|
Title: Should the band have temporarily relocated to the UK in late 60s/early 70s? Post by: Smile4ever on April 24, 2015, 01:20:31 PM The Beach Boys were respected critically (and commercially) during the late 60s and early 70s in the UK far more than in the US. In retrospect, would it have been wise for the band to temporarily relocate their base of operations to the UK during these years? They could have continued US touring. But the close proximity to other progressive UK bands may have helped them cultivate an "aura of hip" during this period. Of course, other things like matching shirts would have to be ditched. But could this move have done anything to help them?
I realize the big problem with Brian and his illness/drug use during this time would have likely prevented such a thing on its own. But hey, this is theoretical. Debate away. Title: Re: Should the band have temporarily relocated to the UK in late 60s/early 70s? Post by: CenturyDeprived on April 24, 2015, 01:24:09 PM The Beach Boys were respected critically (and commercially) during the late 60s and early 70s in the UK far more than in the US. In retrospect, would it have been wise for the band to temporarily relocate their base of operations to the UK during these years? They could have continued US touring. But the close proximity to other progressive UK bands may have helped them cultivate an "aura of hip" during this period. Of course, other things like matching shirts would have to be ditched. But could this move have done anything to help them? I realize the big problem with Brian and his illness/drug use during this time would have likely prevented such a thing on its own. But hey, this is theoretical. Debate away. I do think this could have been a good idea, as long as the band refrained from making any UK novelty songs referencing cities, UK foods, etc. And pre-Jack Rieley, I'm not sure that would have been a resistible temptation by some member(s). Seriously! Title: Re: Should the band have temporarily relocated to the UK in late 60s/early 70s? Post by: The Shift on April 24, 2015, 01:24:33 PM They'd still be welcome here.
Title: Re: Should the band have temporarily relocated to the UK in late 60s/early 70s? Post by: SMiLE Brian on April 24, 2015, 02:17:04 PM John, get them to move into the village hall! ;)
Title: Re: Should the band have temporarily relocated to the UK in late 60s/early 70s? Post by: Please delete my account on April 24, 2015, 03:53:07 PM They'd still be welcome here. Absolutely! But they're such an American Band, I think it would have taken them too far away from their mainspring of inspiration. I know they recorded an album in Holland but the material had already mostly been written, right? And it was mostly about California, with just one mention of Amsterdamee. Title: Re: Should the band have temporarily relocated to the UK in late 60s/early 70s? Post by: The Shift on April 26, 2015, 12:25:40 AM Okay, we have seven sleeping bags laid out in the village hall (have I forgotten anyone?) - ill clear it with the hall committee and the parish council later.
Just need an idea of numbers so I can arrang with Margaret about how many cakes to get baked. Hangers-on (technicians, support musicians, tour crew, roadies, wives) can book their own accommodation in the Craven Heifer or at Taitlands. Expecting a power surge in the evenings… Title: Re: Should the band have temporarily relocated to the UK in late 60s/early 70s? Post by: Ang Jones on April 26, 2015, 04:43:02 AM I'd have welcomed this!
I don't think it would have hurt in the late 60s and early 70s. After Endless Summer they were once again popular on account of being American - specifically, Californian. Would they have liked the weather? Perhaps not. 1975 and 1976 were alright of course. Title: Re: Should the band have temporarily relocated to the UK in late 60s/early 70s? Post by: beatnickle on April 26, 2015, 04:55:01 AM I wish they all could be Canterbury girls.
|