The Smiley Smile Message Board

I was thinking about this today. It has always baffled me how a band with so many hits, and sold a million copies of 'best of' albums multiple times, yet doesn't have the individual star appeal that most bands as big as them have. I suppose that there is a moderate amount of that with Brian. I can understand Carl and Al sort of being in the background. But Dennis has got to be one of the most unknown people with sex appeal, charisma and being a major part of a mega hit group. It almost doesn't make sense. Mike love is also a good performer and an interesting person.

Another way to put it, it seems that 90% of BB fans are casual fans. Most of them have only heard the hits and know next to nothing about its members. We (real BB fans) have got to be some of the most frustrated fans of any band. There are not enough of us for the BBs to really appease us. I think they tried in the early 70s and Brian Wilson solo tours. But they both soon realised they could make more money playing the hits.   :hat :angel:

it's all about the music......... ain't nothing wrong with that.....  :thumbsup

"A pain I know all too well..."

But really, even more interesting to me is how a band that is one of America's best selling and well known acts has unbelievably unpopular albums! I blame it on them rarely playing new material on the road...what a ridiculous concert format. And so many of their singles were released way too close to the album date.

It's about the voices too, especially being a family blend.

But that isn't really true, is it? The band continued to play a good number of new songs well into the '70s, doing a lot of new tunes at least through the Brian is Back campaign.

To be fair, I think the Beach Boys tried hard to stay current and true to themselves until the late 70s. The Wilsons especially. But the money was in the hits. I am so glad I got to see Brian do Pet Sounds, Smile and many other deep cuts. But I have heard that his tours are losing money. When I first became a Beach Boys fan in the mid 90s, I never thought I would get to hear many of those songs live. So I guess I can't complain too much.

I was in the process of typing the same thing and you beet me to it. :)

I think it is true. Look at the Knebworth CD...they play two damn songs from KTSA. And they rocked, too. And pretty soon those disappeared from setlists. Go to a show these days and the band better be playing at least half of their new album. It's not only something the audience would likely want to hear, but good marketing also. You sprinkle your shows with the big hits, some deep fan favorites and a lot of new stuff. Just my opinion though.

They performed new material live every time they had a studio album out, up to and including Summer In Paradise. So, invalid premise.

It is easy to blame Mike for the direction the Beach Boys went in the 80s since he had two votes. But would things have worked out much differently if say Carl had Brian's vote? I am not so sure it would. That is basically what they had in the early 70s and by 1974 were doing more of their hits. Carl said in an interview around 1980, that they had fought their oldies image for a long time, but learned to except it. So this thread is not to bag on the Beach Boys themselves. I am just not so sure that there are enough of us (real BBs fans) to cater to. Either have financial difficulty or make millions. Which is frustrating, and I am sure that Dennis and Carl were feeling the same way in the late 70s. My anger is directed toward the millions of people out their that buy all of their hits and don't want to know anything else about the BBs!

We BBs fans are somewhat of a cult.

Well, I correct myself. I didn't mean they never played new material, but rather not enough of it. And I still stand by the fact that their "non-classic" songs disappeared from setlists too early. To me, it would just make sense if a band playing in, say, 1981 played more of their music from 1976-1980, rather than cramming the show full of songs from earlier than 1970.

When we talk about how the setlist changed to factor in more oldies in the mid 70's, it does seem to be a bit of a chicken/egg scenario and I wonder if anyone could shed a light on it perhaps?

To put it another way by 74-77 were the audience response to numbers such as say "Long Promised Road" or "Everyone's in Love With You" so subdued compared to "Surfin USA" etc that the band had no choice but to drop them from the set?  If a large chunk of fans went for a hotdog/piss break everytime "Marcella" started up, there's only so many times the band could close their eyes to that. Does anybody here who were lucky enough to see them live from this era recall from personal experience just what the fan reaction was in concert to these sort of songs around this time?

