The Smiley Smile Message Board

Smiley Smile Stuff => General On Topic Discussions => Topic started by: dwtherealbb on October 05, 2012, 05:32:49 AM



Title: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: dwtherealbb on October 05, 2012, 05:32:49 AM
like around the time of Sunflower or Surf's Up? I think that they might have been more popular had they done that. I think they should have covered some songs like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4CzqrPZtXk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auDv6cf2PBM

It would be interesting to see if Carl or Al would be capable of playing the guitar in such a fashion. If they had, they could have tried writing a few songs in that genre, in my opinion.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: BergenWhitesMoustache on October 05, 2012, 05:39:07 AM
Nah, that would have been sh*t.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: hypehat on October 05, 2012, 06:02:32 AM
They did, it's called In Concert.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: The Shift on October 05, 2012, 06:02:50 AM
Thing is, if you want to hear a band handle material like that, listen to the Beatles or Led Zep – nobody does it better.

If you want to hear material like that on Sunflower or Surf's Up, listen to the Beach Boys.  Ever heard cover versions that improve on what the BBs did with their own material? Me neither.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: The Heartical Don on October 05, 2012, 06:03:01 AM
Nah, that would have been sh*t.

Agree. For me, the BBs are antithetical to the pyrotechnics of Hendrix, Zeppelin, Sabbath et al. They achieve(d) that rare thing: pretty wary of hunting effects for their own sake, long-winded and very boring solos, distortion and chaos, our band produced very refined, musically adventurous, harmony-laden stuff, year after year after year... yet they really did very little MOR/AOR (as percentage of their total body of work).


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Exapno Mapcase on October 05, 2012, 06:49:51 AM
God, no. By now, they'd have sold their souls playing endless blues shows/albums.  I like the BB because of what they are not what someone else wants so they could be more popular amongst the macho dick-centric crowd. I would have been quite happy if they had explored certain musical routes open to them, sure - but they were routes that they created in the first place (the SMiLE and Holland era or the potential for more DW songs as opposed to 'summer is fun.'


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: AndrewHickey on October 05, 2012, 06:57:48 AM
Of course not. Whenever the post-67 Beach Boys have chased commercial success, the results have been horrific. Whenever they've tried to create something artistically worthwhile, they've been magnificent.
Chasing a heavy blues-rock sound in 1969 would have been precisely as bad an idea as going disco was a decade later. You might as well ask if Led Zeppelin should have gone in the direction of six-part harmony vocals over a backing of Moog and banjo. They're bands with nothing really in common, except that both were very good at what they did.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Cabinessenceking on October 05, 2012, 06:58:44 AM
I wish Dennis and Carl woulda made a couple of harder sounding tracks in the POB-LA Light period. Those albums lack a certain hard edge.
As a whole, I'm glad they didn't, but on CATP they showed some capability in doing so.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: EgoHanger1966 on October 05, 2012, 07:02:54 AM
I don't think so. "Wild Honey" (the song) is in a hard R&B (to coin a style!) kind of groove and I don't think it works as well as the other songs on the album. "All I Want To Do" is a rocker and again, I don't think it stands up to most of the other stuff on 20/20.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: meltedwhiskeyinmyhand on October 05, 2012, 07:12:16 AM
WHo knows? it might have been cool.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: dwtherealbb on October 05, 2012, 07:14:00 AM
well the examples I picked were probably extremes. But in the song below, it is sort of a ballad like the kind Brian always did but even there, it incorporates a good guitar solo at the 2:57 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-2lMstw6qs


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Phoenix on October 05, 2012, 07:51:05 AM
like around the time of Sunflower or Surf's Up?

Yes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvZDBKbUAVs-

I personally would have liked to have seen at least a little more studio work in the same vein.  And as hypehat mentions, In Concert is another good example of the Boys in a "heavier", more guitar oriented atmosphere.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Aegir on October 05, 2012, 08:43:21 AM
doesn't everyone think Bluebirds Over the Mountain is ridiculous with that screaming electric guitar?

I mean, I think it's pretty amusing, but that's what the Beach Boys with hard rock guitar would sound like.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: The Heartical Don on October 05, 2012, 08:46:36 AM
doesn't everyone think Bluebirds Over the Mountain is ridiculous with that screaming electric guitar?

I mean, I think it's pretty amusing, but that's what the Beach Boys with hard rock guitar would sound like.

Totally agree, Aegir. It has such an internal contradiction, and that contradiction is not nice.

The best they did in that general direction is 'It's About Time', IMHO, and that's not among my BBs favourites.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Phoenix on October 05, 2012, 08:57:11 AM
doesn't everyone think Bluebirds Over the Mountain is ridiculous with that screaming electric guitar?

