The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/02/greene.beach.boys.summer/
 

And your point would be ?

There's a Glen Miller Orchestra out there that tours regularly (300 dates a year !): it has the backing of Miller's estate (since 1956) and I'm pretty sure it has none of the originals present. Certainly not Glenn.

I'm practising my Moonwalk ready for when the vacancy for the position of Michael Jackson is advertised!

I always thought that it was short sighted of ML to go after Al's BBF&F.  A band containing offspring that toured for with a Beach Boy(s) for an extended period of time would have a certain level of legitimacy for use of the Beach Boys name.

I have no clue as to how they would all feel about it but you could put together a band that had a core of off spring from each of Beach Boys with two having actually performed as Beach Boys.

To me it would be interesting.

The 'no Wilsons, no BBoys' people accepted this many years ago.

And let's face it: from a sonic/quality-of-voice POV, replacing Mike with a sound-a-like would be an improvement.  Same with Brian's band.

Wow...Well I guess were all Beach Boys then aren't we? Oh dear... And Brian's the one who took drugs? In Love's world words just don't mean anything? BEach Boys? Could be anybody?!! BRian, Carl, Dennis, Al? Nope...Could be the Country Bear Jamboree for all he cares... There are no bounds to Love's lunacy and complete lack of character. Enjoy.,

Man...the way you talk, you sound like you were in Titicut Follies.

After a brief initial shock at the concept, I thought: this is good in one sense. The music of Brian Wilson should be performed live "forever". 

How the performers should label themselves sure is open to varying opinion, though if they are licensed by BRI, the "are" the Beach Boys aren't they?  :lol

And speaking of the Glen Miller Orchestra, they're playing a show at my old high school in a couple weeks from now.

These days the Drifters are nothing more than a franchise run by the daughter of the original group's manager.

They might have trouble with the "Truth In Music" bill:

http://www.vocalhalloffame.com/truth.htm

http://www.vocalhalloffame.com/SB0929P1218.pdf

Isn't it scary that someone "ANYONE" could rent a name a parade around a such...?

It's most likely that the "Beach Boys" name will continue after Mike Love (and Bruce Johnston, for that matter) stop touring.  Can't say I'm a fan of this but I think it is inevitable.  The Beach Boys are an "oldies" group and as long as people pay money to see them, the band will be around long after all the original members are gone. 

Doubtful if anyone outside the cognescenti would notice, with the product thats been trotted
out for denizens of county fairs and casinos the past two decades. Still, shudder.

Not 'anyone' - dude named Jardine couldn't.

If I am reading correctly, there are in existance more than one Glenn Miller Orchestras...including one specifically for the UK and one for Europe...presumably one for the USA too?

I remember seeing a 'Glenn Miller Orchestra' on British TV in the mid 80's and it was claimed then that some band members had played with Miller 40+ years previously.

As for the Beach Boys....legally BRI owns the name and could licence lookalikes/soundalikes once the original Boys are unable to perform. I know Rick Wakemen has stated that he believes there will be a Yes long after all the 'original' members are dead and buried just like there's a Pittsburgh Philharmonic Orchestra. As long as the 24 year olds singing 'I Get Around' in 2050 aren't presented as having anything to do with the original recording then there's not much wrong with it.

There must be a difference between an officially sanctioned tribute band and passing yourself off as the actual band? When does a band stop being a band? You must have at least one founding member still in the line up to be able to continue to call yourself a particular group with any credibility I'd have thought (The Byrds, The Fall, The Cure, Fleetwood Mac as some examples).

That depends on what you want a band to be. If it is essential to you that the people on stage wrote the music or made the original recordings, then it's somewhere in the territory of needing one or more originals. But if to you a band is the group that plays the songs on stage, brings the vibe, and (as is important in these things) happens to be the one with the legal right to be the band, well, then that's the band. Bands mean a lot of things to a lot of people, and there isn't one experience of "band" that is correct. It doesn't matter if 50 years from now, there is a band that can be The Beach Boys. Neither does it matter if there isn't. It never ceases to amaze me how worked up people get about this sort of thing. As long as you don't own the name and aren't losing money on such a thing, it's really none of your business. You've still got the recordings you love and whatever memories of earlier versions you cherish.

