The Smiley Smile Message Board

I know it has been said many times in the past (on this very board) but I think it bears repeating (after reading about the comings and goings with the tour group Mike heads up).

The Beach Boys suffered a terrible loss when Brian quit touring in 1964 and quit producing their records in 1967. When Dennis died on December 28th, 1983, The Beach Boys as we knew them ceased to be. Carl and the rest of the group kept the heart and soul going until February 6th, 1998. After Carl died, the Beach Boys were no more. Period. End Of Story. No, then weren't just down another member. They ceased to exist.

Some music reference books currently in publication correctly state "The Beach Boys - 1961 to 1998".  The group died that day. The collection of people touring with Mike and Bruce are called the Beach Boys because the term "Beach Boys" is now a brand that is up for sale to the highest lease payer. If someone came in and said they would guarantee 15 million dollars in fees for the trademark, the board members of Brother Records would have to accept the offer and pull the license from Mike and Bruce. Otherwise, the board members could be sited for fiduciary misconduct.

Just wanted to add my $.02.

Careful, mush. I stated pretty much exactly what you've just said in that first paragraph recently and ended up getting told 'boy you are going to look a fool' and 'get an education' by none other than Mr Jon Stebbins. Even though what you've just said is of course true - look above, even the South Park guys agree.

I claimed, for instance, that if, as some people say, the Beach Boys still excist as a band, then that meant if Mike were to get sick and pull out of a show, but Bruce and the crew still played the gig, then that, according to them, and despite containing not one single original member of the band, would still consitute 'the Beach Boys'. I argued that if that were the case it was utterly ludicrous! If not, then the argument is over. They don't excist anymore. It is exactly as you described in your second paragraph.

It's just not a topic with an actual answer. So anything anyone says is an opinion, maybe interesting but not more valid than any other.

Personally I wish they'd split up round about 1974-75 - at that point they had yet to release a bad album, some interesting mis-fires sure, and some bizarre curios, but nothing terrible. 15 Big Ones and MIU would soon put paid to that... Although their critical standing does seem to improve with every passing year, they did their rep a lot of damage during the late '70s and '80s. So I wish they'd split on a high with Holland and having proven themselves as an incredible live band.

Therapy is the only way to cure those who believe the Beach Boys still exist-it is sad to see all those poor souls on the BBB carry on like they do about the Mike & Bruce tribute band with a few changes in personnel and how those changes may affect the way they sound-I guess they just don't really know any better or have not had the chance to see the real band in concert-As alot of people here and everywhere have said, "no Wilsons, no Beach Boys". Seeing the tribute band that has the "license" to call themselves the Beach Boys does not constitute the Beach Boys in any way, shape or form. Yes, I liked the Cowsills in high school-they had a few hits, but to think that one of them is a Beach Boy is absurd! It is all over for them for being thought of as a "group". Tribute band, yes, and not the best one out there by any means. :smokin

Sure it does. The legal way, shape and form. I personally couldn't give a f*** less about them, but then again I wouldn't have paid more than about 15 cents to see the band after 1980 or so. And hence back to the initial point: the Beach Boys DO exist now, just in a very different form that isn't interesting to most people. But they do exist and to some people they exist in a worthwhile form.

The Beach Boys exist??? The Hell they do-anyone with any brains knows that up front-get with it man-

I suppose it's all down to which you consider the more worthy really: a load of lawyer-approved, court-settled documentation, or the actual human beings who made the music that we spend all our time talking about on this website?

Do the Beach Boys exist?

Yes in name they do

Do they exist as we all loved them?

No.

I don't see the point of arguing. Just move on...

Depends what you mean by "The Beach Boys". For touring, any member of the corporation who conforms to the license issued by BRI can legally call themselves The Beach Boys. Not up for grabs to the highest bidder at all. Follow the rules, pay the cut, the name is yours.

As for recording, the situation is much more clear cut - for any new release to be credited to The Beach Boys, it has to feature Brian, Mike, Alan & Bruce.

The Beach Boys have 'died' many times... 1964, 1967, 1972, 1977, 1983, 1996, 1998. Thing is, no-one told them so they just kept on truckin'. Personally, they died creatively in 1973, emotionally in 1983 and for all intents in 1998. But that's just my 2¢.

