The Smiley Smile Message Board

It wouldn't surprise me if this has already been discussed here before, but here goes:

I've seen the year of 1996 on various websites as the year the Beach Boys broke up. Obviously, Mike and Bruce would disagree. I went over to AGD's site and checked out the timeline for '96 and September of that year was the last time Brian would appear live on stage with the boys (exactly 35 years to the month since the band started out). Maybe this is why so many sites call 1996 as the final year?

What do you all think?

There was never an official break-up, so when the Beach Boys ended is different for each fan.  I wouldn't say 1996 myself because Brian had not been touring very regularly with the band anyway, and some say that they broke up in 1996 because that's the last time they were all together with Carl.  I would say that they broke up when Carl passed away in 1998.  After that, Al performed a couple of shows and then was gone.  I think that many would agree with 1998.  However, I've heard some say that the Beach Boys were over in 1983 when Dennis passed.  I would heartily disagree with that, though.

Hmmm. Much of the answer to this question depends on what you think the Beach Boys were.

If you think of them as a creative recording ensemble, they arguably died with Dennis. The group has managed only two albums of original material in the quarter-century since his death. That says something. Even though Dennis wasn't the main songwriter of the group, he was -- as many say -- its spirit.

If you think of the group as a touring troupe, they probably died with Carl. That is, the line of performances that began in the early 60s and expanded and contracted over the decades ended with his passing. Why? Well, when I saw the group in 1997 (Carl was quite ill), the four BBs on stage sang lead on practically every song (Matt Jardine did fill in on some BW standards) and differentiated themselves from the support players.

In the 10 years since then, Mike and Bruce have become cheerleaders for a group of backing musicians who, from the look of setlists, sing lead on a good portion of the show. Al has performed in competing ensembles. So that incarnation of the group is dead.

In terms of Brian's involvement, it's much harder to say. He did intend, it seems, to make a BBs album in the mid-90s. He worked some with Mike. He patched things up with Carl. He recorded with Don Was and the band on some tracks in the studio. He told Andy Paley he wanted the group to perform the songs. But after that project morphed into Stars and Stripes, Brian went along for the short term and then politely went his own way.

They key point here is, sadly, that none of that material came out. Stars and Stripes scarcely counts.

If you look to the band and wonder when the last time Brian was fully involved, in terms of writing and producing released material, in terms of charting the band's course, it was in the "Love You" period. And even then ... well ... Point is, you could say the group flamed out in the late 70s. Or the 80s. Or the 90s.

Or hey, maybe they essentially ended after Brian handed over the reigns of the group in the late 60s. Who knows.

Brian himself does (see Larry King-interview)

All the rules changed dramatically when Carl died.  What's left of the Beach Boys, whether it carries the official name or not, is in pieces that can never be put back together the way we see it in our dreams.

I vote for 1998.

Domenic would say December 1964 - when Brian quit touring.   :)

See thats hard to buy because of the dominant and innovative material from 1965-1966...no  Good Vibrations!!??

Creatively I would agree with 1983, but at the same time any band with Carl involved deserves to be called the Beach Boys, for better or worse.  After Carl died, though, I think the Beach Boys ceased to exist.  What Mike and Bruce are doing now is NOT the Beach Boys.  No Wilsons = no Beach Boys as far as I'm concerned.

Yeh I agree with you there. I mean imagine the Beach Boys without any Wilsons it just wouldn't be the Beach Boys, whereas you could do without Al and Bruce and to a lesser extent Mike (maby not all of them but any one of them anyway) and it would still be a great band, heck even if it was just "The Wilsons" it would still have been great, I reckon probably better ;D But I am biased towards the Wilsons. But then Mike wouldn't have 'F***ed with the formula' and perhaps Brian wouldve brought out SMiLE and then they wouldnt have turned into a travelling jukebox. But yeh I agree with most people in that the band was officially dead and dusted after Carl died, and although the group still turned out some okay material after Denny died it still wasn't the same without him, but then again it wouldn't have been the same if he hadn't died because he was so bruised and battered by that stage.

This school of thought holds that between Bri's meltdown at Christmastime '64 and the non-release of "SMiLE", there really was no "Beach Boys"...rather, the genius Brian Wilson and his trained voices...

The question of when the Beach Boys stopped existing--'83, -96 or '98--is moot. Because they exist now, as a matter of fact. They are a legal entity making money and playing shows.
 
The real question is when they stopped mattering. That can be divided into 1) mattering sales-wise, 2) mattering artistically and 3) mattering as a great live show.