I mean, I think it's pretty amusing, but that's what the Beach Boys with hard rock guitar would sound like.

The question is whether or not they should have experimented with a "harder" sound.  "Bluebirds..." isn't that.  It may include electric guitar leads in it but it's hardly a Rock song.  It's certainly not nearly as "heavy" as some of their earlier material like, "409", etc.  By comparison it's closer to Bluegrass, with Ed's parts serving as an out of place novelty. 

Their reluctance to embrace that sound (and lack of a "guitar hero") was mentioned in a recent book (one of Jon S's, maybe, I can't remember off hand) as one of the band's many missed opportunities and to some degree, I agree.  Again, getting back to the question posed: I would have at least like to have seen more experimentation in that direction, as they started out as a guitar based band in the first place.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: BergenWhitesMoustache on October 05, 2012, 08:58:55 AM


The best they did in that general direction is 'It's About Time', IMHO, and that's not among my BBs favourites.

Yeah...I'm a massive Dennis fanboy and I think that's only an 'okay' track. Lyrics are pretty bad imo.

RE: 'Making The Beach Boys be the Beatles'...no, just no. Absolutely hate the Beatles. It's like a group made up of 3 Mikes and an Al.





Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Wah Wah Wah Ooooo on October 05, 2012, 09:14:32 AM


The best they did in that general direction is 'It's About Time', IMHO, and that's not among my BBs favourites.

Yeah...I'm a massive Dennis fanboy and I think that's only an 'okay' track. Lyrics are pretty bad imo.

RE: 'Making The Beach Boys be the Beatles'...no, just no. Absolutely hate the Beatles. It's like a group made up of 3 Mikes and an Al.


Wow. Just wow.  I will never understand someone hating the Beatles.  Not liking them? Ok. But hating them makes no sense to me at all.  You're entitled to your opinion of course. I just think your opinion sucks  ;D



Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: BergenWhitesMoustache on October 05, 2012, 09:19:28 AM


The best they did in that general direction is 'It's About Time', IMHO, and that's not among my BBs favourites.

Yeah...I'm a massive Dennis fanboy and I think that's only an 'okay' track. Lyrics are pretty bad imo.

RE: 'Making The Beach Boys be the Beatles'...no, just no. Absolutely hate the Beatles. It's like a group made up of 3 Mikes and an Al.


Wow. Just wow.  I will never understand someone hating the Beatles.  Not liking them? Ok. But hating them makes no sense to me at all.  You're entitled to your opinion of course. I just think your opinion sucks  ;D


Well, hate is a strong word. More accurately, I hate the fact something as utterly sh*t as Abbey Road was released in the same year as Scott 4, the second Left Banke lp, Five Leaves Left by Nick Drake, Blue Afternoon by Tim Buckley, Farewell Aldebaran, and even in the context of all that great music there are thousands of people who've never heard any of the above who'd happily tell you it's one of the greatest lps ever made ;)



Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: guitarfool2002 on October 05, 2012, 09:24:30 AM
The reason why the Beach Boys are still around and why new fans are joining in every year is because of the uniqueness heard in the music. And the reasons why the Beach Boys songs that were, are, and always will be the most widely popular and will always attract new listeners is because the Beach Boys at their best were uniquely different and sounded like themselves without copying themselves. When they did attempt to either change that sound too much, or try to recapture a previous image of themselves, they fell short.

The Beach Boys were not a hard rock band, they were not a blues band...and it's interesting to note how many blues-based rock bands and musicians from about 1968 to 1974 who were loved by critics, who were the basis of early 70's free-form FM rock radio in many cases, and which defined that era of rock and roll are mostly forgotten today. As the Beach Boys reunion sold tickets in arenas around the world, some of those formerly best-selling blues/rock bands' members who were the trend setters of the music business in 1970 are currently playing acoustic gigs in coffee houses and local theaters.

It is amazing, actually, to read through old Rolling Stone and other late 60's/early 70's record reviews and see just how much certain critics were fawning over and lionizing certain blues-heavy bands which have simply fallen into near-total obscurity today.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: dwtherealbb on October 05, 2012, 10:54:41 AM
It is amazing, actually, to read through old Rolling Stone and other late 60's/early 70's record reviews and see just how much certain critics were fawning over and lionizing certain blues-heavy bands which have simply fallen into near-total obscurity today.

along the lines of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nal82O3hMdM


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: ontor pertawst on October 05, 2012, 10:58:20 AM
They should've squeezed in a brief Christian Reggae phase. Boffo BO!

PS. I love the Electric Prunes!


