The Smiley Smile Message Board

I'm not talking about musical ability per se but more in attitude/worldview. It seemed like Lennon, especially with the circumstances he was brought up in, had a very cynical and dour worldview and really pushed his band mates with his abrasive personality. Although the Wilson brothers grew up under questionable circumstances, all five of them grew up to some degree in prototypical white bread 1950s America with hot rods, girls, drive ins, beaches etc. Lennon (or any of his three bandmates for that matter) grew up in very different circumstances/cultures. Dennis I think was the closest thing to Lennon in terms of personality. But Dennis never really seemed to want to lead and was really there for the ride in his early days. It wasn't until the band had fallen off the radar that Dennis started becoming more of a serious musician.

Brian was the 'Lennon figure' for the articles that he participated in and the 15 minutes he was shown performing Surf's Up

.

Imagine if the Beatles had a Brian Wilson figure, who had  the talent to do everything from, keyboard to cutting room instead of relying on their producer to achieve 90% of what their reputation rests on.

That's rubbish. How did you work that percentage out ? Totally unscientific.
However it is worth pointing out that one asshole per band is enough and that's a scientific fact.

Well, I multiplied 6.2 billion subjective opinions by 1.21 gigawatts of "b-b-b-but its the BEATLES!!!", and came to this number. You're welcome to check.

You need to use Paul as a constant.

Lacking a Lennon-esque figure in order to do what? Be more like The Beatles? In that case, yes, they were lacking a Lennon-esque figure. And they were also lacking a McCartney-esque figure and a Harrison-esque figure and a Starr-esque figure and an Epstein-esque figure and a George Martin-esque figure.

They lacked another creative force that was on the same level as Brian, but who knows how it would have worked if they had two brilliant guys instead of one. Most bands only have room for one leader. That's part of what sat the Beatles apart, and also part of why they broke up. You're talking about a band that was so stacked with talent that George Harrison was the #3 guy.

There was no need for a so-called "Lennon-esque" figure to counter-act or dilute or diversify their 50's-60's California cultural foundation.  It was the 50's-60's California culture that made the Beach Boys the Beach Boys and why fool with it. Anyway, for all their vaunted "esques", the Beatles broke up while I was still in college.

The way this premise is stated has some notable flaws. Lennon grew up in a very safe middle class environment with no violence in his home. Yes his dad was absent and his mother was a peripheral presence in his life (no pun)...but he had a consistent and loving aunt and uncle that virtually spoiled him. No school of hard knocks for John. He went to art school and basically did what he pleased...while Brian and Dennis were being brutalized by an abusive father from the time they were toddlers. Dennis earliest memory was being beaten by his dad, nice white bread existence. Lennon obviously felt the loss of his parents, and his mom under horrific circumstances and sure that made him bitter. I think where the Beatles and Lennon's edgy world-view really came about was their Hamburg experience. Those were the Mean Streets and they found a way to survive and grow. Lennon was up for whatever was thrown at him as far as absurdity and debauchery...and his openness towards the crazy side of things came from his mom who was his friend and mentor. But to say the Beach Boys had no Lennon type figure is unsurprising, because nobody did. Lennon was as unique as Brian...or Dennis etc... People with a vein of genius in them are really not cut from any typical mold and are rarely similar. That's why they call them geniuses. Brian absolutely pushed the Beach Boys in his own way, and at least as hard as Lennon/McCartney pushed their group, if not harder.

BTW Dennis worked his ass off in the early days, on the road, in the studio...and by being the band enforcer. The more details we learn, the more the Dennis was mostly absent meme becomes another Beach Boys myth with no basis in truth.

Dennis wasn't a genius though obviously.

If what the Beach Boys actually accomplished were somehow short of what an ideal Beach Boys would have accomplished in a person's eyes, and John Lennon is the epitome of the shortcoming, then sure, they missed a Lennon figure. For someone else, they miss a Bob Dylan figure. For someone else, they miss a Stevie Wonder figure. For someone else, they miss a...you see where I'm going with this.

The thing that the Beach Boys were, is what the Beach Boys were. It isn't lacking in its "Beach Boyness" because it is what the Beach Boys are and were. Anything that didn't happen that a person wishes happen has more to do with the person wishing than anything else.