Hmmmmmm. Interesting stance. Your post in part seems to describe a textbook definition of a 'covers/tribute' band. I will agree with you that good music is good music no matter who's playing it. Still I have a friend who is off to see Green Day very shortly and if she was to turn up to find no Billy Joe, Mike or Tre but 3 other guys in their place I'm sure she'd quite rightly feel PO'd.

It does in part describe exactly that. But if they own the legal rights to be that band, they are (like it or not) that band in the legal sense. Now, that obviously leaves a lot of people unsatisfied, which is also fine. But music is more than the composer or original performers, too. And it is possible to separate composer, recorded performer(s), and live performer(s), too. My only point is that there are as many ways to approach music as there are people, which is why it's really not worth getting hung up over.

Could the surviving Beatles please stand and take a bow. Even their so called reunion, 2 songs, was a marketing master stroke.  Pure class IMO right down to the latest game.

The Four Freshmen are still touring... None of the current members were even born yet when the original group was at it's height.

I'd hate to see all the Napalm Death fans arguing on their forums - that band hasn't had an original member in their lineup since 1987!

Sure she would: so would I, but we're talking about 10, 20 years down the line here, when none of the originals is in the band (or indeed, probably still alive).

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a wonderful idea that there will be an officially sanctioned group flying the flag and continuing to spread the music of the BB's once Mike can no longer do so. I just think it would be delusional to point at said group and say "THAT'S The Beach Boys".

I think it would honor the originals to be a group who is so in demand and/or loved that the demand/love exceeds their deaths/retirement. I think it would be great if the next gen of the originals wanted to carry it on.

I have to agree with what Brian said about 10 or so years ago:

"When Carl died, it kind of f**d everything up..."

One of the things that I always appreciate about the Beatles is that all of them agreed on the same principle before they broke up:
Without all four of us, it isn't the Beatles. (We're not hiring David Gilmour.)

When the Beatles did briefly get back together in 1994, it was with Lennon's voice and songwriting. It was highly emotional and it was very short lived and it was respectful.

I only with the BB had that kind of legacy control to say, you know what, no reunion without Carl.

Now I know the BB violated that premise as early as 1963 by replacing Brian on the road, but in my opinion a reunion without Carl would just be...sad. Infinitely sad as something is just missing. And frankly, I wish the BB would've broken up when Dennis died. I know Carl said that he knew Dennis would want the group to carry on---but in my mind I just imagine a scenario where Carl says off-the-fly at the press conference: "You know, I just don't want to carry on without my brother, I'm leaving the group." And I know Brian would've followed him, and I doubt Jardine would've stayed in the Beach Boys. But it didn't happen that way and we have all of the shitty recordings of the 80s as a result.

I guess what I'm saying is I wish The Beach Boys would've died with Dennis. Not only would the legacy have been kept in tact, but in my opinion there was less heart and soul to the group as time wore on. Yes the summer 1988 and boxset 1993 tours were terrific, but IMHO that's the exception that proves the rule.

In about 30 years, John Stamos could be the only link left to the real Beach Boys.

Sorta like The Temptations.  If you haven't looked into that, it's worse than the BB's fiasco.

Lesse, I think 1 member was fired for being a drunk before they really even ever made it big.  Then another member was replaced for being a drunk; David Ruffin was fired and replaced for basically being a jerk, Eddie was fired for being a jerk, A couple committed suicide? I think (although they may have been out of the group by then), and a few years back Melvin died, leaving Otis the only original member.

They're an interesting band because like the Drifters mentioned above, they had hits with several different lead singers.  Really though it's not all that strange since there's so many doo wop groups that do the same thing.  The platters come to mind.

With the temptations though they still do pretty big tours like Mike and Co do... they play a lot of dates with orchestras at upscale venues.  When Otis dies I have no doubt that the Temptations will still be out there singing those hits, more power to them. 