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: BergenWhitesMoustache on October 05, 2012, 11:10:21 AM
It is amazing, actually, to read through old Rolling Stone and other late 60's/early 70's record reviews and see just how much certain critics were fawning over and lionizing certain blues-heavy bands which have simply fallen into near-total obscurity today.

along the lines of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nal82O3hMdM

Fantastic track by an awesome and much loved group.

Mainstream media might have reduced sixties music to 'Beatles, Stones, Beach Boys', but there are legions of believers who'll never forget. Apart from The Beach Boys, 95% of records I buy are by groups who barely made it out of their home town, and this has no bearing on whether they did, or didn't kick ass.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: guitarfool2002 on October 05, 2012, 11:13:58 AM
It is amazing, actually, to read through old Rolling Stone and other late 60's/early 70's record reviews and see just how much certain critics were fawning over and lionizing certain blues-heavy bands which have simply fallen into near-total obscurity today.

along the lines of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nal82O3hMdM

Almost but not quite - For one, every time I hear something from that album I think of Easy Rider, and every time I can picture a scene from Easy Rider in my mind it's a good thing. :)

There are some more blues-heavy artists and bands I'm thinking of who were given heaps of attention and praise who could get away with playing a tedious 12-bar blues form or a variant of that form for more than 10 minutes and have it be considered legit. A lot of them happened to come from either England or San Francisco, which at one time seemed to be a prerequisite for critical praise.

Disclaimer: The Allman Bros. are exempt from this because Duane was simply incredible, head and shoulders above the rest.

Disclaimer 2: Canned Heat could do some pretty boring repetitive blues-jam stuff, but some of the great "Blind Owl" Wilson's contributions on harp, guitar, and voice can lift them out of the doldrums. Same with Larry Taylor on bass.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Myk Luhv on October 05, 2012, 12:18:55 PM
I think "Student Demonstration Time" is a clunker for its lyrics more than the music, which is a fine display of Carl's ability to actually rock out. And yet I can't bring myself to quite say it's a good track...


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: drbeachboy on October 05, 2012, 12:25:22 PM
I think "Student Demonstration Time" is a clunker for its lyrics more than the music, which is a fine display of Carl's ability to actually rock out. And yet I can't bring myself to quite say it's a good track...
The track sounds very cluttered. I would have loved to hear the horns a bit more prominent in the mix.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Kirk on October 05, 2012, 01:04:39 PM
I would love to hear the harder version of "Keepin the Summer Alive" that Randy Bachman talks about in Mark's book. I think Carl certainly had the vocal chops to pull off tougher rock and still sound authentic. The line he does on "Rock n Roll to the Rescue" is the best thing in that song. Hell, the verses of "Let Us Go on This Way" are pretty hard to my MOR ears.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Myk Luhv on October 05, 2012, 01:23:57 PM
Yeah, Carl should've swallowed sandpaper more considering it was to very good effect!


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Lonely Summer on October 05, 2012, 01:56:40 PM
Somewhere, someplace, this is an unreleased tape of the BB's pounding their way through Dazed and Confused. Carl rockin' the guitar like Mr. Page (or Mr. Davies, depending on who you believe), Dennis attacking the drums like a savage, and Mike screaming at the top of his range like Robert Plant.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Jon Stebbins on October 05, 2012, 02:03:57 PM
I think River Song is the best example of "heavy" Beach Boys music, the rocking gospel feel with crunchy guitar and Ricky playing a Bonham-esque beat is a perfect bed for Dennis soulful lead vocal. It still sounds like Beach Boys music in places, but as if they'd managed to evolve into a mature '70's band. And Phoenix is right I did explore the "harder sound" subject in the Beach Boys FAQ book in a couple of places.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on October 05, 2012, 02:09:48 PM
I think "Student Demonstration Time" is a clunker for its lyrics more than the music, which is a fine display of Carl's ability to actually rock out. And yet I can't bring myself to quite say it's a good track...

I really hate Student Demonstration Time.  The megaphone effect on Mike's vocal, the goshdarn sirens, it's just a really sloppy production and it sticks out like a sore thumb on the Surf's Up album. 

And I love how Mike tries to pretend that they were making a relevant statement in the "American Band" documentary. 

"Surfing and cars were okay but there was a war going on."  :lol


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: joe_blow on October 05, 2012, 02:14:00 PM
I wish they would have done more songs with a harder edge that wouldn't have soundd out of place on FM radio. Some did get airply, some did not. But really liked their harder edged stuff such as:

It's About Time
Marcella
Sail On Sailor
You Need A Mess of Help To Stand Alone
River Song
What's Wrong
KTSA (live Knebworth version)


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: joe_blow on October 05, 2012, 02:16:54 PM
"Surfing and cars were okay but there was a war going on."  :lol


A LOT...was going down.... ;D


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Shady on October 05, 2012, 02:30:15 PM
The best thing The Beach Boys ever did was not try to copy The Beatles - Post Pet Sounds.