Obvious to you

http://brianwilsonfans.com/a_dw.php

http://coldbloodedclarity.co.uk/dennis-wilson-genius-crazy-man-but-genius/

http://regularrecord.blogspot.com/2011/09/no-not-brian-wilson-other-genius-wilson.html

http://www.noripcord.com/features/dennis-wilson-more-than-just-a-beach-boy

A good cup of tea and 2 hours of THIS might help make things appear more obvious to you... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGIpdKh2Le0)  :police:

The Beach Boys were not lacking a 'John Lennon figure' any more than the Beatles were lacking a 'Dennis Wilson figure'. The implication in these kinds of topics is that the Beach Boys are somehow lacking compared to the Beatles.

Why are the Beatles such a gold standard? Didn't the Beach Boys create better records?

Personally, I'll take Pacific Ocean Blue over any Lennon record any day, hands down. The emotional punch and spirituality in Dennis' (and the Beach Boys') music just hits home in a way the fab four or Lennon just doesn't.

That's subjective, but...DAMN RIGHT THEY DID. I'm with Stephen Newcombe on this...let's see how well the Beatles would've done without George Martin.

If George Martin was the only, or even the principal, reason for the Beatles' success, then why did he never, in his entire career, do anything that approached the same level of artistic quality or commercial success?

The Beatles' commercial peak, in 64 and 65, was at the time when there was fairly little production or arrangement work to be done on their records -- not none, of course, but relatively little. Any competent producer could have produced She Loves You,  Help, I Feel Fine and so on. And while George Martin did great work on in the mid-60s with them, he was largely absent from the White album and Let It Be sessions, and they seemed to do all right without him.

George Martin was the best possible producer the Beatles could have had, but if he'd been the reason they were as good and as successful as they were, then Shane Fenton or Gerry & The Pacemakers would have been just as successful.

His production of Jeff Beck's Blow By Blow  and  Wired  albums were pretty spiffy. But, and again this is just my opinion, it was the right place, right time in the mid-60s. Just speaking artistically, as commercially the Beatles could've recorded a record of Ringo beating off and it would have sold, just because. 

'Commercial peak in 1964/1965'? Like, nearly every Beatles single and album went to number #1? Not sure where you're getting that from, unless you're thinking of Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane not making #1 the following year.

Let It Be is 'produced', as such - Glyn Johns was instructed to essentially not produce it at all, but then again have you ever heard his 'Get Back' mixes that were supposed to be the finished product? Ye Gods. Spector managed a minor miracle.

Essentially, I don't think a lot of this is true - I don't think 'anybody' could have produced those early cuts in the same way you wouldn't say 'well anyone could have produced Surfin' USA' because you're a Beach Boys fan. It's harder to produce that sort of thing than you think, I reckon.

It is about a hundred years too early for anyone to determine whether or not they needed a 'Lennon figure'

The only purpose he served in The Beatles was to give the band social credibility. Hadn't he have done that, there would not be millions of American schoolgirls walking into malls and buying t-shirts with his face on them in the year 2013.

We will have to wait and see over the next several decades if the BB corp shift their marketing strategies from 'Hey remember the surf band John Stamos that was in?' to 'Hey remember the avant-garde group that happened to record several remarkable pop albums?'.

I hate when people on here try and compare their personalities...because you can't. Every human is their own thing, regardless of if they were in the two greatest bands of all time.

The closest to Lennon is probably Dennis, in personality.

More threads about the band lacking in comparison to the Beatles, please.

Many things about Lennon as a musician annoyed me. I would not want a Lennon-esque figure in the Beach Boys.

I dunno. I think had history played out Brian Wilson and VDP could have formed a songwriting partnership to  rival Lennon/MCCartney.

One good album doesn't make somebody a genius. Brian was a genius. Dennis wasn't.

First off all, what is the obsession with comparing The Beach Boys with The Beatles? Beatles fans are comfortable enough with their favorite group that they don't compare them to The Beach Boys, but it seems like Beach Boys fans always seem to want to make them into The Beatles? What's the point?

Also, it's not up to me to decide who a genius is, but I gotta say calling Dennis a genius is a bit much. One solid, really good, but not exactly groundbreaking album and a few scattered songs does not a genius make. Sorry.

Dennis is a genius. Be with me, forever, little bird, the whole POB, baby blue, most of sunflower, WIBTLA, the unfinished album, TEACHING HIMSELF HOW TO MAKE AND WRITE ALL OF THAT. Seriously guys?