Or was it just all down to Mike willingly turning the band into "the touring jukebox'?

Yeah, I was there for quite a few of those shows. I have to tell you that the audiences here in the US could be quite rude when the Boys would play new music. This was not the case too much at the shows from 1971 through 73, but as of 1974 things changed. The audience would yell out old titles in between songs and sometimes even yell them out while performing new material. I was at a show in Phoenix where Carl actually stopped singing while the band kept playing Only With You. He asked them to please quiet down and they would take requests later. He then finished singing the song. I also heard Mike get a wee bit snippy with the audience when yelling out, as well. I understand completely why they went the oldies route. Their bread and butter were their live shows. You have to play what the audience paid to hear; and by 1974, it was the Endless Summer oldies.

Problem is, the Boys' biggest hits were in such a short span of time. They're a career band that essentially has a one-hit wonder problem. They never managed that hit or two in the 70s that could have established them as rivals to the Stones, for instance. They managed the late 80s hit that a lot of similar bands did (Moody Blues, etc.), but they didn't spin it out into much more -- it didn't help that Brian was trying to start a solo career at the time. The group merging some Still Cruisin tracks with BW 88 would have made for a killer late 80s album.

But the group made a series of choices -- really, from 67 onward -- that were out of step with the times and that turned them into a cult act, at least as far as recording was concerned. They discovered -- before a lot of legacy bands did -- that the real money and acclaim was on the road -- but mainly with the songs from their heyday. It didn't hurt that the old songs were brilliant -- something that Carl must have realized while making his peace with the situation. They tried to have it both ways into the mid-80s, but it was too hard (and is too hard for most oldies acts -- they invariably try out new stuff, then go back to the old setlist after a month or two).

lol   that too.... when i said "music" i meant the whole package....  :)

Endless Summer was without a doubt a blessing in the short term and a curse in the long run. At first the guys must have thought "Whoohooo $$$$!" (don't forget in '73 they were skint big time) but I imagine it didn't take long for the penny to drop as to the dilemma they now found themselves in. Too put it bluntly they suddenly had legions of fans who were in love with the group  - but not for who they were at that time. They were in love with The Beach Boys of 1964. The fact that Warners tried to get in on the action with their own comp comprising the '70-73 period to no avail backs this up. I can't imagine how frustrating it must have been to realise that you have become your own biggest competition.

This is pure speculation but I'd love to hear theories from posters as to whether or not they believe had "Endless Summer" never happened if the band would have made it back into the big time on the strength of subsequent post "Holland"releases or not? The archives from this time suggest unlikely but bear in mind without the monster hits collection to promote they would have been out on the road much less and spending more time in the studio putting together a worthy follow up to "Holland".  

Well, I doubt whether they would have had as big an impact as they did from 1976-1980, where in the US at least, they were selling out the largest arenas in the country. From 1971 onward, they were making great strides at re-establishing themselves as a relevant band through their albums, but mostly through their live shows. As In Concert shows, they could really rock the house. I saw them at the Philadelphia Spectrum in Spring of 72 and they barely sold out the night of the show. That place holds approx 18,000 seats. That had to be a huge crowd for that point in their career. In Phoenix around 72-73, I saw them twice at the Celebrity Theatre which holds about 3000-3500 seats. They drew 6-7 thousand per night doing two shows each. They did an outdoor show in Tempe, AZ in 74 that drew at least 20,000, but Endless Summer had been released by that point. KDKB FM in Phoenix gave Holland quite a bit of airplay so Sail On Sailor and California Saga were quite familiar to most of the crowd in attendance. So, with Viet Nam ending and with the 60's nostalgia starting to ramp up, I really think that The Beach Boys would have done OK without the release of Endless Summer. The difference being here, is that without Endless Summer they still would have done well, but with it, they became Superstars again. That speaks volumes about the power of Brian's music and singing prowess of The Beach Boys.