There are still different answers to each of those question, of course. But I'd say they stopped mattering sales-wise, on the whole, after 15BO (greatest hits packages and Kokomo notwithstanding). They stopped mattering artistically as a band after Holland, with moments of better work here and there afterward, and they stopped mattering as a great live show after Carl's death at the latest, but arguably sooner. Because I lose interest in their live shows after the very late 70s or early 80s, I'll leave that to others.

For me it's 1980, the last year where the Beach Boys are working as a band. In 1981 they stopped recording new material,  played just the hits, used non Beach Boys for the falsetto parts onstage and Carl left the band. When he came back in 1982 Brian and Dennis were gone, same for 1983.

Brian and/or Dennis continued to periodically perform with the Boys in '82 and '83, but it was to a lesser degree than in 1980. 

That's my point.  :)

Yeah but he's forgetting that Brian quit touring in spring '63 too.

I think Luther has it right in that they have died in different ways at various stages and in a way they never died. For me they died as an artistic entity that had any hope of being relevant in 1979/1980. It seemed they just ran out of any last traces of coolness at that time and everything that came afterwards was embarrassing. However, I'd agree that they'd already stopped progressing artistically in 1973, other than POB which was a step forward. POB is why I held out hope until 1979, but KTSA was the last straw for me. But that was me...and there were a large chunk of fans that actually hung in there, and some new ones that came on board during the tennis shorts years. A good many fans think of the Full House, Home Improvement, Kokomo, Baywatch years as Golden days for the BB's with Carl still out there with the band and even Brian on occasion. But i just cringed every time i saw them during those years. I was astonished and horrified to see Dave Marks re-appear(not really understanding yet that they were his band too), along with the pony-tails, cheerleaders, bad fashion sense and cheesy presentation. But I'd had the perspective of owning a copy of the Surfin' USA LP the year it came out, which ingrains a sense of "nothing will ever top the excitement of that moment" regarding the BB's. They were a cultural phenomenon in '63 to '65, and in so many ways that was the peak they never reached again. But my position has evolved. As long as Brian and Mike and Al and Dave and Bruce are around there is still Beach Boys. I've had the pleasure of being around them when they're together and they still interact like a club that none of us can join. Its the Hawthorne neighborhood guys, or the Calif. garage band that made it. We have no clue because we're not part of their little club. Its much less of a club without Dennis and Carl, but its still alive. The Beach boys won't be entirely dead until there is just one of them left, and then it will be the Beach Boy. And when that one goes it will be a sad, sad day because they were something really special. I say enjoy any last traces of them if you can, while you can.

I agree with 1980, that was the last gasp of the Beach Boys as a rock band. That was the last time they really rocked on stage as a group and were a relevant rock group. There were not many sidemen and basically the core guys handling all the vocals including falsetto. After that, they could be classified as an oldies band, a very very good oldies band at times and a not so good oldies band at others,  but thats what they were, with glimpses of awesomeness at times (see 1988 tour, 1993 tour).  Today, as John mentioned, there are still glimpses or traces of that available, just less so we do have to enjoy being able to see original Beach Boys perform.

That might be the first time anyone has ever said that on this board. Hooray for me!


And that is really why I wanted to differentiate. As long as there are still people interested in going out to watch the live performance of (mostly more than 40-year-old) hits and the band performing them has the legal right to be Beach Boys, and there is one or more than one 60s or 70s-era Beach Boys on stage performing them, it's good enough for me to call it legit. It's a band. Not a recording band, and not a band interested in pressing onward with new material or ideas, but a band nonetheless. I don't like it--not at all, in fact, and I have no interest in it whatsoever--but it's legit. My opinion doesn't really mean anything except to me; and plenty of other people like it.

With a board like this, you can really see that there are almost as many "Beach Boys" as there are fans, with each of us creating our own version of what they were, are and should be.

The most insightful post I've read about the BBs in a long time!  Dead-on.

I agree, Mr. Stebbins' post really made me think. But the main reason I asked this question is not so much a philosophical one, but a literal one. I have been kicking around the idea of writing the Beach Boys' bio for their entry over at rateyourmusic.com. That site listed the break-up date as 1996. I had the option of changing that, so before I did, I decided to make this thread here to discuss it.

Still, for me, the end of the Beach Boys being really Beach Boys was, in some ways, in the late '70s, after Love You. The bottom hit in 1978. I think it was in this time that the band stopped actively wanting to be Beach Boys anymore. They just didn't do what most bands would do at that stage and break up, they just continued on.

