play the guitar solo.  There are others where the singers frequently forget lyrics, and there are a good number of false starts.  Sure this is going to happen to everyone now and then, but it seemed to plague the Beach Boys.  As far as Dennis goes, windchimes is right on.  Dennis is an adequate drummer, but not great by any means.  If he played so well on the "When I grow up" recording, why did he not play it the same way live?  Take a look at the read steady go performance.  He plays "i get around" and "When I grow up" with the same exact beat.  Part of the Beach Boy's problem in the late sixties was that there recordings were so elaborate, and they were hard to duplicate on stage.  that is why their concerts in the seventies were so much better  - there were were more than five musicians on the stage.I love Brian Wilson and i love the beach boys, but cut windchimes some slack.......he has a valid point.

I think the reason for this is that since they weren't as good instrumentally as vocally, their instrumental playing seemed to be too sloppy to competently perform their vocals.  Therefore their instruments drowned out their vocals.

Cut Windchimes some slack for saying "Dennis was a HORRIBLE drummer"?? And for comparing the BB's to STEVIE RAY VAUGHAN?? I don't cut slack to people who are that far off base. Windchimes created the thread, and asked the question, and gave his opinion. It seems that more than a few here have a different one. Fair game.

Hey, glad to here that somebody has listened to some concerts from the 66-67 era and know what I am talking about. (thanks wonderful)

The drumming part isnt even the half of it Jon. Havent you ever noticed the number of times he couldnt end the song with the rest of the group? Is that rock and roll?

I didn't read this thread because the rules of "Rock-n-Roll" are too vague and subjective to come to any closure with the question. You could define rock music as simply an expression of feeling; in which case Dennis not stopping with the band doesn't matter one bit.

How about Carl hitting the wrong chord to Wendy on TV? That's hilarious, and memorable. I knew that rumour before I had even heard the song Wendy because it's such a hilarious thing to do. On a very distinct intro with only three chords, to mess up the third is great. If he had played it through without that it wouldn't bring half as much pleasure to my ears and eyes. Seeing Dennis lower his head almost in shame at Carl's mistake is great.

WC, have you thought it may not be the best idea to trash Dennis Wilson on a BB board? We have all heard those same concerts and we don't agree with you. 2 or 3 agree with you, at least 30 or so don't. Doesn't that sound about right? Why don't you frequent a board dedicated to a band that you really like?
What do you think would happen if I went to a Stones board and said Charlie Watts was a terrible drummer?
Have you not read that people like Hal Blaine thought Dennis was a great drummer? Do you think your opinion matters more, or even as much, as them? Stebbins is a BB scholar, way more than you or I could ever hope to be. You see the Honored Guest below his name? There's a reason for that.

I'll just address the thread's question directly and be personally done with it.

While I have noticed that many members of the Beach Boys made mistakes on their instruments, and even were not virtuosic in their playing, no, the stage talent level does not piss me off.

Its obviously thought provoking. I am not trashing Dennis Wilson. If you read my original post, I talk about all of the band members. It was interesting to me why they had such a hard time on stage. I will live and die a Beach Boy fan. Just because his name says honored guest his opinion is of more value? I am made of flesh and blood just like Jon. All I asked was if it bugged you or not. I really didnt ask "Who wants to make this thread akward and put down other members"? I appreciate the feedbacl though.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that! I didnt see the Dennis head part.  That is classic! You see what i mean though?

If somebody is a BB scholar, or an Honored Guest, or just a first time poster, it means that you should repect their opinion. It doesn't mean you have to agree with their opinion.

The fact that 2 or 3 people agreed with windchimes and 30 disagreed with windchime tells YOU something, but it could tell ME something different. Maybe a lot more people agree with him, but aren't confident enough to express their opinion, or simply don't feel like debating the subject.

Look - I think we are getting off the point.  Windchime's question was about the BAND!  He made a comment in passing on Denny (one he probably did not totally mean), but the real issue is the live band.  The Beach Boys were a mediocre band in the late sixties.  In fact, the strongest musician in the band was Brian, and he was not even there most of the time.  This Mr. Stebbins may be a scholar, but we all have ears.  Being honest about the fact that the Beach Boys were not a great live band does not make us unloyal fans.  why could'nt the Beach Boys perform better live?  That is the ral question.  If the other four members of the band were great musicians, then Brian would have used them instead of all the hired musicians.  This was obviously not the case.  Let's quit attacking Windchimes and answer the question at hand!