They went off on their on journey. A better one.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Cabinessenceking on October 05, 2012, 04:06:35 PM
The best thing The Beach Boys ever did was not try to copy The Beatles - Post Pet Sounds.

They went off on their on journey. A better one.

I agree, Beach Boys made a whole new story from that point. The Beatles stopped working together, started fighting, and made that sloppy mosh which is Abbey Road. There is more candy in that album than at any funfair I ever went to.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: runnersdialzero on October 05, 2012, 06:18:17 PM
Nothing much to add, just wanted to agree 100% with all those in the "no" pool. No no no no no no no no no. "All I Want To Do" showed that they could do it as well as anyone of the day but clearly didn't need to beyond that.

Mike screaming at the top of his range like Robert Plant.

Do not want.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Jon Stebbins on October 05, 2012, 08:22:53 PM
Nothing much to add, just wanted to agree 100% with all those in the "no" pool. No no no no no no no no no.
Do not want.
So you're thinking maybe then ?


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: bgas on October 05, 2012, 08:56:17 PM
The best thing The Beach Boys ever did was not try to copy The Beatles - Post Pet Sounds.

They went off on their on journey. A better one.

I agree, Beach Boys made a whole new story from that point. The Beatles stopped working together, started fighting, and made that sloppy mosh which is Abbey Road. There is more candy in that album than at any funfair I ever went to.

Certainly glad the Beach Boys never sunk to fighting and stopping working together


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: lance on October 05, 2012, 10:37:57 PM
It might have been better for their career, if they could have pulled it off without sounding forced; I think Dennis and carl both would have had to have wrritten more songs for the band as I don't feel Brian's heart is really in the Classic guitar rock sound.


Ultimately, though, theirr music is their music and I'm glad it's gone the way it has.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: stack-o-tracks on October 05, 2012, 11:20:00 PM
Friday Night is pretty dirty sounding. Not "hard" necessarily, but it's got that edge most of the Beach Boys' music didn't have.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Mike's Beard on October 06, 2012, 04:11:55 AM
If they had have gone in a harder, heavier direction it would have been interesting to have seen Mike headbanging live. Mike the mosher, anyone?


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Lowbacca on October 06, 2012, 04:12:51 AM
If they had have gone in a harder, heavier direction it would have been interesting to have seen Mike headbanging live. Mike the mosher, anyone?
That's just cruel.  ;D


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: The Heartical Don on October 06, 2012, 06:19:20 AM
The best thing The Beach Boys ever did was not try to copy The Beatles - Post Pet Sounds.

They went off on their on journey. A better one.

I agree, Beach Boys made a whole new story from that point. The Beatles stopped working together, started fighting, and made that sloppy mosh which is Abbey Road. There is more candy in that album than at any funfair I ever went to.

Certainly glad the Beach Boys never sunk to fighting and stopping working together

 :lol


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on October 06, 2012, 07:48:35 AM
If they had have gone in a harder, heavier direction it would have been interesting to have seen Mike headbanging live. Mike the mosher, anyone?
That's just cruel.  ;D

I'm still disappointed that Brian didn't crowd surf at Bonnaroo.  ;D


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Stephen W. Desper on October 06, 2012, 10:13:36 AM
I think "Student Demonstration Time" is a clunker for its lyrics more than the music, which is a fine display of Carl's ability to actually rock out. And yet I can't bring myself to quite say it's a good track...

I really hate Student Demonstration Time.  The megaphone effect on Mike's vocal, the goshdarn sirens, it's just a really sloppy production and it sticks out like a sore thumb on the Surf's Up album. 

And I love how Mike tries to pretend that they were making a relevant statement in the "American Band" documentary. 

"Surfing and cars were okay but there was a war going on."  :lol
COMMENT: 

There is no right nor wrong in art, only preference.   But I would take issue with you on saying the production values are sloppy, just because you don't like the sound of a megaphone or sirens. The production values of this song are just as strong, and more complex, than other songs on the Surf's Up album.

If you lived through the 60s, the civil riots, the unrest, the antiwar demonstrations, the crowds of unruly students in the streets, with hundreds of young soldiers dieing every day -- every day, and in-depth TV coverage of people being shot at close range coming into our living rooms every night, you might have more understanding of "the why and wherefore" of the song being part of a surf album. 

Yes, Michael is very correct in stating his concerns. He was seeing all this going on in Santa Barbara, CA where he lived. It was in his front yard. It was in all our lives. It was a sick time. The country was sick. And much of it was needless.