I do find it interesting though that for a large portion of fans (and for Brian too, apparently), the end of this band is defined by Dennis and Carl. Dennis was the reason the band existed (along with Brian and arguably Mike) and found an identity at first. Dennis supplied the inspiration for Brian's artistic growth to get his foot in the door as it were. Did that sentence make any sense to anyone?  ::)
Carl, meanwhile, would be instrumental in pushing the band on after Brian's retreat. He picked up the flag and ran with it, and the others followed. That's something.
The loss of these two make it harder to still define this band as really the Beach Boys, in many ways.

Yes, my feelings exactly!

None of us know the true feelings and bonds that the guys have for each other in their hearts. Actually, they themselves might be confused at times. But I've always felt, actually held out hope, that someday they could heal the personal and professional wounds. I really believe that, despite all of the hurt and pain, that all it would take is a couple of days together - some laughing, crying, hugging, SINGING - and they might be able to come away with some peace - and music! But, then again, I've been known to be naive....

Thank you, Mr. Stebbins...! I underline every word you wrote.




Don't even wanna think about it... That day is going to come, and it's going to be the horror. I'm so glad I had the opportunity of meeting Brian Wilson, even though that moment lasted for only two minutes. But the memory will remain forever - and that's the only thing that really really matters! And as long as the music's in our hearts... (Yeah, I know it sounds cheesy...)

Seeing the Mike & Bruce band on Imus performing "Cool Head Warm Heart" and "Make Love Not War" showed me that the Beach Boys are still alive... not the Beach Boys I fell in love with, but the Beach Boys nonetheless.

IMO the BB had a few 'deaths' and come backs. The first death would be the decision to not finish Smile in 1967. Friends was a bit of a comeback, but I think they became really strong again when they signed with Warner. The second death was after the Holland album. I suppose Endless Summer contributed to this, but they had gone a good year before that of very little action in the studio. When Brian came back they were able to make a couple more good records (Love You and LA Light Album) and some bad ones. POB was from a BB and that's good enough for me. But following Brian's down hill slide in 77, Dennis in 79 and Carl's decision to give up the good fight for proggressive music is when it died again.

But I will say that in my life time, I never thought I'd see anything good from the BBs live. But Brian's solo tours have in a sense been the latest life in anything related to the BB. Although he is not necessarally coming up with great new material, the Pet Sounds and Smile tours were awesome. I haven't seen or heard LOS yet, but I hear its great.

TLOS is better than any new* Beach Boys-related recording since ... oh, Love You, probably. At least. (Although that is a hard comparison because the sound of it is so entirely different.) So Brian definitely is coming up with great new material.


*I'm not counting Smile as new just because the vast majority of it was already written, recorded and widely booted. So while it was a monumental event and a great opportunity to get it all in one, officially released and completed place, it wasn't really entirely (or even mostly) new, other than new recordings of old material.

No love for LA or KTSA? :shrug

I don't think MIU, LA or KTSA are totally without merit. But I do think TLOS is pretty far superior to each of them. (Although without it having been recorded, it's hard to gauge it just yet. A lot can go wrong in performance and production, as each of Brian's solo albums other than Smile has proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt.)

I LOVE KTSA -- so there!

Both of those albums started out optimistically with a very involved Brian Wilson. However, Brian became ill during L.A. and had to call in Bruce, and, for KTSA, Brian started out strong, "singing like a bird" for about a week, then faded again. Thus, we have two uneven at best albums.

At the time the original Brian Wilson solo lp was for me the best release since Love You or maybe even Holland; over time it hasn't worn quite that well but it will always be special.  Prior to that release, I never expected another note from Brian.

I like LA alot and like parts of KTSA.  You can basically keep MIU.

That's my philosophy.  Lawsuits and bickering aside, I go out and enjoy all the touring bands when they come within 50 (sometimes more) miles of me.

I feel differently, but both more and less fortunate. I think I missed any chance at a true Beach Boys live show, not having gotten interested until around the time of Carl's death. (And frankly, I don't think I'd have been much interested in seeing them live anyway unless it had been 15 or 20 years earlier.) But on the other hand, for me, the Beach Boys won't die until I do, because my experience of them is far more based on their recordings. And so as long as I've got my hearing and a medium by which to listen, I'm fine. For me, Brian's, Al's, Mike's and Bruce's voices are all still pristine, and Carl and Dennis (and sometimes David, Ricky, Blondie and others) are singing right alongside them.