 Thanks for the support Sheriff. I really didnt mean for this to become a Denny bashing party. I was actually hoping we would talk more about the other members of the band. Like I said, I love the Beach Boys. They are my favorite band. I would never post anything on here deliberately to put down that greatest band ever.

I think I have asked this already, but does anybody know of the practice habits of the boys during the 60's? Did Brian ever practice with them? Based on the concerts I have heard, it seems to me that they pretty much just assumed that had it down for doing it in the recording session.

Well, John, watching and listening to the Beach Boys tells me something, and it may tell you something else. It tells me I am a fan.

I am answering the question, Hungrywhoeveryouare. Wrong, totally and completely wrong, in my estimation. Dennis Wilson is real rock and roll. Session musicians, for the most part, aren't. To be honest, I wish Brian had never used Blaine. He didn't even use him well, as Spector and Jan Berry did. How's that for controversy?

Brian spearheaded and rehearsed the band for the Michigan and Hawaii shows. They sounded horrible at both. Brian told Denny to play that way. Soft and with no power. So why would such emphasis be placed upon Brian using session musicians? Obviously he was fallible, as the BB's worst shows were under his baton.

then why don't we discus why they sounded terrible at these two shows.  it certainly was NOT Brian's fault.  it is about the touring band as a whole.  it is not really Dennis' fault either. However  No one is ever going to convince me that Dennis was a great drummer.

Huh, did Denny play drums on "Slip On Through"??? Cause if not, that is rockin! And if the house isnt rockin, dont bother knockin.

(http://www.math.toronto.edu/~drorbn/Gallery/Symmetry/Tilings/2S22/BrickWall.jpg)

More nails in the coffin of what this board used to be.

(http://www.renegaderoper.com/images/santa.jpg)

That's your opinion, Ian. Your opinion, interspersed with some facts, but an opinion nevertheless. And I respect it. A lot. But you're still missing the issue.

The issue is that windchimes has a different opinion, interspersed with some facts, and I respect his opinion too. I don't agree with everything he says, but I believe him when he says he's a fan. But you can be a fan, participate on a message board, and still be critical of the group.

Describing one of the band's most beloved members' work as "horrible" and "nauseating" is a bit much though, don't you think, John?

In my opinion, yes, it is a bit much.

Dennis is my least favorite Beach Boy. DO I think he really fit in with the other band members? No. But I guess that is why I love them so much. Yeah, I really dont like the way dennis cracks his voice on "In the back of my mind" I will say that his vocal on "Slip On Through" or "Got To Know the Woman" is bad ass. Fo sho!

Oh, HELL yes, negro.  :P

Yeah, I think it's a little much to say things like that.  Obviously we're going to have different opinions, and goodness knows I've had some critical words to say about everybody, but I've learned to say things like "I don't like Bob Lizik's bass sound" rather than "Bob Lizik is a terrible bassist."

And I don't think it's necessary to think Dennis is a "good drummer."  Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, maybe the Beach Boys were terrible at times, maybe not.  That stuff is opinion.  Getting pissed off about something like that is just a reason to either find something else to listen to, go take a walk, or learn how to get less pissed off about things, I guess.