I think the reason that the current band is not considered the Beach Boys by many is that they're just performing songs that have been around for years and featured people like Brian, Carl, Dennis, and Al (and Dave) on the recordings.

Let's contrast that with a group like the Four Freshmen, who, with no original members, are still releasing albums and in 2000 were voted Vocal Group of the Year. If Brian had the license to the Beach Boys name, and released his solo albums as Beach Boys albums, I think people here would see that as being more legitimate. But it's not.

That's pretty lame to say they should've broken up in the mid 70s; Love You is a great album, MIU us a decent album. As for dieing, the Beach Boys will never die, their spirit of true rock n' roll will always live on, but as far as the actual band goes it pretty much is dead, Carl and Dennis can never be replaced and with all the horseshit Mike Love has caused sh*t will never be the same in general.
-Josh

To many casual BB fans, it doesn't matter who is on the stage. Its the songs that they want to hear. I suppose it helps that at least one original member is on the stage, making it more then a tribute band.  But I bet many casual fans have no clue who the original BB are and could care less.

To anybody on this board, being more serious BB fans, we need more then to see a bunch of guys playing the hits on stage.  In the last 10 years, Brian has made a come back and his shows are much more representative of what the BB really are. In other words, music from all eras. As a matter of fact, many of us would take Al Jardine's sets more seriously then Mikes, right?

i have seen quite a few beach boys shows over the years. the early '70's, they were great. but i'm glad i went after '80 also. saw many "average" shows but some were as great as any era i had seen them in. the shows were worth the ticket price for sure. and i can listen to a lot of them over and over again. i taped many of the concerts i went to. the june 1984 concert in huntington, wva was as good as any show i had ever seen. the songs were mostly the hits, not like the early '70's material, but the playing, leads, background vocals were stunning at that show and came out great on my tape of that show. i love listening to that tape, esp. wendy.  so, for me anyway, i'm glad i went to many concerts after '80. plus i got to drink all that beer......  ;D

but i have only seen the "tribute" band once and left early cause that version of the group just wasn't the same. but i saw many good and great shows after 1980.

but to each their own i guess.....

No New Album-No Beach Boys IMO :police:

Learn some manners, "dude." And work on some logic.

I've thought that, too. But then that logic only works for people whose personal appreciation of the Beach Boys consists of studio albums, new product. If it takes newly released albums to make a band, then no band existed before the phonograph was invented. And I'm sure there were bands that, if they weren't comprised of long-dead people, would disagree with that. And even saying "fine, but they have to perform new music," doesn't work, because plenty of acts throughout the years didn't do new material--especially in jazz and folk.
 
The most important part of your post, the most correct part, and the part I can't fathom other people not understanding, is the "IMO."

For those who have such definitive answers, don't you notice the diversity of opinions others have? The other "definitive answers"? That probably ought to tell you to reflect on what you believe and whether it's really so factually definitive. (Hint: It isn't.)

I agree that there are both legal and personal answers to the question.

For me personally, they died as a performing group the 4th time I saw them.
It was in the late 80s. They put on such a poor show that I was mortified to have taken my friends to see them.  I wouldn't go back again.

For me personally their potential as a recording band died with Carl Wilson.

The group of people currently touring undoubtedly put on a better show than the last one that I saw.......but they also charge a lot more and lack all Wilson's. I call them "Mike Love Presents the Music of the Beach Boys", which is not a bad thing. More power to him/them for keeping the flame of live performance of the music of Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys alive.

If the survivors got together and recorded, they could call themselves whatever the contracts allow...but they might do better to update an old moniker and call themselves The Survivors than The Beach Boys.

But, really, for the future, it's the music that counts.

Deal with it, and while you're speaking of logic, your "frothing at the mouth" posts could easily be condensed into one or two meaningful sentences-bit wordy aren't you?

No.

The Beach Boys exist - unless something cataclysmic has happened in the last few hours, Brian, Mike, Alan & Bruce are still alive, thus The Beach Boys exist, albeit in a condition of stasis. Who was that on the roof at Capitol ? Wasn't Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, for sure.

Ok, you're right-the only thing I would add is "...the individual Beach Boys exist". But in terms of a "group" they do not exist.