There are a handful of albums since Love You that I would say are comparable in terms of artistic merit.  I'm a big LA Light Album fan, and I also enjoy Orange Crate Art (probably my favorite 90's album by any artist), and also BW 88.  I also have a soft spot for Summer In Paradise, which I know doesn't really measure up artistically, but it is still enjoyable nonetheless.  I hope that last sentence doesn't take away from the two before it!  :lol

Oh, I realize other people think differently than me about some of the albums in that span, and that's fine. And, as I said, I can't really make a fair assessment of a TLOS album until I hear one, because frankly, I could have liked each of BW's solo albums much more than I do if it had been presented (i.e., performed, arranged and produced) differently. The same collection of songs can be saved, ruined or just changed by any number of choices in the studio. So as I've heard TLOS, I rank it as better than those you mentioned. But we'll see.

I love KTSA.  :)  But I love every album besides 15 BO.  :P

In a similar topic some one said, that the Beach Boys will never die.

I would have to go with the brief 1977 break up as far as them being a real functioning band. It was never quite the same after that. Some of the 76-77 studio recordings and concerts leave me cold, but it still felt like a group especially on 15 Big Ones despite artistic merits or lack thereof.

I can't really fault much from 1961-74 at all. Smile or not there output was amazing and the band remained a great creative entity. Remember at least through 70-71 Brian was more often involved then not.  From 1975-77 some concerts were flawless but some showed an increasing amount of apathy. I guess you could say the Beach Boys from late 77-late 80 were not without merit but they were pulling in different directions. It's almost like LA Light is their White Album. Some very good music sitting with some very bad, the group at times not working on each others tracks. Kind of a collection of solo cuts.

 The real implosion happened when Carl left. While the concerts perked up a bit in 82-83, after Dennis died he and Brian both were never quite as vigilant in keeping the group a flourishing studio band. By 1986 when the cheerleaders started it's obvious Carl wasn't putting up much of a fight anymore on stage either. It's just sad to watch their post Dennis years. I guess officially 1998 would be the real break up, but I just wish they had broken up when Murry died really.

When you say "it's obvious" - didn't Carl approve of the cheerleaders? I never read an interview with him being critical of them.

I remember the TV show, Solid Gold, when Carl was a musical guest. He was singing "What You Do To Me" - one of his own solo songs - and he was surrounded by The Solid Gold Dancers, much like The Beach Boys' Cheerleaders. Do you know if Carl had a problem with the dancers?

I think it's more a case of putting up with them, rather than approving. Carl was also willing to let them go in '96.

Personally, I never liked the cheerleaders because they always blocked my view of the band I paid good money to see. And the BBs played better without the distraction of dancers.

And I'm glad the BBs stayed together as long as they did.

When did The Beach Boys "breakup"? That's a hard question, that requires several different answers. I think that the Holland album was the last time where the group recorded truly "forward thinking" music.  Their next album, 15BO, was filled with a lot of oldies. I think that 1980 was the year where the group stopped really making a serious effort with their studio recordings. Somebody from this messageboard(who will remain nameless) sent me a recording of the group at the Philadelphia Spectrum from that year. They actually performed about half of the KTSA album. By the next year, Carl would be gone, Adrian Baker(*shudder*) would be in his place, and the group introduced their "car medley" that year.  Carl came back a year later, and the group started to sound a little better. I have a video of the group at Seattle in 1983, and even though their set was starting to be dominated by the car songs, they still put on a very good show. But things changed all of a sudden when Dennis died. Somebody mentioned the fact that Carl seemed to not care as much after that. Personally, I think Carl "gave up" when people like Jeff Foskett started to sing lead in concert more often than an actual "Beach Boy" did. Technically, the group ended as a creative unit when Summer in Paradise came out. When I say "creative", I would define it as "Any effort whatsoever to make a somewhat cohesive studio recording". Things changed again when Carl died. A Beach Boys concert without him singing "God Only Knows" just doesn't seem to matter. But, consider this: What if Brian had returned to the group full time after Carl died? Would a group that features Brian, Al, Bruce, and Mike really still be "The Beach Boys"?

That is actually the only lineup that I could call "The Beach Boys".  Not so much the quantity of original members, but having Brian in there makes it legit for me.  I just don't think you can call a group " The Beach Boys" without having a Wilson on stage. 