Compare that to what Brian did in terms of quality and quantity and there is no comparison.

I like many of Dennis's songs but try looking at his career with a little objectivity.

You've just pointed out what everything Dennis created was up against from day one. Thanks.

Quantity, yes, Brian has him beat. Quality? Well, they both had their own trip, so it is subjective. To me it was equal, just in different ways.

This is not meant to be a comparison of talents between the groups. What this is meant to do is to say if the Beach Boys would have been better with someone who had a more combative personality. It might have kept the group in the top 40 after 1966, but it also would have broken the group up when there time had come. Here's a good quote I think that encapsulates this sort of attitude:

"No, wait a minute. Let's stay with this a second; sometimes I can't let go of it. Nobody ever said anything about Paul's having a spell on me or my having one on Paul! They never thought that was abnormal in those days, two guys together, or four guys together! Why didn't they ever say, 'How come those guys don't split up? I mean, what's going on backstage? What is this Paul and John business? How can they be together so long?' We spent more time together in the early days than John and Yoko: the four of us sleeping in the same room, practically in the same bed, in the same truck, living together night and day, eating, shitting and pissing together! All right? Doing everything together! Nobody said a damn thing about being under a spell. Maybe they said we were under the spell of Brian Epstein or George Martin. There's always somebody who has to be doing something to you. You know, they're congratulating the Stones on being together 112 years. Whoooopee! At least Charlie and Bill still got their families. In the Eighties, they'll be asking, 'Why are those guys still together? Can't they hack it on their own? Why do they have to be surrounded by a gang? Is the little leader scared somebody's gonna knife him in the back?' That's gonna be the question. That's-a-gonna be the question! They're gonna look back at the Beatles and the Stones and all those guys as relics. The days when those bands were just all men will be on the newsreels, you know. They will be showing pictures of the guy with lipstick wriggling his ass and the four guys with the evil black make-up on their eyes trying to look raunchy. That's gonna be the joke in the future, not a couple singing together or living and working together. It's all right when you're 16, 17, 18 to have male companions and idols, OK? It's tribal and it's gang and it's fine. But when it continues and you're still doing it when you're 40, that means you're still 16 in the head."

Um... Al Jardine much? Without Al, we don't have "Sloop John B". If Al wasn't always playing that darn Western riff, we don't have "California Girls". If Al doesn't help Brian to keep his teeth clean, we lose that falsetto so much sooner.

Al was a genius. "Lady Linda"? C'mon!

If we all started throwing around the word "genius" to every songwriter/musician that we like then the term would lose it's impact pretty soon. Dennis wrote some fantastic songs and made a bloody good solo album but he's still a distant second compared to what his older brother was achieving at his peak. It's not like the guy was dishing out amazingly complex six part harmonies as easily as most people breathe or dumbfounding grizzled veterans of the LA session scene with chord compositions that in theory shouldn't have worked. Dennis was not in my opinion a genius (just a hardworking guy!)

BTW say what you like about Mike Love but at least he had the good grace to never pose stark bollock naked with his ugly wife on an album cover.

Daryl Dragon on Dennis Wilson the composer…

“I was really blown away. I did see a similarity between Wagner and Dennis Wilson. …It was like something that I learned in school: I know that I don't have it …It's called a tap on the universe. Mozart had it. Carole King probably had it. They get a tap, they know when it's right and they play it and record it and then that's it...a completed work. …It came through them and they don't even know where it came from. …That's why Dennis liked me, because I could translate just like Salieri did for Mozart. It was my job to try and translate and capture emotionally what he was doing. …I believed in Dennis but I didn't believe that he had an avenue to make it through the Beach Boys because of the image and because of the internal problems and where they wanted to go hip-wise.
Mike and Al wanted Brian to write what he was doing back in the old days about surfing chicks and all that. They didn't want to go romantic, which I can maybe understand because it's not a big market. It's too bad. For Dennis there was so much frustration. I think that if you get locked out and you have so much to say that doesn't help your urge to want to live. Your whole future and what you wanted to do - what you were put on the earth for.”

More Daryl Dragon on Dennis Wilson...