Not as lame as describing MIU as a decent album. Brian coulda released 'Love You' as a solo, Dennis coula released 'Baby Blue' & 'Love Surrounds Me' on Bamboo (this is, before anyone starts replying, purely in my ideal hypothetical vision), and we'd have all been spared 15 Big Ones, 'Brian Is Back', MIU, most of KTSA, dancing cheerleaders etc. and their back catalogue would remain an untarnished gem!

The Beach Boys aren't dead because the members, or potential members of the group aren't dead - literally and physically. As long as Brian, Mike, Al, Bruce, and David are alive, there is still potential, possibilty, hope, dread - put in your own word - that The Beach Boys COULD perform music.

To say a group is dead means "final", that they are gone, will NEVER be around again. But, what if California Governor Arnold Swartzenegger announces some mega-concert to benefit the victims of the fires in California. And what if Arnold publicly invites The Beach Boys to perform, and personally telephones the guys. And they agree. Is it possible Brian, Mike, Al, Bruce, and David could get together, rehearse a set, and perform at a concert as THE BEACH BOYS. Yes, it's possible. So, as long as it's possible, then The Beach Boys can't be pronounced dead - yet. On life support, but not dead.

For those who subscribe to the No Wilsons-No Beach Boys school of thought, I ask you who released "Come Go With Me" on MIU and as a Top Ten single? Al Jardine's Endless Summer Beach Band? According to the definitive vocal thread, no Wilsons appeared on that record....

So if the Thames should flood Paul and Ringo, plus the drummer who filled in for Ringo during the Australian Tour could reform the Beatles? :o

edit...forgot Pete Best.

I agree with SJS on this one...technically. For me the BB's died in Dec. 1983, well really before that, but I didn't know it yet...I held out hope until then. But as SJS so nicely stated there are enough of the original guys left that a band called the Beach Boys could legitimately record something new. I'm not saying I'd like it...but maybe I would...I doubt it...but who knows? But if they wanted to do something then they should. It won't be a possibility for much longer. We are not the Beach Boys so we don't get to decide. Those guys have a connection that goes so much deeper than lawsuits and cheerleaders and bad records and other embarrassing reasons as to why they are dead or should not try to resuscitate. They are the only guys in the world who can say they are original  Beach Boys, who even with the bad stuff were one of the greatest pop acts in history...pretty important stuff. If they want to add one last wheezing chapter to the story I say Go For It! I'd want to do it if I were them. They'd get to laugh at Brian's unintentional jokes, and not laugh at Mike's intentional ones. They'd get to harmonize, maybe not too good, but wouldn't you wanna try it one more time just to see if the motor still turns over? They could be Beach Boys for a minute...man that has got to be fun. All the perfectly sensible reasons as to why they are dead, and shouldn't try to be anything else, don't take into account that these guys are like a really dysfunctional family that still could show up for Thanksgiving dinner at the same table one more time... and perhaps enjoy the meal.

Well said, Jon.

I'd love it if the surviving members did come together for a final album. It'd be a sure hell of a better way to go out than Stars & Tripe. For me, Still Cruisin' was the point where the band became a self-parody. SIP was a Mike Love solo album in all but name. And Carl was the end of the BB, but not in the way that you might think. For it was Carl who killed the mid-90s reunion attempt. Brian & Mike were working together, the harmonies were killer on "You're Still a Mystery", "Soul Searchin" was also a gem...who knows how good the end result would've been? Maybe Carl was already sick by that point, because Brian sure got pissed at him from everything I've heard or read, and he was supposedly always in Brian's corner.

What actually happened? I keep hearing conflicting stories...

My take is a simple one:

When Brian dies, so do the Beach Boys.

But only mortals die. (Cue vomit)

Shoot, Brian will probably outlive them all.

I agree, except I'd add Mike ,too. Whatever you feel about him, the BB couldn't exist without him.

Actually, I've been thinking about this since and the way I see it is this: The Beatles knew when to split up. There catalogue is so impressive because there's so little in it that can be considered genuinely bad, even the mis-fires are generally great, or at least interesting. The same can be said of the Beach Boys up until 1974-5. But they didn't know when to split, and so there back catalogue is instead full of genuinely bad songs, which would not be the case had they split at the time I've suggested. I think awful albums like MIU and the appalling career choices they made during the 80's (cheerleaders, Baywatch appearances, the Fat Boys) continue to damage their rep, and it would've been worth having 'Love You' as a Brian solo, or even - gulp! - not at all, for the band to have called it a day mid-seventies and left behind one hell of a great bunch of albums and a very dignified musical career. Amen.