So Michael was moved to write a song about war protest. His approach was to offer vocal advice to the listener as to what to do when you may be caught up in one of these civil unrests -- so as not to get killed.  Remember Kent State was still in the news when the lyrics were written.

Production Values.  The tonal picture Michael wished to paint OR the setting he wanted use to present his song did give me a challenge to keep production values at their standards and still make a listenable song.

Picture Michael speaking to a crowd of students that are in a rally, in a school yard, surrounded by school buildings and administration structures. He is speaking to them using a PA system and the reflection of his speech is bouncing off of the buildings. There is also other activity and antiwar demonstrations taking place. the sirens are moving around the school yard builds and can be heard around you.

Unfortunately, the sound picture colapes fairly flat in stereo. When you hear this song properly (with Matrix resolution) the production makes more sense. You do get a sense of the school yard space and the buildings sound further removed. The sirens move around the room, not just side to side. The lyric message remains the same, but the production values put into the sound-picture are more easily heard and appreciated.

Some day soon you will hear what I mean.  Until then,

Good Listening,
  ~Stephen W. Desper


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Phoenix on October 06, 2012, 02:48:52 PM
Well put, Mr Desper!  I think you did a great job.  I've never had as much against the song as most people around these parts and I think you did a great job (increasing its jarring "surprise" by placing it after "Disney Girls", etc.), especially when one thinks about doing service to Mike's sonic requests, and even more so in context of the rest of the album.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Phoenix on October 06, 2012, 04:49:48 PM
I wish they would have done more songs with a harder edge that wouldn't have soundd out of place on FM radio. Some did get airply, some did not. But really liked their harder edged stuff such as:

It's About Time
Marcella
Sail On Sailor
You Need A Mess of Help To Stand Alone
River Song
What's Wrong
KTSA (live Knebworth version)


That's the beginning of a pretty cool playlist.  Much appreciated  :smokin


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Jason Penick on October 06, 2012, 06:50:06 PM

Fantastic track by an awesome and much loved group.

Mainstream media might have reduced sixties music to 'Beatles, Stones, Beach Boys', but there are legions of believers who'll never forget.

Hear, hear. Mass in F Minor is the sh*t. Gotta love David Axelrod!

The album was ripped to shreds in Rolling Stone at the time, but like Craig said, many of the blues rock bands they were championing at the time have fallen into semi-obscurity, while the cream (pardon the pun) has more or less risen in stature.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: BergenWhitesMoustache on October 07, 2012, 03:21:16 AM


The album was ripped to shreds in Rolling Stone at the time, but like Craig said, many of the blues rock bands they were championing at the time have fallen into semi-obscurity, while the cream (pardon the pun) has more or less risen in stature.


Loads of things haven't risen in stature though, and it doesn't mean they are bad...there's still SO much stuff to discover- not even that's rare/expensive, record collecting wise... the 'Bergen White' of my user name made a killer Pet Sounds sounding record that came out on a label that dressed it up like a cheesy lounge record. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JsWvGtJMHA

There are probably records that Rolling Stone didn't even deign to cover that kick ass. I just read that someone had to BEG Melody Maker in the uk to be allowed to review Gene Clark's 'no other'...I mean...seriously? Screw the music press.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: puni puni on October 07, 2012, 08:57:34 AM
Ever heard cover versions that improve on what the BBs did with their own material?
Yes


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: EthanJames on October 07, 2012, 01:37:14 PM
They've done some hard rock stuff mostly on 20/20 and of course Student Demonstration Time , But to me, it really doesn't seem to fit with them and doesn't really work with them, It actually worked for The Beatles i might add but with BB, it just doesn't seem to fit them really.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: MBE on October 07, 2012, 02:34:32 PM
I think "Student Demonstration Time" is a clunker for its lyrics more than the music, which is a fine display of Carl's ability to actually rock out. And yet I can't bring myself to quite say it's a good track...

I really hate Student Demonstration Time.  The megaphone effect on Mike's vocal, the goshdarn sirens, it's just a really sloppy production and it sticks out like a sore thumb on the Surf's Up album. 

And I love how Mike tries to pretend that they were making a relevant statement in the "American Band" documentary. 

"Surfing and cars were okay but there was a war going on."  :lol
COMMENT: 

There is no right nor wrong in art, only preference.   But I would take issue with you on saying the production values are sloppy, just because you don't like the sound of a megaphone or sirens. The production values of this song are just as strong, and more complex, than other songs on the Surf's Up album.

If you lived through the 60s, the civil riots, the unrest, the antiwar demonstrations, the crowds of unruly students in the streets, with hundreds of young soldiers dieing every day -- every day, and in-depth TV coverage of people being shot at close range coming into our living rooms every night, you might have more understanding of "the why and wherefore" of the song being part of a surf album. 