Carl fought with Mike a lot in the 70's to keep the show current, to keep the relavant, to not overdue the oldies. I just think that things like alowing cheerleaders up on stage shows an indifference that wasn't there when he left in 1981. He had cared so much that the shows were becoming oldies revues he just went and left. After Dennis died I just see a change in Carl. I'm not saying he didn't try at all anymore, but he didn't seem to have the passion that he had before. He let Mike make most major decisons in the 80's and 90's, and the group suffered greatly for it.  The boxset tour and the summer of 88 were the only times I think the 84-97 shows reached the quality he had previously demanded. I never spoke to him, and I am sure he did love being a Beach Boys, but I feel he gave up the fight in 1984. His goal became keeping  the Beach Boys together period. If that meant relaxing his standards on stage, I guess he felt it was for the greater good.

I can't understand why nobody helped Carl with keeping the setlist fresh, since Al was too worried about their set in the early 80ies,  and then again in the 90ies.

I think that Carl and Brian both lost heart in the group when they lost their brother.  :'( I think that from 1984-1997 Carl and Brian were just "along for the ride". I'm not saying that they didn't totally not care about the group anymore. I just think that they lost their "passion" once all the fighting and general craziness of the rock and roll lifestyle claimed their brother.

I agree 100 percent. Brian was somewhat forced away at first by Landy, but by 1992 he didn't care like he had even 10 years earlier. In the 1981 Les Chan informal interview with Brian, he speaks out against people going solo stating he thinks a group situation was better. So to me Dennis' death has to be the major turning point as to when he changed his attitude. Carl it's just obvious from the set. Why did he and Al not go against Mike and Bruce? I can only guess that their communication off stage wasn't what it should have been.

I think that perhaps financial reasons played a part in it. We all know that The Beach Boys were huge in the 1960's, but by the 1990's they were playing country fair's. Think about this: would you rather sing a dud like "Kokomo" and make a million dollars, or sing a song like Feel Flows and...not make a million dollars?  ;) Maybe the group didn't argue against Mike out of sheer need to be financially secure?

I think Al is caught between commercial sounding summery pop and, shall we say, more artistic folk-oriented stuff; quite often with the BB, the former has prevailed. I had high hopes for his new album - until I heard the extract which is summery pop and more than a little derivative.

You mean this "Postcard from California"-thing? If you haven't heard more than most of us (that is the snippet on Al's site) I think you can't judge it. "California energy blues" is a very cool track imo and it's not summery pop. I have high hopes for his albums, as I think that he's a very capable musician and producer. Of course, I could be wrong and the album turns into some "Looking back with love"-thing

"I think that he's a very capable musician and producer."

I don't disagree.  I hope I'm wrong because I've been looking forward to it!

Thank you, thank you, thank you! There was and is a lot of hypocrisy going on.

But back to the cheerleaders....I've never been able to figure out why they/that upset so many people on this board. They didn't bother me. I enjoyed seeing them. They didn't block my view, they improved it! All they did was dance to a couple of oldies, enhanced the song if you will. If they bothered you so much, you didn't have to watch them. I actually heard a lot of applause when they were on stage.

Brian brought out power tools for "The Workshop Song", vegetables for "Vega-tables", and a fire hose for "Mrs. O'Leary's Cow". I guarantee it, GUARANTEE IT, if he would've brought out cheerleaders for "California Girls", people would've applauded it and proclaimed him a genius for it.
   

This amuses me. And it isn't wrong. And the fact is, it gets to the heart of one of the great Beach Boys debates. If you want to get a clean look at Hired Musician #3 to see if he is using the same voicing on such-and-such chord that Carl used back at the Isle Of Whatever festival because replicating such things is oh so important, you care because it's distracting from what matters. And if you're going to listen to songs that make you feel good, you don't mind them--you recognize the cheese, and go with it because it's all in fun.

High art.

Fun.

(Somewhere in between? Common sense?)

I think the problem that many have with the cheerleaders is that their presence takes away from the music, which is supposed to be the focal point.  Obviously by that point in time, the music wasn't their primary concern ($$$).  The cheerleaders did not "enhance" the song at all; they were just a distraction.  Not only that, but they reinforced the band's "oldies" image.  Taking the band in that oldies direction led directly to their creative death, and promoted the ridiculous stereotype (which still exists) that all the Beach Boys ever did was car and surfing songs.  So I guess it isn't so much the cheerleaders themselves, but rather, what the cheerleaders represented.

Chris, you're right, by that time the $$$ was the primary concern, but you don't really believe that the cheerleaders' presence "takes away from the music".