I think the Beach Boys legacy would be completely different if Endless Summer had not come out, and instead the band had gone in a more collaborative direction. Think about it, Surfs Up hit #29, Holland #36, and The Beach Boys In Concert #25, in the U.S. Rolling Stone named Holland one of the "albums of the year". Of course, they wouldn't have been the superstars they became, but I think they would have risen to be a commercially and artistically viable unit that got respect.

I agree with most of what you stated, but their success on record fell on the ups and downs of Brian Wilson. Personally, I think they went down in the late 60's because they did not follow where Brian wanted to take them. In the 70's and beyond, Brian was in no shape to lead them anywhere. Dennis was talented, but he could not lead them to both artistic and commercial success. Artistic, yes. Commercial, no. Nothing that they released by Dennis, Carl or Al produced a hit. Like in the 60's it would have taken a fully functional and competitive Brian to make them commercially viable in the 70's and beyond. For me in 2010, their legacy is terrific. For all the crap that has gone over the last 35-40 years, I think they have come out smelling pretty sweet. Like most rock 'n' roll bands, they had their 5 years of super-stardom and slowly faded. They were very fortunate to rise to super-stardom for a 2nd time from 75-80; pretty much based on their performance and from the songs that gave them their initial super-stardom. In the end they did what their fans wanted them to do; perform the hits that made them famous. As it always has and will be; their fortunes and their legacy will ride on the shoulders of one Brian Wilson.

That's the thing. I love Brian--his music has given me solace and pleasure, peace for almost 10 years now, through some of the most formative years I've lived yet. But it's a shame that he has always been the crux of the band to the public, because all of the guys had so much to offer. But what can defeat the power of American fanaticism and celebrity? I guess all this is what makes the Boys not only a great band, but an amazing, distinctly American story.

Brian is only a celebrity because of the power of his music. Personally, he's not a tremendously appealing figure -- the chubby falsetto singer, then the hairy mental case. But that can become the saga of a great man's rise and fall when the music is taken into account.

The other guys were talented, yes. Each had great moments, and Dennis and Carl reached very high indeed. But none of them could sustain the quality or inspiration or guidance that Brian had provided in the early years. And without that, the group (bound together largely by genes, not musical affinity) didn't have a clear direction.

My favourite period of the group without doubt is from 20/20 through to Holland. I think these are fantastic records. However great as they are there's not one song on any of them that screams out 'massive selling single', which is what they really needed to grab the publics attention to their new direction.  I think "Sail on Sailor" could have been - had Brian sang the lead on it.

In my native UK things were rather different as the groups new 'mature' music was listened to without the prejudice of the 'classic' sound. This is because (and history seems to have been pretty much rewritten on this fact) by and large the 'fun in the sun' era did not sell in the UK. It was really only around the Pet Sounds era that the BB's broke though commercially over here and so English fans were much more receptive to their mid to late 60's stuff than Americans. Unfortunately with the neverending glut of "summer orientated" compilations many people in England now think that "Surfin USA", "Surfer Girl" etc.. were big sellers while genuine hits such as "Darlin'" and "Cottonfields" have become obscure.

Infact as I sit typing this I'm trying to think of any other group past or present that is so iconic and well known yet has no many comparatively unknown songs. As much as I rack my brains I cant.

Update to my last post! I guess The Kinks would fit into that category also.

The fortunes of their legacy does not ride on the shoulders of Brian Wilson, but on THE BEACH BOYS. No one in the story gets all the credit, nor all the blame! What the know-littles think (ie: general consensus) means almost nothing. History will always boil down to the most popular/talked about figure. It isn't fair but it's the way it is.