Yes, Michael is very correct in stating his concerns. He was seeing all this going on in Santa Barbara, CA where he lived. It was in his front yard. It was in all our lives. It was a sick time. The country was sick. And much of it was needless.

So Michael was moved to write a song about war protest. His approach was to offer vocal advice to the listener as to what to do when you may be caught up in one of these civil unrests -- so as not to get killed.  Remember Kent State was still in the news when the lyrics were written.

Production Values.  The tonal picture Michael wished to paint OR the setting he wanted use to present his song did give me a challenge to keep production values at their standards and still make a listenable song.

Picture Michael speaking to a crowd of students that are in a rally, in a school yard, surrounded by school buildings and administration structures. He is speaking to them using a PA system and the reflection of his speech is bouncing off of the buildings. There is also other activity and antiwar demonstrations taking place. the sirens are moving around the school yard builds and can be heard around you.

Unfortunately, the sound picture colapes fairly flat in stereo. When you hear this song properly (with Matrix resolution) the production makes more sense. You do get a sense of the school yard space and the buildings sound further removed. The sirens move around the room, not just side to side. The lyric message remains the same, but the production values put into the sound-picture are more easily heard and appreciated.

Some day soon you will hear what I mean.  Until then,

Good Listening,
  ~Stephen W. Desper
I love the track myself, never understood why anyone wouldn't. It's of the times for sure (I mean that in a good way), but it rocks like hell and I think the production is tight and spot on.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: halblaineisgood on October 07, 2012, 05:48:05 PM
Where did that rockin' piano sound on Student Demonstration come from? From a mandolin rail? http://www.player-care.com/mandolin.html


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: MBE on October 07, 2012, 06:10:29 PM
The only thing I can think of is that maybe some Beach Boys fans just don't like hard rock. I do at least hard rock as it was defined in 1971 so maybe that's why it works for me.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Cabinessenceking on October 08, 2012, 05:22:51 AM
The only thing I can think of is that maybe some Beach Boys fans just don't like hard rock. I do at least hard rock as it was defined in 1971 so maybe that's why it works for me.

Personally, I don't listen to it quite as much, but I still dig Led Zep, Deep Purple, Doors, Joy Division, Hendrix etc. and much of the late 70's punk music like The Clash.
It's when the 80's come along with all the horrible hardrock/love ballads that my interest evaporates.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Steve Mayo on October 08, 2012, 05:35:34 AM
always liked the song. my local fm radio station played the heck out of that song when the lp came out. along with don't go near the water. this was back in the day when am radio was top 40 stuff and fm was lp cuts.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: filledeplage on February 22, 2015, 06:45:51 PM
I think "Student Demonstration Time" is a clunker for its lyrics more than the music, which is a fine display of Carl's ability to actually rock out. And yet I can't bring myself to quite say it's a good track...

I really hate Student Demonstration Time.  The megaphone effect on Mike's vocal, the goshdarn sirens, it's just a really sloppy production and it sticks out like a sore thumb on the Surf's Up album. 

And I love how Mike tries to pretend that they were making a relevant statement in the "American Band" documentary. 

"Surfing and cars were okay but there was a war going on."  :lol
COMMENT: 

There is no right nor wrong in art, only preference.   But I would take issue with you on saying the production values are sloppy, just because you don't like the sound of a megaphone or sirens. The production values of this song are just as strong, and more complex, than other songs on the Surf's Up album.

If you lived through the 60s, the civil riots, the unrest, the antiwar demonstrations, the crowds of unruly students in the streets, with hundreds of young soldiers dieing every day -- every day, and in-depth TV coverage of people being shot at close range coming into our living rooms every night, you might have more understanding of "the why and wherefore" of the song being part of a surf album. 

Yes, Michael is very correct in stating his concerns. He was seeing all this going on in Santa Barbara, CA where he lived. It was in his front yard. It was in all our lives. It was a sick time. The country was sick. And much of it was needless.

So Michael was moved to write a song about war protest. His approach was to offer vocal advice to the listener as to what to do when you may be caught up in one of these civil unrests -- so as not to get killed.  Remember Kent State was still in the news when the lyrics were written.

Production Values.  The tonal picture Michael wished to paint OR the setting he wanted use to present his song did give me a challenge to keep production values at their standards and still make a listenable song.

Picture Michael speaking to a crowd of students that are in a rally, in a school yard, surrounded by school buildings and administration structures. He is speaking to them using a PA system and the reflection of his speech is bouncing off of the buildings. There is also other activity and antiwar demonstrations taking place. the sirens are moving around the school yard builds and can be heard around you.