"Before a typical tour sound check, I saw Dennis sitting at the piano, playing some beautiful chords. I walked over to him, and asked him what composer that was: He answered.. ‘I wrote that’. I was stopped COLD !! He hummed a melody to these absolutely inspired chords, and I realized that Brian was not the only musical-innovator in the family. I theorized that because Dennis was really a very romantic writer, that - if he had perhaps been born during Wagner’s time, that his life / career may have been completely different. I realized that Dennis’ heart was NOT in Rock and Roll, as much as it was in romantically-based musical writing.

Unfortunately, ‘romantic musical writing’ wasn’t being played on the radio (that year...) so, another brilliant musician / writer sits undiscovered during the sixties - seventies - eighties - nineties - era. What a sad state of affairs for music-exposure-to-the-masses in general."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI3_F8Ll0Lg

They're not really comparable. Regardless, who gives a sh*t if Dennis wasn't nearly as prolific from 61-83 as Brian or if Brian probably has the better songs? Great songs are great songs.

Putting Dennis Wilson in the same league as Mozart is overreaching just a tad.

 Dennis was highly talented while Brian was a genius.

Dennis could have never written "Good Vibrations".

Brian could have never written "River Song".

I suppose assuming your opinion is more informed than Daryl Dragon's is not overreaching...just a tad? ???

The Dragon quotes were offered in response to your assertion up the thread about Dennis Wilson... "it's not like the guy was...dumbfounding grizzled veterans of the LA session scene with chord compositions that in theory shouldn't have worked." In truth he did. I gave you a solid example. You choose to dismiss it. There are plenty more, Dennis was constantly blowing serious musicians away with his progressions, you should read up on him because there are numerous examples of this happening. Lindsey Buckingham said exactly that to me in person and on camera...Dennis "dumbfounded" him with his progressions. The statement you made saying it never happened is untrue.

No need to compare him to Brian either, Dennis had a different vibe, darker, not as accessible, not as pretty...equally spiritual and equally original.

I liked Dennis, but there wasn't any particular song of his that I would describe as a classic.  His solo album is okay, not great.  I have read much about the unreleased WIBNTLA.  Maybe that will be the song that will blow me away.

I honestly think POB's production is really overblown with Dennis packing too much on each song.

Brian was more balanced in his productions and didn't exhaust the listener.

Agree, Brian's emotional song's are far better than Dennis'. Even though I really enjoy POB it does at times exhaust me quite much, and I have the feeling each song is about the same thing (which it was) and that it was lacking in the variation that Brian managed to provide the listener with. Viewed individually Dennis' songs were very, very good with solid and tasteful production. Perhaps he was a little too creamy for me to rank him high up next to Brian.

Comparing Brian's productions to Dennis' productions is like comparing apples to oranges. Two completely different styles. 'Better' is more 'preference' in this case. It'd be like comparing Frank Sinatra to Ray Charles.

Thanks for listening with an open mind.

Just remember: Murry was a genius too!  ( It runs in the family) 

So you honestly think that Dennis Wilson's musical accomplishments should be ranked on the same level as that of Mozart's?
Do you think you could try once, just once to show a little objectivity when it comes to either Dennis Wilson or David Marks?

And I did not dismiss your example, merely interpreted it's context as people being blown away by the emotional impact of some of Dennis's best work which is not the same as 'seen it all' session pros and musical scholars telling Brian that certain passages cannot work in a musical sense and then being proved wrong by the 20 something prodigy.

The Beach Boys did have a Lennon figure. His name is Mike Love!!!   :old

As Daryl Dragon was close friends with Dennis he is hardly the person to go to for an objective opinion. That would be like taking every word that Bruce says about Mike as gospel.

Dennis's compositions did have many classical elements that weren't always apparent when he had fuller productions. Barbara is a good example as is Cuddle Up. Also, remember that hearing him alone with just a piano would sound different than a full recording. Just my two cents.

Plus Make It Good. That and Cuddle Up owe very little to a conventional rock format.

I never said that, Daryl did, so have others. I posted Daryl's words because you said no serious musician's ever said they were blown away by Dennis' progressions, Daryl being a classically trained guy whose father was a noted classical composer is a vaild perspective. I love it when people try to lean on my lack of objectivity regarding Dennis or Dave on this board as their fallback argument. Its like a guy who has written books on someone that took years of research wouldn't have a lot of knowledge and passion about said subjects? People say the same thing to me in other mediums about my opinions on the Beach Boys and Brian..."if you could just be objective about the Beach Boys for once"...You know dude...try spending years developing, researching, learning, and mustering the energy to write four books on the Beach Boys and see if you might not have some pretty secure opinions regarding that subject. Dennis is one of the things I know best, i never would compare him to Mozart...but I can show you a few very respected musicians who have, not because I lack objectivity...but because I've done enough research on Dennis to know a statement like the one you made about no serious musician being blown away by his progressions is false.