Brian was only THE GUY for a specific period of he group's music, and for guys like me and Mike's Beard who love the 20/20 - Holland (though I'd go from Wild Honey-Holland)  period best, it is VERY hard to sit back and go "ok, ok, it's ALL about Brian" because it is not! Case in point: Kokomo! Not the greatest song, sure, but the fact that the The Beach Boys were able to score a # 1 hit that Brian had nothing to do with in any facet has GOT to say something. Put that song on and, like it or not, it sounds just like THE BEACH BOYS!!!! Brian didn't show everyone how to do everything! I mean, does someone who plays an instrument owe EVERYTHING to whoever taught them that instrument or gave them lessons? Of course not!  So, you put on Kokomo: Mike's familiar mellow tenor comes in and then the group vocals and then an awesome Carl part! It's The Beach Boys! As good as Brian's (and his many collaborators) material is, the material is NOT the group!

Since Kokomo was released, I hear more about it as the song that Brian had nothing to do with, than what a great number one song that they had in 1988. As for 20/20 through Holland, most all you read about are Brian's contributions to those albums. Ever read a bio on The Beach Boys? Very little is about the group as a whole. Mostly about Brian, his songs and his problems. I absolutely agree with your first two sentences, but the "know-littles" are the ones that propagate the myth and short sell the full history of the band. We die-hards may know the full truth, and give every band member their due, but Brian will always be the main man and the big story behind The Beach Boys. Ask the average Joe who Brian Wilson is, and I'll bet they know. Now, ask them to name the rest of the band and I bet they can't. Like Dennis once said (paraphrased) "Brian Wilson is The Beach Boys and we're his f@#&ing messengers."

Yeah, well I take that Dennis quote with a grain of coke! He's speaking up about his big brother and it's awesome and respectful, but it doesn't demand to be agreed with.

Yes, I've read just about every single bio ever written about The Beach Boys and just about every review/interview/article/piece ever committed to press. And  yeah, you are absolutely right, just about everything talks up Brian but what do I care if my favorite singer of all-time is Carl, my favorite drummer/solo artist is Dennis, favorite 20/20 track is Be With Me, favorite Holland Track is Trader, favorite Light Album track is Full Sail? Get the picture? I can be just as big a Beach Boys fan as Dominic Priore but not just love everything Brian at the expense of say: 70% of what the Beach Boys are/were!

Brian will always be seen as 'the man' by casual observers of the band because he was responsible for all the hits. Fair enough. It's just a shame the others only started writing once the music had stopped selling so much. If the group had held on to it's popularity in the States for just another 12 - 18 months or so, then Dennis or Bruce probably would have scored a hit and people would be more aware of the contributions of the others.

My favourite album track of all the time by The 'Boys is "The Trader" by Carl.
Fav single is "Cotonfields" by Al. (Admittedly "Do it Again" and "Good Vibrations" are jointly 2nd place by a microinch)
Carl had the best voice.
Bruce was the best musician.

This is not meant to take away from the achievements of Brian in any way it just seems that too much focus is put on the early to mid 60's era at the detriment of equally satisfying periods within the group.

I've been meaning to start this question as a new post for some time but may as well ask it here as it relates to the discussion:

               Every man and his dog now knows that Brian had a much diminished role within the band from '69-76 (Sunflower excluded) and at times it would be a stretch to say he even was still a member of the group but how aware where people of this at the time? Was it an 'open' secret within the industry/music press? Where the fans aware at all? Obviously using older tracks with his name on the credits and dragging out the occasional new masterpiece from him masked the situation somewhat but these things have a way of getting out all the same.

As always any views/info appreciated.

The question is not whether the band members were an important historical part of the band, but rather will the band be remembered in history that way? My answer to this at the moment is, NO. Their history will always revolve around Brian; his triumphs, his eccentricities and his mental illness through the years. It is a real shame, because I don't think Brian would have had the same success without The Beach Boys. History has shown that he came nowhere near that success with any external projects that he worked on over his entire career, even his own solo career.