Mike and Bruce occasionally do a show that does the whole spectrum and their orchestral show in Chicago this spring did the legacy proud. It wasn't the Beach Boys but an artistically valid tribute. Sadly most of their shows aren't, but to me it proves Brian and Mike could artistically blend pretty well if their respective "people" wouldn't get in the way. Certainly they did on Soul Searchin and She's Still A Mystery. Would that be the Beach Boys? In a way but not totally .

Sadly the original Beach Boys did pretty much die with Dennis, and  things like the 1993 box set  tour or the Don Was sessions were few and far between. Just a few flickers of life, but overall it was over. As a consistently thriving group it ended in 1975. The Chicago tour was like the grand finale. I have to agree they should have broken up then (I don't like Love You), but until the end of 1983 there were still moments that felt right. They were happening less frequently but the original chemistry was there. Honestly even when they did work with Brian after 1983 most of it was Stars and Stripes quality. Yet I admite things like Their Hearts at the Regen ignagural showed that they could have contnued properly if the will had been there. So (to use the death analogy) they got ill in 1976 became comatose 90 percent of the time after 1983, and the plug was pulled in 1998. I don't care about legal things, or any of that because I have to go on what I feel inside.  There is a Beach Boys but not The Beach Boys.

IMO "The Beach Boys" will never die or cease to exist, they're always around - because their music will always be around, it's bigger than the band and bigger than any of the individual members.

It's like John Lennon once said "If you want The Beatles, play one of the records".

Right on.

What we have today is BRI, a business enterprise. The majority of its members are happy with the way things are right now. Sure, any fan has the right to disagree and this is the right thread to voice such opinions, but the constant whinning when anyone dares to comment positively on the Mike & Bruce show gets very tiring.

On another thread, on another site, there was recently a discussion of band survivors doing their old group's material (e.g. Macca doing Beatles songs).

Not a problem.  Who wouldn't want to hear a surviving Beatle doing a Beatles song?

But he doesn't call himself the Beatles.  It is Paul McCartney and his band doing Beatles songs co-written by Paul.

David Gilmore can do Floyd songs.  Ray Davies can do Kinks songs.

And Mike Love or Brian Wilson can do BeachBoys songs.

My opinion is that using a group name after most of the original members are gone, is wrong.  It cheapens things.

It reminds me of those James Patterson Novels where the cowriters are listed in small letters at the bottom of the cover.    People may know its not totally authentic but they so want a new Patterson novel that they are willing to believe.

Personally, when I first heard that Carl had cancer,   I was deeply saddened not only by his illness but at the impending loss of the BeachBoys.  It was that clear cut in my mind.


Having said all of that, I hear that Mike's touring band is quite good and worth seeing.

Nothing personal Thomasogg, but I hate this type of sentiment.

I'm glad the BBs didn't break up earlier (and as far as I'm concerned, they actually DID break up in 1998 and have not reformed, that's just two BBs touring together nowadays). A lot of good things happened to me because the BBs stayed together as long as they did, and I wouldn't trade that for anything. And while their albums weren't as consistently strong in the '80s as in earlier times, there were still some gems on them, imho.

I'm also still ticked off at the Beatles for breaking up when they did. Granted, they broke up because they couldn't work together any more, so I understand why they split. However, I don't respect artistes for calling it quits early in their careers just to preserve the image of their legacy. Keep on playing for the love of it, even if you're not making money from it anymore, and don't be concerned about whether you're having a glorious, "dignified" :P career arc or not.

All imho, of course, and your mileage may vary.

I wouldn't say that the Beach Boys died in 1983, because Dennis wasn't longer a Beach Boy anymore, he wasn't treated like a Beach Boy by the others I might say, that's one of the saddest things.  :'(

I agree with that. I still liked to think that the BB's continued after Dennis's death for a very selfish reason. Despite his later contributions both on lead vocal and song-writing, to me he was not really part of the original Beach Boy sound of say 61-63. This to me was Mike or Brian on lead with both adding either their bass or falsetto as the case may be.Then Carl and Al (or Dave) on background vocals. This is in no way to be read as being critical of Dennis!