OK - but was he wearing the Captain's hat when he made those comments?

Dennis was a genius. Something like "Holy Man" can't be made by a normal human being. Same goes for "Moonshine" and "Thoughts of You." He's touched my emotional core in a way that Brian never did (although I love Brian's work equally).  Totally subjective, of course, but there ya go. I also adore his production style. I see plenty of variation in his approach to different songs, although having "Cuddle Up" and "Make it Good" on the same album might not have been the best idea. It's clearly colored a lot of opinions about Dennis' work, especially on this board.

I don't think everyone is meant to "get" Dennis' music, but those that do truly seem to appreciate it, and the man who was brave enough to give that much of himself.

I'm with you, Mr. Stebbins. How can we be objective at the "End of the Show?"

What I'd like to know is why so many people need to find some ridiculous parallels between the Beach Boys and the Beatles...if the lack of a "Lennon-esque figure" hurts your shaky worldview when it comes to the Beach Boys, listen to the Beatles.

Of course anyone who has written books will have knowledge and passion. The one criticism that I have seen of those books is that the passion led to them being skewed however.

Being skewed is much better than pretending to be not-skewed just as honesty is always better than dishonesty.

No but it can certainly prejudice his reaction whenever someone else posts a (heaven forbid) different view on said subjects other than his own.

I still stand by my earlier statement which was making reference to the first Brian Wilson Songwriter DVD in which reference is made to highly trained musicians telling Brian (paraphrasing) that what he has wrote on the charts given to them cannot possably work and then being proved wrong. People being blown away by a person's songwriting or playing (which is what the context of The Captain's quotes are)is not the same as tearing up the rulebook in composition theory and reinventing the wheel as to what scales and keys can overlap each other and not sound like a complete mess. Can you acknowledge the distinction here?


 As much as I love the best of Dennis's work I have yet to hear a song by him that has made me sit up and say "Whoooaah! I have never heard anything that sounds remotely like that before!".


 

Bizarre double post.

Am I the only one who keeps misreading the thread title as 'lemony figure'? :lol

You mean were the Beach Boys lacking a wife beating hippie who was everything he stood against. No.

Shut up.

Okay....let's not let this get out of hand.

That said calling Lennon a wife beating hippie is kind of rich when Dennis wasn't a saint either. Besides I am a bit of a hippie myself so...meh

I agree, it's going down road not really needed.

I love a lot of Lennon's music but as a person he was pretty dark.

And pretty light.

I'm reminded of an interview of George Harrison back around the Cloud Nine era when it started to become fashionable to call Lennon out for his hypocrisy. Enough dust had settled after him being murdered and so the time was just about right to defame the guy when he wasn't around to defend himself. The interviewer says to Harrison of Lennon: "He was no angel." And Harrison's response was "No. But sometimes yes." And the interviewer responded, dumbfounded, "Really?" Harrison affirmed his point.

Did Lennon have his dark side? Of course. Did he make mistakes that human beings make everyday? Yes. But he was also a person that a lot of people loved who were close to him. He is a guy who is on record as being very loyal and very friendly. I read a lot of books on The Beatles written by people who were their photographers, or chauffeurs, etc. And the majority of the time they will say that the person who was friendliest to them was John. The notion that John was a public peacenik and a private demon is such a myth, it's just tiring having to combat it constantly. You might as well be telling me that The Beach Boys didn't play instruments on any of their records or that they were only a novelty band, etc.

Well said rock. Hell we are all heroes and villains both

I totally respect all of that.

That said I find it a bit irritating how every musician seems to be fair game when it comes to calling them out on their mistakes but Lennon. Look at how Mike is treated on this board and by the public in general, even Brian is portrayed as some mental basket case. Lennon was a deeply flawed man like most people and he lived his life publicly, enjoyed his riches so I think it's fair to discuss aspects of his life that weren't so fantastic.

People need to realize that nobody is perfect, that even the legends were flawed. It's always disappointing to dig deep into the history of other venerated people such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Kennedy, and so on. When you bring up the truth it's always going to be controversial because people don't like hearing bad stuff about such beloved historical figures.