I'll tell you another thing, as bad as we may hate it, I saw the BB's about 10 years ago or so, and the place was PACKED with kids.  Everybody was having a good time, and singing along to  those songs, thousands and thousands of people.  If they're able to get that kind of a mojo going with just Mike and Bruce, more power to them.  If people keep going and having a good time, I hope it rolls on after they're both gone!

that was Mike's reply when asked on the spot.


i honestly don't think his ego would allow the Beach Boys to continue once he is no longer able.
and that's probably a good thing.


I love the idea of keeping the flame alive with a Beach Boys Family & Friends tribute, with folks like Carnie & Wendy, the Jardine boys, etc.

There's an article in the book "The Grateful Dead and Philosophy" by John Uglietta that tackles this issue very well, that is, what constitutes the substance of "a band"?

Is it just a semantic issue?  Is there some intrinsic meaning to the words: Boys, The, and Beach?  What is it about pop music that makes reproduction a dirty word?  Nobody ever complains about the various "Bach Collegia" or "Strauss Waltz Orchestras" not actually having Bach or Strauss in their members, nor do people get angry that these bodies try to pass off the idea that Bach actually does play with them.  On the other hand, plenty of modern songwriters have no problem anonymously pitching in to a top-40 hit for some teen superstar.

People are worried about "legacy," but to be worried about legacy right now is a little premature.  If that's really what we're concerned about, I can think of no greater legacy than continuing to have the fine recordings from the early 60s on, in combination with a popular desire to go to a concert of all Beach Boys songs--no matter who is playing them.  Not this year, but in fifty years.

If we're really fans of "the music," it doesn't matter who performs it, as long as it's done with care.  If it bugs you that Mike takes the Beach Boys on the road, that has nothing to do with the music, that has to do with you having a problem with Mike personally, or liking Brian personally, or whatever.  The great music will out, over centuries, no matter who's playing it and what they call themselves while doing so.

Isn't Dennis Edwards still alive?

Yes, he is but he's not an original member.  He replaced David Ruffin, so many of their hits (My Girl most noteably!) were recorded before him.  He's the equivalent to Bruce Johnston. 

Huh? Dennis Edwards' role in the Temptations was MUCH bigger than that of Bruce's with the Boys. I mean, Dennis Edwards was only their lead singer from 1968-80! And he was on some of their most popular records. For all intents and purposes...Eddie Kendricks was the lead singer before 1964. And Melvin Franklin was the leader up until he died in 1995.

Um.... you're not trying to actually argue with me that Dennis was an original member are you?  LOL  I mean, what are you getting agitated about?  We're talking about original members.  He's not.  Your timeline clearly shows he's not.  I obviously was drawing a comparison between him being a long time member of the group who joined at a later date, just as Bruce is a long time member of the BB's but still joined at a later date.  The rest of your history lesson I don't really see what has to do with the point of the entire post, which is talking about bands with hardly any or none at all original members.  It's just music.  Relax.

All quiet on the BB/ BW front so not a lot to discuss here so if the moderator would allow me, could I take this thread slightly OT?

After seeing  the huge concerts and stage sets the Stones have had, say from the mid 90s, I've wondered had all the Beatles been alive, would they have ever done a huge reunion gig or tour?

For several reasons I think yes!

-They quit live shows in the 60s because they wern't being heard. That has not been a problem with modern sound systems.
-Maybe not for the money but for a good cause ie World Peace, starvation etc.
-Lets asume legal issues may have been smoothed over.
-The chance to tour a whole album with cool stage production. I'm thinking Pepper.
-After seeing their peers still touring plus the new acts that came through, would the competitive juices of the four Beatles kick in
 to show they could cut-it years later?



Just wondering? :-\

Is this the Hoffman board?

               ;D


Well at least Brians 'cough' handlers came through with a Bloo update so this site may get more lively. Suject to connection issues of course.

No, he's not an original member...but he sang lead on Papa Was A Rolling fodaing Stone!!!

Dennis Edwards was better than Ruffin!
Dennis Wilson was better than Stamos!