From 83-96, there was always the chance or hope that Brian would be included in a project or touring and this sometimes was the case so for me, the original BB's sound was always a possibility. From Feb 98 this chance was gone forever. Just like in 1980 the Beatles were gone forever.

As far as the Mike and Bruce show or any well known band reforming.The less original members, the more they open themselves for criticism so they have to learn to take it.

Well I know you have seen that 1983 video of them playing at the ballpark and probably the July 4th 1984 one as well. Brian isn't nearly as into the 1984 show, and Dennis' presence still made a difference at the shows he attended even in 1983. Watch them both and you can really feel the difference. Sure he was gone at the very end but I am sure he would have come back.

The Other Anonymous Jon can back me up here but Dennis  played a lot and sang a fair amount from 1961-1963. In fact he sang more lead lines then any other member other then Brian and Mike.

Even if you're not being "critical" of Dennis you are being inaccurate. As MBE alluded to...Dennis sang at least as much if not more than Al and Carl in the '61 - '64 period. Certainly more DW lead lines than either of them, and his voice is in the far majority of the harmonies, on virtually all the hits from the beginning until '65. And yes he played the drums on most everything until '64 and then probably more than half after that. So explain why he's not "really part of the original Beach Boys sound."

For me Jon its like drinking a wine. I may not know what it is, the grape, year, vineyard etc, but I just know what I like.
The Beach Boy sound, My Beach Boy sound, is what Mike, Brian, Carl and Al were able to sing away from the studio and its assistance. It is what got Brian interested ie four part harmony/ four freshman.
Its hard to explain those four voices. It is just the perfect blend for me and it ended when Brian quit. Of course the music got better. I have said before I prefer the 67-73 period over anything else but that sound was unique to that very early time.
Yours and others BB's sound may be different to mine. Thats great, and what makes the band and its music so special to so many people.


Can I direct you to a few performances that demonstrate what I am trying to say? One would be from the "Lost Concert" when Mike tells how they go about writing a song. When they step up to sing "Little Deuce Coupe" and those voices kick in its just magic for me.

"Their Hearts Were Full Of Spring"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsV28gzJfj8

"When I Grow Up To Be A Man"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODndrI8l8pk

Despite the above, I have always enjoyed the whole Beach Boys ride, good and bad. I very seldom listen now to the period covered above.

Hey...If its a crime to love tight, four part harmony live, lock me up! :police:

Dennis was just as much a part of that Four Freshmen sound as anyone else.  He was part of the f voice blend when Al wasn't in the group.  he sang lead vocals before Brian even THOUGHT of giving a song to Al.  And, most importantly, Dennis was Brian's first and perhaps his greatest muse.  That alone should trump anything any of the other BB had to offer.

I can't agree with that. Inspiring Brian to write about surfing does not trump singing "God Only Knows" or the verses of "Good Vibrations." Or, for that matter, co-writing things like "California Girls" and "I Get Around."

Boy all I can say is right on about what Dennis contributed but I can't imagine a Beach Boys without any of the original six members (Al and Dave, not Bruce). Without Dennis they wouldn't have been the Beach Boys period. Their appeal image wise and their innante authenticity would be at least cut in half.  Also for dissentors of how Dennis fit vocally there when he sang harmony on Hearts (for example the 1962  version on the box set)  it is much more rich and resonant.

If David Marks had stayed, I personally feel that the artistic decline wouldn't have happened until much later. It's interesting to think how that would've turned out...

If David had stayed he could have stagnated as a guitarist, just like Carl. But I didn't read the book.

I didn't either.

And I think you're right. BB music didn't provide much opportunity for a budding guitar shredder to really work out his guitar chops.

Basically all you are saying is that you prefer the live sound, minus the textured vocal from Dennis that is prominent on the hit versions of the songs you use as example...on the live versions Al slides into Dennis' vocal spot for the most part. On the studio versions of When I Grow Up and LDC Dennis' voice is more prominent than Al.

A good old Dennis discussion....

Without stating the obvious, Dennis Wison is easily the best songwriting Beach Boy after Brian, creating some of the most underrated songs in the history of rock and roll. Pacific Ocean Blue is also the best solo album by any Beach Boy, and probably always will be. I love Dennis's work and miss him very much.  However...