Dave, Ricky and Blondie were very good but were not there long enough to evolve much. Bruce was an asset from 65-72 but not when he rejoined. Carl was always good before Dennis died except for the 77-8 period. He sparkled at times after 83 but became more and more lost in the background. Brian and Dennis were great before 76 and 77 respectively, and Al was always good. Mike well he was funny in a laugh at him instead of with him kind of way. He did have a lot of energy though the 70s and at least through 1973 was trying to add something modern. To go into depth. The Beach Boys from 1962-4 improved with every passing month. Brian said that Dennis came into his own in 1963 and I go with that. I think the improvement in all the guys from One Man's Challenge to the TAMI show is huge. Even the improvement from the "Lost" concert to TAMI show is noticeable. Even at they start they were entertaining.  Primitive? That is why I like them. Rock and Roll to me is not about technical issues, its about soul and they had it. By the TAMI show they were really rockin' hard and were truly electric. Now I think Brian did have a say in the live shows until but he never told them to exactly replicate his records. He arranged the studio and live renditions quite differently. Besides even as early as 1963 Carl was the on stage leader. Bruce or Glen never had Brian's charisma. If Brian from 1976 on was not with it on stage (though his solo shows and a few from 77 are pretty nice), the shows he played from 1961-71 truly benefited from his presence. I like the Hawaii shows. Sloppy sure, but a lot of fun, and even if they are loose, his vocals and keyboard parts are coming from a man who is having a great time.  I like the laid back shows because of they took an artistic gamble. By the way American Band shows Brian playing bass on stage in Hawaii, and I think it was on Heroes. The 68-70 shows are tight, and to me, have a lot more depth then what came before. That doesn't mean they are any better to hear, but there is more variety.  Despite the tune-ups I have to agree with most people and say the 71-3 shows are the best without Brian. I like Dennis' drumming more then Ricky's myself but Fataar and Chaplin, along with a more upfront Dennis, added a youthful vigor The Beach Boys would never again possess. From 1974-6 the shows were usually still good rock and roll but only the Beachago tour had the artistic risks of old. I don't think they were any less entertaining, but they were more predictable. After 1976 things sucked at times, The Wilson’s weren’t always good by 1977-8 because of dope, and though Carl again became consistent in 1979, his brothers never did. Yet when he was on Dennis still gave the group moments of power. Dennis' raw spirit and feel are what made The Beach Boys a great live band. Take Dennis away and you take the b..ls away. Carl had a lot of rock and roll spirit himself, but with the exception of the 1993 tour Mike led the post Dennis band. The Beach Boys rarely displeased a crowd (even after the real band ended) but outside of a few choice tunes there was little to distinguish one show from another. Each year getting further away from authenticity.

Wow, that was an entirely accurate and enlightening post. Bravo!

Neither Denny nor a true session musician: Dennis Dragon, brother of Daryl Dragon, and occasional road drummer for the Beach Boys (he is on Syracuse 1971) played that part.  It is a distinctive set of fills that he plays.

Let's see here --

Brian was at both shows.
Brian actually played in Hawaii, but Bruce was not there and Brian insisted on playing only organ.  So Al and Carl had to squeeze in playing an unfamiliar instrument as well as singing at the Hawaii shows.
That organ sounded awful on songs like Surfin.

It may not be ALL Brian's fault but his impact cannot be discounted.

I said it before, I say it again -- I lay the fault at Bruce's feet for the change.  Maybe Brian told them to tone it down, but they pretty much had to anyway.  Badman's book does a great job at describing the way in which Bruce joined the band.  He had never before played the bass and learned it from scratch while he and Glen Campbell toured together.  Bruce may have done some rock productions but he has admitted that he is not much of a rocker (as if his solo album didn't prove that).  So he was not as aggressive as Brian.

Anyone faulting the BB playing as a band -- I urge you to seek out a track that was released for a very short time in Australia.  It was recorded at Sydney in 1964 and it is amazing to hear today for those who think of the band as a poor performer.  The band plays Ray Charles' "What'd I Say."  All *five* members shine instrumentally.  That's right, five -- Mike not only plays his sax but adds a significant contribution to a propulsive groove.  Denny and Brian go nuts and push the band as hard as they can, and Carl and Al are able and willing on guitars.  You can't ask much more than that.  Makes me wish Mike had been serious about being a true musician -- the band could have been great live as just the core 5.

The BBs were such crap live musicians througout their 40+ years of touring that they never lasted as a live group and that's a fact.  ::)

If Bruce was a mediocre bass player, wouldn't the band try to play louder to compensate for it, instead of toning down guitars and drums so that the whole audience could pay attention to the bass lines?

I didn't say "mediocre" I said less aggressive.  Bruce could hit the notes and play in time, no question.  But he was tamer, less raw, less agressive.  He covered the parts but without intensity or passion.  I can hear the diff clearly in 1967 in Washington, and of course it is far more obvious once Ed Carter was in the fold.  Bruce probably can play the bass in a technical sense better than Brian, but Brian at his best felt the rock style better than Bruce.