Post Pet Sounds, no matter how you slice it, Brian's writing contributions to each album were highlights, except for the last three.
Smiley Smile - Brian
Wild Honey - Brian
Friends - Brian & Dennis
20/20 - Brian, Carl & Dennis
Sunflower - Brian & Dennis
Surf's Up - Brian & Carl
CATP - Brian & Dennis
Holland - The whole band (but released only after Brian's "Sail On Sailor" added)
15 Big Ones - Brian
Love You - Brian
MIU - Brian
L.A. - Carl, Dennis and Brian
KTSA - Brian & Carl

What is always forgotten though are the performances. Good songs are made great by the vocal performances. That excellence is what gets mentioned, but rarely gets put to the forefront over the composition. I suppose it is easier to write about one person (Brian) in the forefront, than writing about all 6-7 group members. Even if they are forever known as Brian's band, at least The Beach Boys as a band will live on in musical history.

To be fair Erik, you could argue that Kokomo wasn't really that much of a Beach Boys song in terms of writing and producing.  Mike and Bruce love to point out that it was a song that Brian had nothing to do with, but really did they??  It is listed as being written by, Scott Mackenzie, Mike Love, John Phillips, and Terry Melcher.  Yes, Mike Love is listed but he probably only wrote a few of the words (the corny ones) and the music and production were largely done by the other three (all of which had success as writers and producers on their own).  You are right in that Brian didn't do everything for the group, but in this case, the other Beach Boys took a handout from Mackenzie, Phillips and Melcher.   Now the singing is a different story; I give the "other" boys full credit, but you can't sing a hit if you don't write one and I don't think the Beach Boys had much to do with writing Kokomo. I wish I were wrong and maybe I am....

 

The greater part of "Kokomo" was written by John Phillips & Scott Mackenzie in Ocean City MD during the summer of 1984: by his own admission, all Mike really came up with was the "Aruba, Jamaica..." intro hook.

Well, it's still a Beach Boys songs just as much as Sail On Sailor is a Beach Boys song that no beach boy really had all that much to do with (the final product) .... And IMHO the performances/singing/production of hits has just as much to do with the material, and in some cases more!

BTW, the whole issue really isn't fair. How many bands are there that have had NO hits but are beloved cult bands where each member gets a ton of respect whether they wrote a single note or not?

'Scuse me ? You're seriously stating that Brian didn't have much to do with the creation of "Sail On, Sailor" ? You're way out of line, sonny. Brian wrote the basic melody. Mike had nothing to do with either the verse or chorus melody of "Kokomo", or indeed most of the lyric.

He added that smoooth vocal though  ^-^

If you are talking about the final product wasn't that a Carl production?

Question:  Between SOS and Kokomo which song from, composing, lyrics, arrangement, vocals and production had a bigger Beach Boy participation level?

"Sail On, Sailor" - composed B. Wilson/V. D. Parks/R. Kennedy/J. Rieley: arranged by Carl (& Brian): produced by Carl: vocals by The Beach Boys

"Kokomo"          - composed J Phillips/S. Mackenzie/T Melcher/M. Love: arranged & produced T. Melcher: vocals by The Beach Boys.

Well, let me just ask this:
Did Mike only write the Aruba part, or did he write the part all the way thru to " I want to take you down to Kokomo, we'll get there fast" etc?

Yeah, Sail On Sailor was a bad choice on my part for an example! I was in a hurry and listed it mainly because of the numerous credits on the tune!

I guess my whole problem/bug up my ass has to do with this almost obsessive need to pinpoint and zero in on who wrote the damn thing rather than to enjoy the thing/product as a whole! Especially when we're talking about rock and roll/pop that is so much about the performances/voices/production/overall emotional impact. We respect and lavish praise on performers such as Frank Sinatra and Elvis who didn't write a damn thing but we focus on only one guy in The Beach Boys who are that rare band to have achieved such a defined and unified group sound!

I've never hear or read of Mike claiming anything except that intro hook.

This is an excerpt from "The Strange History of Summer's Most Annoying Song - Kokomo. By Scott Brown.