Did you or anybody else really want to focus on Al's guitar playing on "California Girls", or Mike Kowalski's drumming on "Kokomo", or Bruce's piano playing on "Do You Wanna Dance"? C'mon, they just stood there! Carl rarely played a solo.

Without getting into what the guys might've done with the cheerleaders off stage - yes, I know Mike even married one - their purpose was simple - to add a little or to spice up the shows. And that's all they did. It was harmless fun. It didn't affect their creativity or anything like that. Like I said in an earlier post, Brian would've been praised as being creative if he did it.

I'm sure the use of the cheerleaders had to be voted on - and of course, people will single out Mike Love - but he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Maybe there was grumbling about ticket prices or the length of the sets or the age of the members or whatever. So they decide to add a little excitement to the show. Big deal. I didn't hear any boos, mostly overwhelming applause. It's just another lame excuse to take a shot at Mike Love.

As a woman, I really didn't want to have anyone blocking my view of Carl Wilson -- or any other of the guys -- onstage. Dancing girls just don't DO anything for me... I wanted to see the BEACH BOYS, dammit!

:thewilsons

The worldview's a little different from the distaff side of things.

My God.

1. Brian's shows would never, EVER have dancing cheerleaders.  Having the Suedes dancing during the encores, perhaps, but not the cheesefest that the BB cheerleaders represented.

2. The cheerleaders WERE Mike's idea.  Go back and re-read Carlin if you don't believe me! Mike's idea, loved by Bruce, disliked by Carl (who put up with it anyway - probably as a way of throwing Mikey a bone), and absolutely despised by Al ( having a dancing routine as part of your act meant that their set list and repertoire was now limited).  I don't know what Brian thought, probably didn't care.

Brian's use of props during the SMiLE shows can't be compared to the cheerleaders and any attempt to do so is foolish.

Margaret, for once I agree wholeheartedly with you.

I think the cheerleaders were a dumb idea. I think they add nothing to the show; they're a complete distraction.

Yes, I would much rather look at Al playing guitar on California Girls. He's one of the f*cking Beach Boys! And who decided which chords that Al should on CG? BRIAN WILSON! A CHORD PROGRESSION DESIGNED BY BRIAN WILSON!!! That's much better than I'm some girl.

And I don't give a darn what Brian Wilson fans think. I don't even like Taylor Mills.

:lol

RobMac, I believe you. But who's to blame?

1. Bruce loved it.
2. Carl put up with it.
3. Al despised it. How did he vote?
4. Brian probably didn't care.

So, based on that, who's to blame? Again, it's Mike Love trying something, anything, to change things up, give the fans something extra, AND THE OTHERS GOING ALONG WITH IT, PROBABLY VOTING FOR IT, then Mike Love being singled out and criticized for it.

And I don't think comparing The Beach Boys using cheerleaders to Brian's using props is foolish at all. I think it's calling the kettle black.

Oh come on. The cheerleaders were and are stupid. There's a difference between whimsy (power tools on a song that used power tool sounds originally) and sexist pandering. And if Brian kept using the power tools for song after song during Smile, you can bet people would say it was stupid.

Anyone remember Al Coholic on the old Ego board? Well, now there's a Mikaholic on this board-and with such incredibly lame rationalizations he floats trying to save the "hallowed" reputation of the Lovester-Damn!! This guy is a one man army-and I mean ONE man. Pack it in stone-Mike Love's reputation was already established years ago-If you feel so driven to clean up his messy name, why don't you hang at the Lovester's site-it's the only thing that's more pathetic than Mike. :smokin

You guys gotta understand Mike has a thing with cheerleaders - He even married one.  :)

Thank you, Clay.

Stone, I don't know who voted for what,  neither do you.  However, Carl "putting up with it" is not the same as approving it. That's Cam Mott logic. I do lots of sh*t in my life that I don't approve of . It's doesn't mean I actually like it.  why didn't Carl object? Others in this thread have already speculated. I'm not going to rehash what others have said. Al, however went ballastic. If there was a vote, I would absolutely believe it if I heard that he had voted against it.  Face it, the cheerleaders were a lame idea that managed to suck out the last vestiges of what was great about a great live rock and roll band.  

 :o  I won't even go there....

LOL

Loosen up, guys, cheerleaders in oldies concerts, oh my. By those high standards of 'keeping the legacy' Brian shouldn't get near a stage.