I didn't mean to overstate Bruce's ability in his first months as a Beach Boy. Hitting the right notes but not provinding the right punch on the strings may not be BAD playing, but it is mediocre. My point is, I don't agree that the band sterted to tone down the arrangements because the new bass player wasn't ideal for the job. There was something else IMO. Carl or/and Brian wanted it to sound that way.

Live in the early seventies was the best if you want to hear technically good livbe BeachBoys.  Listen to Ricky on Drums on H&V live.  Listen to Wonderbill on EH.

I saw a lot of live acts in the seventies and NONE, I repeat...NONE were better than the Beachboys. 

Comparing the body of work that is the BeachBoys to a one trick pony blues player from the 80's is like  comparing  Billie Holiday to Beyonce or Mariah Carey...or Drew Carey for that matter.

As for the Band in the 80's, this is the decade when I saw them at least yearly.  They were good some years and not so good at other times.  But they were most excellent on a number of occasions. 

The 1st couple of years following Carl Wilson's return after solo touring
contained numerous stellar performances of old, new, and solo material.  And this was a time of Ed Carter, Mike Meros, Jeff Foskett and company....so there was no shortage of backup talent.

It's not a FACT that the Beach Boys were or were not a great live band. That is an OPINION only.

OK, rant over. 

What about "Who - Live At Leeds" of course it isn't the same kind of music, but if BBs had had those musical chops, they would have been a truly great live band.

Søren

I wasn't thinking of the WHO as seventies live.  I saw the Who  in early Summer 1970 (there goes my age) doing much the same show and material as Leeds,    and they were indeed awsome.  I stand corrected.

But that music isn't really comparable to the Beachboys. 

The Beachboys bass and drum section wouldn't hold a candle to Entwhistle and Moon.  But the songs of Pete Townsend, while most entertaining and excellent, are not the things of beauty crafted by Brian and performed by the band. 

On the other hand, the music was just too good to be replicated on the road by anything less than a group of studio musicians...the same guys who played on the records.

This was the problem with early motown live recordings.  James and Benny weren't there for the road shows.

But the Blondie Ricky was unique in that the road band performed so well.

But I digress.

I saw the 1973 band’s show, with Denny up front. At the 1973 show I was initially a little disappointed that Dennis was not the drummer.  This band and the show, though, exceeded my expectations, which were fairly high.  Subsequently I saw the BB’s, with Brian, on New Years 1976-77 with Denny on drums. What really got my attention at seeing Denny on drums at the 76-77 show is that, to my eyes, he played left-handed.  I’ve only seen one other lefty professional drummer.  Having witnessed Dennis in both roles, I preferred him up front where he basically co-hosted the show with Mike, and sang a lot more. To me, his strongest asset was his personality and ability to connect and communicate with the audience. Up front was where he was able to do that best.  Actually, I feel that (Denny up front) played no small part of the success of the 73-74 live band show but I never hear it mentioned.  I also think that 73-74 touring band played no small role in the resurgence in record sales and in respect for the Beach Boys that occured at this time.  In a front man role, Dennis could have always taken a turn at the drums, (ala Don Henley), for selected songs.  I think that would have worked well.   
Denny drove his Mom over to the 1973  Phoenix, Az. Show, I’m referring to.  This was  about the time that Murry passed away.  Towards the end of the show, Dennis introduced her to the audience and then, sang “You Are So Beautiful To Me” to his Mom right there in front of him.  It was unforgettable and I believe that it was one of Dennis’s greatest moments.

Dennis could have easily functioned as a front man such as Don Henley on later material.   

It would have meant including more Dennis material which might not have been  accepted by those wanting to hear the traditional BB hits and harmony.

Thanks  I. Spaceman. I added a few more lines

I just double checked my sources, it's factual that they were indeeed a great live band much of the time.  ;)

I don't really listen to live recordings much. I think live stuff is meant to be enjoyed in the moment, in an arena full of fans. The Beach Boys were a studio band to me, and I just don't think of them as rock n' roll. Most of their rock n' roll type songs are among my least favorites anyway. Give me the stacked harmonies, sparkling production and studio players. Actually, after Pet Sounds I wish they had either supplemented the band with players who could fill out their sound, or just retired from the road completely.

The biggest difference there being that Dennis didn't suck.

 ;)