Mike Love: "I told John (Phillips) that it didn't groove enough for me. So I came up with the 'Aruba, Jamaica' part. And I changed a couple of words. He had it as 'That's where we used to go.' I said, 'That sounds like an old man lamenting his lost or misspent youth.' I changed it to 'That's where you wanna go.'"

"So I came up with the 'Aruba, Jamaica' part. And I changed a couple of words".

Big difference.

I will speak up for Mike here. That hook makes the song. It's okay without it, but the one thing everyone remembers from "Kokomo" is "Aruba, Jamaica ..." etc. Mike is rightly proud of his contribution, and smart enough to know that it's probably what made the song a hit. After all, how many other hits did John Phillips have in the 80s?

Mike is a decent lyricist (a good to great one in the 60s), but his real genius, if I can use the word, is in those short hooks. It's one of the things that makes SIP a guilty pleasure -- it's full of them. The problem is, they're not hanging on any real songs.

Hasn't Bruce said that they had been working on Kokomo and then Carl got involved and gutted the production and re-produced? Did I dream that?

The most complete account of the track's birth that I've read is here:

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,640541,00.html

And it doesn't say that Carl was involved in the production -- but that doesn't mean it didn't happen, I guess.

What's also interesting is all the guys on the session -- Van Dyke Parks, Ry Cooder, Keltner, Foskett.

Isn't it actually Wilson/Parks/Kennedy/Tandyn Almer/Reiley?

Good article on Kokomo.  I got a kick out of the comment by Brian's spokesman that he doesn't want to talk about Kokomo, not now, not ever.

Damn right it is.  ;D

Interesting - Mackenzie's account runs completely counter to what Phillips wrote in his autobiography in 1986, two years before the song was released or even recorded. My money's on Papa John.

AGD -- What did Papa John say?

And -- um -- recent revelations may compromise the man's integrity. Just saying.

Phillips said what I related earlier - that he & Mackenzie came up with the bulk of "Kokomo" in the summer of 1984 in Ocean City Marlyland.

As for his daughter's claims... call me cynical, but how odd that she should go public like that when she has a biography to push. I hear neither Michelle nor Chynna are talking to her now. And in any case, even were it true, how would that compromise his credibility concerning "Kokomo" ?

Yeah, and never mind the fact she was on Celebrity Rehab when she decided to come out.

AGD -- I'm sorry, I didn't see your earlier post.

I don't really want to start anything about Papa John -- that's up to his family to thrash out one way or another. He was a fine pop songwriter who lived an incredibly colorful and occasionally self-destructive life.

It's possible, though, isn't it, that both accounts are true? In that the McKenzie and Phillips had previously worked on an embryonic form of the song in Atlantic City, but then finished it up after getting a call from Terry Melcher?

For that matter, why does Terry Melcher get a credit on the song? What did he add?

I remember hearing that Somewhere Near Japan was about McKenzie Phillip's trip with a drug dealer boyfriend in Asia.  True?   Hard to believe her incest story, although I don't doubt that she had a crazy childhood, filled with horrible influences.  The Mick Jagger story is very creepy too. 

I respectfully disagree about the SIP and good short hooks.  Agreed, Mike was a decent to good lyricist in the 60's and early 70's, but then experienced a steep, precipitous drop-off into nearly embarrassing territory.   His best work was with his two cousins (Brian and Dennis).

 

I think some his best songs were Big Sur, Everyone's in Love with You and Sumahama. But I agree. They aren't as good as Let the Wind Blow or All I Wanna Do with Brian. Maybe they are as good as Only With You and Pacific Ocean Blue with Dennis.

True - Mackenzie Phillips married her pusher and they honeymooned on the island of Guam. The money (and drugs) soon ran out, so she called father to ask for a shipment of both, and when he asked where she was, replied "somewhere near Japan". The original version is something like 20-30 verses long.