I think Dennis's contributions from 1961 to 1967 are overrated (as I dodge the machine gun fire). If Dennis was that important to Brian in the beginning, why, according to several accounts, did Audrey MAKE the guys (including Brian) LET Dennis in the group? Why wouldn't Brian INSIST on having him in the band? Yes, Dennis brought that "attitude" to the group, but didn't David Marks and Mike Love possess a lot of the same qualities?
It's interesting that Dennis never wrote any lyrics to express that attitude.

The first thing Brian did when he became the producer and called the shots was REPLACE Dennis on drums in the studio. I've also read that Dennis rarely attended the sessions of some of their biggest hits performed by some of the world's greatest musicians, because he was out "doing other things". Is there any truth to that? If there is, how important was Dennis to Brian in the studio?

Yes, Dennis had his share of leads in the early days, and you can hear him in the harmony mix. But that doesn't necessarily mean it/he was good. I don't think Dennis's early vocals were very impressive. With the possible exception of "Do You Wanna Dance", I can't think of any early Dennis leads that I think, "Wow, that was great!". I always thought that Brian was throwing Dennis a bone because Mike or Al could've just as easily sang those leads. And on some of the harmonies, when I hear Dennis, he actually sounds a little flat. I do, however, think Dennis came into his own in the late 60's and early 70's; I enjoyed his later vocals very much.

I often wonder when Dennis's "attitude" because less of an asset and more of a liability. Yes, I'm sure the guys loved him, but maybe not so much on stage. I'm thinking specifically post-1975. Mike, Carl, Al, and Bruce remind me as being very professional performers. But Dennis must've driven them nuts! It had to come to the point of diminishing returns. For us fans, Dennis might've been fun to watch, but for the guys in the band, I think it must've been frustrating at times. Of course everybody misses Dennis and has kind things to say about him - deservedly so - but I again wonder what exactly Dennis was bringing to the table in the later years.

The sad thing is that Dennis will never get the credit he deserves. Hell, you can't even buy his album. I play his music for almost every music fan I come in contact with. They're usually impressed. I never get tired of it.

Re: if Dave Marks had stayed. Yeh, I agree maybe the groups arty direction woulda benefitted. he seemed to be more rebellious than say Al or Bruce and shared all the same lifestyle traits, good and bad, of the Wilsons, so hopefully he'd have been more inclined to side with them in any group disputes as opposed to Mike.

Watch out Sheriff, Jon Stebbins is going to rip you apart.

What? For paying David Marks a compliment? That'd be rather stupid.

What's taking him so long? Is he using reverse psychology against me? Of course I did enter the witness protection program... :police:

I agree with you 100%

And who is the Beach Boy who most kept in touch with David Marks over the years and has invited him to re-join the band a few times?

Oh yes, didnt he ask him to rejoin when Carl was too ill to perform? Tasteful. Anyway, in what way does that alter the fact that David was rebellious, which he was, and a big drug user and drinker, also true?

Mike Love asked David Marks to rejoin the band before and after Carl became ill.

My point wasn't addressing David's character traits, just your assertion that Marks would "side" with the Wilsons rather than Mike Love. I doubt that Mike Love would invite anyone to join the band that would oppose him.

What? So Mike wouldn't ask David Marks to join the band in the eighties because had David been in the band in 1967 he hypothetically might have disagreed with him...? I think perhaps you're missing my point...

I just think that by his nature, or at least his nature as it was in the sixties, David - who presumably would still have indulged in the booze/drugs lifestyle had he remained in the band - probably would've been more open to experimentation than the conservative likes of Al and Bruce. This is, of course, just opinion, but I personally think it would've been the case... Mike very strongly disapproved of Brian, Carl and dennis' drug use - presumably he wouldn't have made an exception with Marks just coz he wasn't a Wilson?

Of course it is true that Mike kept in touch with David, but then it's a lot easier to deal with someone who drinks and takes LSD when you're not having to tour and record albums with 'em..

Maybe he would've been able to have been the peacemaker between the two factions.