Yeah, but that's quite simply not true. In fact, I'd say by now, it's pretty much the reverse. However, I will say that there is a distinction between unfair criticisms and fair criticisms and most of the the criticisms lobbed against Lennon are typically unfair, as I see it. At best, they are groundless. Take your point from above: "[he] was everything he stood against." He was? Everything? So Lennon was against the Vietnam war. So he was the Vietnam War? Or he actively participated in the illegal ongoing destruction of a civilization/culture?

The worst thing about criticisms like these is not that they are widely accepted, which they are, but that they aren't even true. And for the ones that are true, our basis of knowing about them frequently comes down to the fact that Lennon largely acknowledged them and was critical of these actions himself. Lennon was frequently the first person to acknowledge his own faults and worked throughout his life to try and own up to them and better himself. That's much more than I can say for Mike Love who stubbornly makes the same mistakes again and again because he is incapable of understanding why he might - just might! - be wrong. So yes, everybody is human and everybody makes mistakes. But nevertheless, there are still people whose flaws I can accept for a variety reasons more than others. Furthermore, I can accept faults more if they come from a place of enormous insecurity rather than enormous arrogance. Don't ask me why - it's just more palatable.

That's what I liked the most about Lennon. The songs like "Happiness Is A Warm Gun" or "Don't Let Me Down" are really powerful songs. As I said earlier, Dennis in some ways was the closest thing to a Lennon figure. That "all things that live must one day die you know" verse sounds like something that might have been on something like Mind Games.

THANK YOU! I felt it got ridiculous when Jon was asked for his favorite Beach Boys related live album and he said that it was Live at the Blue Dolphin '77!

Being objective basically means that you don't know enough yet to be subjective.
But once you learn enough about something and you know your s hit, you become subjective. Who frowns on that?
Do any of the people that have posted a THOUSAND times on this board think that Jon Stebbins doesn't know what he's talking about?
That he's deliberately changing history in an effort to trick you into buying his books?
I think all of his work is as fair as it is groundbreaking.

NOBODY cared about POB until he brought it back into public consciousness -- guess what: REISSUE OF THE YEAR across the board.
David Marks was all but written out of history, his book raised his profile and told the full story -- whaddya know DAVID MARKS ends up a key player on the 50th tour.
How skewed is he, really?
I'd say the guy is not only on the ball but well ahead of the curve, no?

For the record, I just don't get this whole "Beatles vs. Beach Boys" or "Brian vs. Dennis" stuff.
I think treating art like sports is the most immature thing.

   

That's simply not true. I have nothing but respect for Jon and his work, but long before Jon wrote his book on Dennis Pacific Ocean Blue was regularly being mentioned in magazines like Mojo in "Great Lost Album" articles and so on.

 ??? People had been trying for years to get their hands on long out of print copies of POB, often at crazy prices. It was hardly some forgotten obscurity before Jon championed it.


Was that a different David Marks playing with the group back in the late 90's? Sure looked like the same guy.


It's not a question of does Jon or doesn't Jon know what he talking about. It's about people being able to offer opinions on Dave and Dennis without the Marks Mafia jumping on them if they don't slavish the same amount of praise on them as he does.

Let me try to be a bit more clear; without Jon Stebbins and his work detailing and promoting Dennis Wilson and his work, PACIFIC OCEAN BLUE would have been forever relegated as a fringe curio the way the public (if at all) deems Love's Forever Changes, Big Star's Third/Sister Lovers, Nick Drake's catalogue, and Emitt Rhodes's self-titled album. He wouldn't rest leaving it a bullet point in a "Lost LP" sidebar.

Without the publication of  The Real Beach Boy, SONY would never have had the faith -- nor granted the budget -- needed to produce the extremely successful and critically acclaimed POB/BAMBU Legacy set -- in which he had a substantial hand in compiling, as well.

Stebbins brought it above ground.

Death To Mike's Beard: You should read THE LOST BEACH BOY.
If you did, you'd know that those two guys couldn't be more different.

But that doesn't happen. I've said over and over on this board that I find David's solo music dull, that he made next to no contribution to the Beach Boys music I actually care about, and that I have no interest in hearing him contribute as a songwriter to any future Beach Boys album should one ever happen. No-one's ever 'jumped on' me for saying those things.