My opinion is that she is just there for the audience.  ::)

Mike Love is an interesting fella IMO, and would make a good subject of a psychoanalytic biography. When I've seen him interviewed or camping it up on stage, he always seems on the verge of self-parody, like a very brittle, effeminate version of Mick Jagger. He's probably personable to some degree, but you wouldn't leave your kids with him. Quite funny how Brian gathered the reputation for eccentricity with Mike around. I have a nagging suspicion, that whilst I don't advocate violence in any form, Mike would have benefited from a good slap around the head every now and then. Dennis Wilson obviously thought so.

I think the idea of cheerleaders was one of Mike's worst but hate seeing this turn into an anti Love thread. They are so passe. I've said it 100 times, but if Mike didn't have the talent of his cousins, he added a lot to the group and they wouldn't have been the same without him. No matter how corny the shows got, that does not take away from songs like Do It Again, almost the entire Wild Honey LP, Big Sur, and countless others.

Which, of course, it did and usually does. Which is the only reason I was posting. While the cheerleaders never bothered me, really, I could give a merda either way.

The bigger point is why place ALL of the blame on Mike Love? RobMac made a few statements about how the other guys might've felt about the cheerleaders. I used his statements to make my point. And then he said, "You don't know who voted for what". Well, somebody voted FOR the cheerleaders other than Mike. Why not hold them accountable? And THAT is the issue.

This is becoming a trend on this board. Mike Love comes up with an idea to improve The Beach Boys. It might be the craziest, dumbest, loopiest idea that you ever heard. I'll admit that. Some of Mike's ideas are stupid. But, then, his ideas become reality. Why? Because they were APPROVED BY A VOTE BY THE OTHER GUYS! So who's really to blame?

I'm not absolutely sure, but I would think that having young ladies come out on stage during a Beach Boys' concert and dance to some of the songs would be something that would have to be discussed and voted on by the band. I don't think Mike Love would be able to DICTATE something like that. So Mike brings up the idea and it's passed. And that's important - it's passed.

If the idea was so bad, that it demeaned their legacy, thwarted their creativity, and publicly embarrassed them, then how could it possibly get passed? Because BRUCE liked the idea. CARL let it pass. BRIAN didn't care. I would love to know how AL voted.

Why is there no outrage at Bruce for liking the idea? Why not blame Carl for "letting it go". And, God forbid, we blame Brian for not caring. Why didn't they just vote Mike down, and all of his other crazy ideas. Then there wouldn't have been any cheerleaders. Or, maybe they DIDN'T think it was such a bad idea at that time. You can't have it both ways, because then it becomes hypocrisy.

Crap management?

OK.

If there was a vote.....

1. Bruce wouldn't had any say one way or another because of his status as "hired hand".
2. Carl, by the late 80's was probably tired of always fighting Mike over the shows.  He probably gave in in the spirit of "social harmony".  Doesn't excuse his action, but I'm flabbergasted that you aren't even trying to look at it from Carl's (or anyone else's standpoint except for Mike's). I can understand Carl's position.
3. Brian's solo career was already in  full swing. Landy probably thought "ehh. Whatever".
4.Al DID object strongly to cheerleaders and did fight Mike. Hell, he fought Carl too over the repertoire.  I can handle you blaming Carl and Brian (more like grdgingly tolerate), but  you are dead wrong in blaming Al. It was hardly his fault that he was outvoted (if a vote did happen).

Yeah...but what comes around goes around. Al voted with Mike and against Carl and Dennis on countless artistic issues in the mid to late '70's..and that started the dominoes falling directly towards those cheerleaders. He sold out in the '70's and then tried to reverse it in the '90's...too late.

Two, in fact. One of his first wives was a cheerleader he knew in high school, and he's now currently married to one of the former Beach Boys cheerleaders.

A fairly down-to-earth person who once was around the Beach Boys quite a bit "back in the day" once said to me, "the problem with Mike is he always took himself so damn seriously."  Which to me was a pretty illuminating statement.

Yeah, but that would ruin a perfect quote of "Brian's Back".

(http://www.beachboysforever.com/mike/beachboys7.jpg)

One has to ask this: did he side with Mike because he really believed Mike's artistic judgement was sound or  did the lifestyle differences between the two camps nudge Al towards the TM side?  I would have hoped that Carl's own  "clean-up" would have made him understand why Al voted how he voted in the 70's. Obviously he didn't. That to me, is unfair to Al.

Carl and Al had their chance in the 80s and 90s to show how it should be done. Carl released two solo albums, wrote 3 tracks for BB'85 and was part of the trio CD with Lamn and Beckley. Al took decades to release a solo album and has come up with FIVE new compositions in the last 26 years.