Unfortunately, the sound picture colapes fairly flat in stereo. When you hear this song properly (with Matrix resolution) the production makes more sense. You do get a sense of the school yard space and the buildings sound further removed. The sirens move around the room, not just side to side. The lyric message remains the same, but the production values put into the sound-picture are more easily heard and appreciated.

Some day soon you will hear what I mean.  Until then,

Good Listening,
  ~Stephen W. Desper
Thread bump for "Annoying Songs."


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Lee Marshall on February 22, 2015, 07:12:14 PM
Anyway...they DID experiment with a HARDER sound heading out of the 60s and up til 1974ish.  They also had a harder sound LIVE.  I very much liked it.  It was part of the progress...which sadly ended with the release of Endless Summer and the 'advent' of 15 'big' ones.  After that?  There were some great songs and way too many stinkers...and the Beach Boys slowly but surely became Sha na na at the Beach.

I love all kinds of music...but it's GOTTA be music.  From Bob Marley and Beres Hammond to Joe Bonamassa and Stevie Ray Vaughan.  From the Association, Turtles and Mamas and Papas to Deep Purple, Mark Ronson and Rival Sons.

What I didn't really dig was how the 'Boys' just seemed to run out of direction and ideas and how it just became more and more difficult for them to release half decent albums of any great note or achievement once Brian checked out of the group...in the mid 70s...until he 'went' solo in 1988.  Dennis had to go it alone.  Carl tried twice.  The group?  It just got to be less and less noteworthy until 2012.

Maybe the harder sound might have ultimately fizzled, faltered and failed.  But I'll guess I would have enjoyed it TONS more.  At least they would have gone down swinging...and trying.  And...It would have saved us from SIP.

By 1969-70...til 15 Biguns spelled the END...I thought that the Beach Boys were pretty cool.  [except for Student Demonstration Time.  I didn't like the way it sounded.  Forced in every conceivable way.]
----------------------------------------------------------------

I know someone...perhaps several will toss 'Love You' onto the pile...but Even though there are some decent tunes there...it's ain't the harder sound THIS thread is dealing with...and...I don't really dig it anyway.  To me it sounds forced...almost as if Brian was trying to come up with something while recovering from some serious problems and issues and the group just kind of pushed him along...because the whole thing had pretty much fallen apart during the previous 'go' at Brian supposedly being 'back'...and "by-cracky" THIS time he was damn well gonna be back whether he wanted to or not.  OR whether he was capable or not.  I mean really???  If Mars had life on it...I might find my wife on it?

Fortunately....OH SO SLOWLY...Brian would get better...bit by bit...particularly after Melinda came along.  Pretty sure SHE didn't come from Mars.

And then there's now.  It ain't the harder sound we're talking about.  BUT...at least Brian's back.  [and, it would seem the only one who ISN'T overly glad about it is one of his cousins. ::)]


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Ron on February 23, 2015, 12:28:31 AM
They did, it's called In Concert.

For sure.  They were actually pretty hard on that album and some of the live stuff they did there for a little while. 

At heart though I don't think the core members of the group would ever be comfortable making straight up Rock music.  Mike?  Nah.  Brian? Nah.  Al? Nah.  Carl?  Maybe... Dennis?  Maybe... 

So they could have made some hard rock stuff but it would have been just as off-base as some of the stuff they actually DID make was.

They were their best when they made the stereotypical music that fit their personalities, the best Mike songs were the bragging car songs, the best Brian songs were the introspective moody songs, the best Al songs were the folkish songs, the best Carl songs were the ones where he sang really pretty, the best Dennis songs were the ones where he moaned about women doing him wrong... with a few exceptions for each of course.

None of them were naturally hard rock guys so the music wouldn't have been their best.  They could have done a decent job of it if they wanted, though, they were always all very talented.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: buddhahat on February 23, 2015, 01:30:32 AM

Loads of things haven't risen in stature though, and it doesn't mean they are bad...there's still SO much stuff to discover- not even that's rare/expensive, record collecting wise... the 'Bergen White' of my user name made a killer Pet Sounds sounding record that came out on a label that dressed it up like a cheesy lounge record. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JsWvGtJMHA


Wow - nice find! I never heard of this guy but this and another track I just found on YouTube sound killer indeed. Hoping the whole album's on spotify ...