(Of course I've also said that he's a very good guitarist, and that he seems like a very nice person, and that I'm glad for him that he's finally getting some recognition. All those things are true too.)

Jon does seem to defend his friend if people are outright abusive or insulting, and possibly goes a little too far in that direction at times, but it's not as if he's stifling discussion.

It's these sorts of reviews of Jon's books that I was referring to:

http://www.beachboys.com/booksI.html#Dennis

Not all people who write books on a subject become quite so subjective imo.

I think Brett Wheaton, who owns that site, has an issue with Jon for whatever reason.Nothing yo do with the quality of books.

David was honestly a non-factor when was in the group with nobody remembering the first 4 albums for David Marks' near-zero vocals or guitar playing. Al coming back was great for the group's vocals since David didn't work in the harmony stack.

I think Bret's usually a pretty good judge of the quality of books (after all, he did give my Beach Boys and Monkees books glowing reviews, so he's clearly a man of taste ;) ) but he does have a couple of reviews where I can't understand his opinions, and his reviews of Jon's books are among them.

This may have been why you were cut some slack.

The "Marks Mafia" is always watching every comment on David Marks....

hey i like that term 'Marks Mafia' ;D

I've been away from the computer all day visiting a family member who just had open heart surgery...nice to log back on and see some great back and forth. Thanks to Billy, Andrew, Marcella, R&R, and Howie for giving me a voice while away. As far as book reviews go, I'm very grateful for how positive they have been through the years (other than Wheadon's). Long day, think I'll kick back, have a beer, listen to some genius Dennis music and plot how to exact revenge on anyone who doesn't worship David.

Go Jon!

I know this guy named Joey Numbers whose a professional kinda guy, and he works on the cheap, capice?

Seriously, though...well wishes to your friend Jon

'Forever Changes' a fringe curio? Not that the NME is the final word on these things, but they ranked the lp as the 6th best of all time (Pet Sounds coming in 3rd). It's as famous an album as 'Pet Sounds', 'Revolver', or 'the Velvet Underground with Nico'. Maybe a better comparison would be between POB and Skip Spence's 'Oar'.

Anyway, Dennis's potential as a composer and producer/arranger was only partially fulfilled. I wonder how his own life, and the career of the Beach Boys, would have been changed if, in 1973 or so, Dennis had been given -- or had seized -- Brian-iike control of the band as the producer and main writer.

 :lol Great plan, I'm with you!

Clack -- I stand corrected.

Forever Changes is of course as "famous" (and as good and as important) as The Beatles' masterpiece Revolver.
(What was I thinking?)

Man, I gotta keep up on recent UK music magazine polls so I know what's what with Rock history! ;)

And don't forget to keep reading Jon Stebbins material so we can understand the genius of David Marks classic "Doctor of Love" and the all around great album Work Tapes.

Al vs. David is not really historically correct, since both were in the group at the same time.

David was there, playing guitar on 50% of the songs the general public think of as 'Beach Boys'. His photo is in a bunch of the iconic photos.

Sort of like saying 'Dennis was a non-factor on Pet Sounds' or something.

50%??? Not even close. Around 7 of the songs that were on Sounds of Summer perhaps.

Yeah, what a genius is and who is a genius is subjective. But IMO, we mix up talent with genius and call too many people geniuses. I don't think Dennis was a genius, though I LOVE his work. I also don't think Lennon and McCartney were geniuses. Their work was extraordinary, but not miraculous. But anyway, does it really matter? I think one thing Lennon brought (among many things) was witty lyrics. The BBs didn't have that because they didn't have a wit in the group.

To me Dennis was a genius. Honestly he and Brian are two of the only songwriters who are so revealing about themselves. They wrote about feelings that I relate to in such an exact way. Their stuff wasn't as subjective as Lennon's more personal solo attempts, meaning they are trying hard to make their personal feelings relate to everybody.

I think all this genius-talk hurts the group more than the endless Beatles comparisons. It will obviously not cease but I can dream...

.

'Revolver' is the best Beatles album, but it's not as known to the general public as is 'Sgt Peppers' or 'Abbey Road'. It's as obscure -- to the general public -- as 'Pet Sounds'.

Anyway, look at any list of the best albums of all time, you'll find 'Forever Changes' . It's even in the Grammy Hall of Fame.