I have all this stuff and listen to it from time to time, but I'm a fan. We can debate about the politics between Carl, Al, Mike and Bruce for years, but what did those guys have to offer to their audience since the seventies ended?

I remember reading an interview where Al said he hated the cheerleaders and that is was becoming a travelling circus act or something like that anyway. And also in a Goldmine interview with Mike in 1992 he talked about how he was virtually controlling the band during the making of Summer In Paradise saying something like "everybody has to pass everything by me so if I can tell its commercial" etc... So I think it may have been a case of Carl etc.. not caring. Like I'm not saying that he and the others liked or disliked the idea of cheerleaders but the point is I think the band was turning into the Mike Love show by that stage anyway. So Im not sure if the issue is exactly "somebody voted FOR the cheerleaders other than Mike" because I don't think that mattered I just think that Mike seemed very forceful about his ideas and always has and that the others figured "well with all the fighting and other crap in the past between the band I think Ill just let Mike have what he wants." Someone summed it up best when they said that Carl and maby the others just accepted Mikes idea "in the spirit of "social harmony"". So I think (and of course this is all my opinion) that "Mike Love would be able to DICTATE something like that" because I think he pretty much had control of the band by that stage.

Bingo!

Something else to consider: when Bruce had bypass surgery a few years back, did the touring BB take time off and postpone their tour dates? Of course not! When MIKE had back surgery a few years prior to Bruce's health scare, did the band postpone touring? You bet they did!

Yep, Mike was absolutely in control-there's no doubt about it-and "Summer in Paradise" definitely proves it. :lol

Did you consider Al was never a "solo album" kinda guy? More interested in being a team player? Look at the Family and friends band and see how many lead vocals were dished out to other members?

\

Yeh thats the funny part of it, Mike in the interview says "I understand whats commercial because I co-wrote Kokomo and I also wrote the part in "Good Vibrations" that goes "im picking up etc.." and then he says how the songs on Summer In Paradise have to be approved by him so that he can see if they are commercial enough!! How many units did that sell again?... :lol

I'll listen to whatever he releases. If he's only comfortable 'going solo' at 65, fine with me.

But aren't we debating about how Mike Love has held the band back? I'm asking, did Al have any vision, ambition or material to be held back by band politics?

Crack at Your Love
California Calling
Island Girl
PT Cruiser
California Energy Blues

The first 3 are all better than SIP!!!  Crack at Your Love was a Brian/Landy song that Al rewrote the lyrics to cause they were so bad. He indicated this an ESQ interview a few years ago.  Al mentioned he gave Brian credit on California Calling to make up for it.

Mike may have been in control, but Al did convince the group to do the 93 tour and Carl to sing Sail on Sailor, battles in a war he lost I guess.  I agree with Jon that Al had his chance to change some stuff in the 70's and voted with Mike, whether it was for lifestyle or not and I think he kicked himself for this years after, probably still does.  Perhaps that is what Mike means when he keeps saying Al has a hard time getting over past wrongs or moving on?
Al also mentioned in the same ESQ interview, when Mike first talked about the cheerleaders, he said it would be from a local high school or college to come out for 1 song (Be True To Your School).  Then it morphed into permanent cheerleaders and that affecting the order of the setlist and the songs.
Nothing is more cheesier than Billy H and the cheerleaders doing Wipeout late 80's. What was HE thinking??

That is one thing I admire about Al. At least he is willing to admit that he made some questionable decisions in the BB. Would Sir Michael do the same?

And yet I prefer them all to Bruce. Go fig.

"I let Mike trick me" doesn't sound like such a painful admitance of his own questionable decisions, does it?

Has any Beach Boy ever admited that he could have done things differently / could have dealt better with the problems / could have had a better understanding about each other's needs?

"I should have smashed his face" and "I should have sued him a lot earlier" don't count.  :-D

I love ALL of those songs.

I've never heard 'Island Girl', 'PT Cruiser' or 'California Energy Blues', but the other two I know. I can't stand either one. Especially 'California Calling', which is the worst song on the '85 album, along with 'Passing Friend'. "Totally rad", huh?

Bleh.

Trying to rewrite 'Surfin' USA', just like 'Kona Coast' was trying to rewrite 'Hawaii'. Idiocy.

I think California Calling is the best song on BB85. None of that crappy production. And that "ring ring ring" part in the chorus made me laugh so long the first time I noticed it.