There are some good points(especially the last one) and a whole lotta wrong in that post. If you are missing the greatness of Dennis' voice in early songs like Surfer Girl, In My Room, I Get Around, Don't Worry Baby, Hushabye, Girls On The Beach, All Summer Long, When I Grow Up and countless more where his voice truly stands out and is GREAT then I can't help you. Personally I think he's a highly underrated part of the blend, his texture added so much of what makes you get chills, Brian knew that. yes his pitch isn't nearly perfect, but he was soulful and added something intangible. There are a lot of people who have a hard time even noticing Dennis' voice in there, and others who absolutely know it was just as essential as Carl's and Brian's in giving the blend its uniqueness. The stuff without Dennis like Cal. Girls and God Only knows sounds more saccharine to me, still great...but it loses some balls. I think Don't Worry Baby is the real gauge of the drama Dennis' voice adds, he is the power in that song.

Brian's "replacing" of Dennis as a drummer has been way overstated by the Leaf's of the world. When an actual researcher of top caliber like a Craig Slowinski breaks it down we find that Dennis was very, very often the drummer on BB's sessions until Pet Sounds(yes even on many of the hits, so he must have been in the studio fairly regularly). The anecdotal stories by Hal(he's told them to me too) have also been over emphasized by Stebbins(who?) and others, the ones about how Dennis wasn't around cause he was racing or surfing. Its a romantic vision. The sea of tunes seems to show him there an awful lot of the time, working his butt off on the tracks. But its hard to deflate a myth that's been pounding into us for so damn long. Its late... and I do appreciate the nice thoughts about Dennis.

I agree Mr. Stebbins. Like Mr. Boyd said in another thread, Dennis's voice adds heaps to Ballad of Ole' Betsy too (which as I mentioned I really love those vocals by the group - always an emotional one for me - and Dennis is PART of the reason why).. and I agree he adds heaps to a song like Surfer Girl (just listen to the Endless Harmony track). And I've never really thought about what you said in regards to GOK and Cal. Girls but I couldn't agree more, Dennis's voice gives it that extra edge. I'm with you, Dennis's voice in the harmony blend is highly-underrated.

And If I'm not mistaken didn't he drum on Do It Again (A #1 Hit in the UK) as well as other singles like When I Grow Up? I'm sure there is more but that's all I can think of off the top of my head after the first two or so albums

By the way, when you said In My Room, it made me think that Dennis isn't on that, don't you remember that Summer Dreams movie (A highly reliable and essential historical document of the band)? Dennis was in the recording booth ::) And then he states "It's a make-out song".. man I hate that movie but it makes me laugh so hard...

<EDIT> I just realized that thomasogg is no longer a member of the community, so... why bother?</EDIT>

About David, I meant that being in the Beach Boys in the sixties gave you certain professional priorities, with such a heavy touring schedule and the availability for studio recording whenever possible. David had the chance to jump off, take his time and evolve as a musician.

That cracked me up, Mr. Stebbins.

The only thing I want to add to the recent parts of this discussion relate to Dennis's voice in the blend, early or otherwise. I think that is true, and that in my opinion he could be a better "blend" singer than lead singer. To me, sometimes there is something about less pure voices that really can lend depth to a harmony. I wouldn't want to hear five of them, but to put it in there between Mike's pseudo-bass and the others' tenors, and it really does make a cool texture.

Jon Stebbins wrote...
Basically all you are saying is that you prefer the live sound, minus the textured vocal from Dennis that is prominent on the hit versions of the songs you use as example...on the live versions Al slides into Dennis' vocal spot for the most part. On the studio versions of When I Grow Up and LDC Dennis' voice is more prominent than Al....

Guess so Jon. Part of the reason I like to hear various bands 'stripped' shall we say is that live and unassisted sound they had to rely on to get noticed in the first place. The Beatles in the Cavern Club and later Hamburg would be a pretty good example. Sure, the line-up in the early shows was not what it was when they became huge but that raw sound is incredible.

The voice blend of the Beach Boys changed along with the music and that is no-less interesting to hear as the band progressed. Songs like 'Friends' and 'Water' have great back-ground vocals I guess in part because of the maturing and weariness of the voices. Can I call this the Beach Boy Sound Part 2 ? Recorded preferred over the live sound. (although the live 'Water' on the Endless Harmony Doco is nice)

BTW. No offence meant over Dennis. As a fan of the whole band for almost 30 years, I would never intend to undermine his contribution.