I just don't think an LP like Revolver that has sold somewhere around 15 million copies in the US alone could be considered "obscure" by any measure. Best of lists tend to be the opinion of a small sampling of journalists, critics or artists, and its nice that sometimes they sing the praises of records that should be given stature despite their less than stellar commercial status. But there are clearly two types of popularity or impact. one would be critical and one would be commercial...and only one of them is an objective measure  of fame.

No official Beatles album could ever be deemed "obscure".

I'm not trying to split hairs, but I'm talking about surf & car songs.

I don't mean 50% in the literal sense, but like ...

Go ask a random person on the street to sing a Beach Boys song and I bet half of them will name 'Surfin USA' or something from the first few records. I don't mean he played on 50% of the songs on Sounds of Summer. But he probably played on 50% of the reason that 50% of the people buy 'Sounds of Summer' ...

... in any case, he's not a 'non-factor' on those records. which was my basic point.

Plus the fact he was crucial to the early guitar sound that helped make them big from the start.

Sorry but I still think that's a massive stretch.

The songs from Sounds of Summer that he is on are:

Surfin Safari
Surfin USA
Shut Down
Little Deuce Coupe
Surfer Girl
In My Room
Be True to Your School (is he even on this one?)

Now Surfin USA is obviously seen as a classic but would people really name the other songs ahead of Fun, Fun, Fun, I Get Around, Help Me Rhonda, California Girls, Wouldn't it be Nice, God Only Knows, Good Vibrations, Kokomo etc.?

Plus I'm not sure David's guitar playing was exactly crucial to Surfer Girl or In My Room.

Obviously he deserves some respect for being on those first 3 or 4 albums and he was written out of the story for too long. But I can't help feeling that sometimes people are now trying to pull too far in the other direction with their revisionism. He was 14/15 when he left the band and I think some people overstate his importance in the group.

It's curious how fan opinion varies from 'Brian was the Beach Boys' to 'David was a crucial part of the band though'.

.

Not without being mildly schizophrenic.  :)

As to why the Beatles are considered the "Gold Standard," well, whatever its collective merits, I always thought allmusic.com summed it up nicely with one line:

The Beatles "were among the few artists of any discipline that were simultaneously the best at what they did and the most popular at what they did."
They go on to highlight chart records, innovations, other areas of cultural impact and the like, but we're not here for a history lesson.

I know on this board one might expect universal agreement with your sentiment, but if you're asking me, the answer is unequivocally, "no, the Beach Boys, by and large, did not produce the better records."  Art is subjective like that, but you knew that. :)

Oh, and if we absolutely must contrast solo works, as much as it may be the obvious choice, when it comes to raw emotional intensity, as much as I certainly adore Pacific Ocean Blue, for my money, there's an even better 'POB' for visceral experience, and it's Lennon's.

That said, you're right, the Beach Boys required no Lennon figure any more than the Beatles needed a Brian.  Both bands hit that perfect, combustible combination of talent that is so very rare and each achieved a greatness we're all still so ravenous about decades after the fact.  No right-minded Beach Boys fan need to ever suffer an inferiority complex.

.

I'd say its healthy to believe both of those things as they are both true. True to varying degrees of course depending on the particular aspect of history you are focusing on...but both true.

Last thing I'm going to say on this ...

I'm not bringing 'Sounds of Summer' into the argument, you are (or was it someone else?) ... If we're going to use a hits comp, 'Endless Summer' is a better one -- it's sold many more copies, has been in print longer, and is essentially responsible for cementing the public image of the Beach Boys into collective American consciousness.

But that's not my point. My point is that probably half of the people who buy these kinds of comps associate the Beach Boys with the 'Surfin' USA' sound ... which he was a part of. THAT'S ALL ...

What I'm getting at is he was not a 'non-factor'; he was a guitar player in the band when much of their quintessential material was recorded. I don't really see how you can argue with that.

Ok. It's no big deal. The only reason I mentioned any compilation (doesn't matter which as David will only have appeared on 7 or 8 songs) was because you made the 50% comment which doesn't stack up whichever way you slice it.

I wouldn't use the phrase 'non-factor' to describe David's role in the music but it was a very, very small factor. If another competent guy had been there to play second guitar then it really wouldn't have made much difference to the sound.

David's main contribution was simply to have been a Beach Boy and to have been through the experience of those recording sessions and shows. It's right that he's now remembered for that but not because he was a major factor in the group's success imo.