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: elnombre on February 23, 2015, 02:25:57 PM
I always thought that the Blondie/Ricky era was them experimenting with a harder sound. Okay, it leaned more towards R&B than hard rock, but still counts for me. That era of the band really fascinates me, especially since it was arguably the last time the Beach Boys were progressive before fully embracing the nostalgia tag. I've never quite understood why it all fell apart. Something I have to read up on at some point.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: JasonK on February 25, 2015, 04:44:40 AM
I like SDT too, although it took me a while.  I with they had put one or two tracks like this on each album- just flat out rockers.  Just my two cents, but also would have liked to see that harder live sound in the early '70's appear on the records.  Some of their studio recordings are begging for another guitar.  Shoot, if I was the manager at the time, I would have had them re-record the entire Wild Honey album with Blondie and Ricky in the band.  This might not be realistic, smart, or practical, but I would love to hear it.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: filledeplage on February 25, 2015, 06:04:49 AM
I like SDT too, although it took me a while.  I with they had put one or two tracks like this on each album- just flat out rockers.  Just my two cents, but also would have liked to see that harder live sound in the early '70's appear on the records.  Some of their studio recordings are begging for another guitar.  Shoot, if I was the manager at the time, I would have had them re-record the entire Wild Honey album with Blondie and Ricky in the band.  This might not be realistic, smart, or practical, but I would love to hear it.
Student Demonstration Time is one of those songs that I heard on the radio in 1971!  At the time, I could not believe my ears.  The issues are so complex.  One is that today we thank our service people for their defense service.  Not so, back then.  Only men were drafted and student status got them an unfair pass, in my view.  

People generally blamed the military for what they were pressed into service to do.  The second is that SDT captured the "sonority" of what one would "hear" during a demonstration.  They took musical instruments and brilliantly replicated that very familiar and very harsh "sonority" that students would hear on the street after a college or university building had been evacuated because of a bomb threat or some other event.  

For me, it meant that the BB's "got it" with respect to where many of their fans were.  It meant that they were socially aware, especially because of Carl's CO (Conscientious Objector) status, arrest and other procedures, that dragged out for years.  And, it showed or at least raised awareness about the contentiousness of protest, but also equally raised awareness that it was an fundamental American right to do so, and law enforcement needed to be reminded of that critical principle in our legal system.

  


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: kookadams on February 26, 2015, 12:43:26 AM
They've done some hard rock stuff mostly on 20/20 and of course Student Demonstration Time , But to me, it really doesn't seem to fit with them and doesn't really work with them, It actually worked for The Beatles i might add but with BB, it just doesn't seem to fit them really.
what worked for the beatles that the BBs didnt do? Can you elaborate??


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Please delete my account on February 26, 2015, 03:53:38 AM
They've done some hard rock stuff mostly on 20/20 and of course Student Demonstration Time , But to me, it really doesn't seem to fit with them and doesn't really work with them, It actually worked for The Beatles i might add but with BB, it just doesn't seem to fit them really.
what worked for the beatles that the BBs didnt do? Can you elaborate??

No he can't, he's banned.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Micha on February 26, 2015, 04:12:32 AM
They've done some hard rock stuff mostly on 20/20 and of course Student Demonstration Time , But to me, it really doesn't seem to fit with them and doesn't really work with them, It actually worked for The Beatles i might add but with BB, it just doesn't seem to fit them really.
what worked for the beatles that the BBs didnt do? Can you elaborate??

No he can't, he's banned.

He's a banned member? Never thought of that pun before. :-D


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: Cyncie on February 26, 2015, 06:33:01 AM
I think it's more difficult to reconcile a harder "rock" sound with the lush vocals and densely complicated instrumental work that Brian created and which came to define the Beach Boys. 

The Beatles always kept that garage band edge, even when they were expanding into psychedelic and baroque sounds  As a result, they were able to continue in a more "rock" vein while still being easily identified as The Beatles. There was a natural progression from where they had been to their later sound, and they still sounded like themselves.  They moved forward without losing their signature sound.

Brian's music became more symphonic as he explored a richer sound. As a result, to go toward a harder sound the band needed to either go back to their garage band roots (which they tried), or completely reinvent themselves (which they also tried). The evolution from Pet Sounds and Smile to harder rock was not going to be as natural because Brian didn't keep the "edge." A complete change of sound, and they weren't really The Beach Boys any more.

It's my theory that this is a big reason The Beach Boys found it difficult to sell their new material to audiences during the Endless Summer popularity phase. They never quite found a way to keep their unique Beach Boys signature while still going forward creatively.  If they had, I think they could have capitalized on the Endless Summer success to become a major force again.


Title: Re: should they have experimented with a harder sound?
Post by: kookadams on February 26, 2015, 10:19:39 AM
Uhh...no. first of all the beatles started as a cover band like the stones. Then they peaked w rubber soul, and the same mnth that revolver was released they ceased as a band to spend their remaining three yrs using the psychedelic era to make the most excessive output of their tenure. The beach boys on the otherhand had a steady progression and were releasing the most integral records at the time. But in america the music buying masses were no longer interested in rock, and for a group w so many hits it was hard to keep up w.