The Smiley Smile Message Board

I've often heard that Surf's Up (the album) was the album that turned the Beach Boys back into a critically and commercially somewhat respected group, along with Jack Rieley's general presence. How true is this? Specifically, what did the young, hip crowd in 1971 (who probably rarely, if ever, considered the BBs to be artistically or commercially relevant before that point) react to its release? Was it (and the band in general) actually considered as relevant at the time as it's made out to be now? Obviously it did better than anything by them had in the past 4-5 years (along with having infinitely better album art than, well, any BB album up to that point), but did it actually boost them back into popularity as it's said to have?

My Dad's not a huge Beach Boys fan. He was 14 when Surf's Up came out. He said it was the only (cassette I believe?) album by the Beach Boys that he ever bought. He loved Feel Flows & the title track.

What always surprises me is that when making an album that seemingly was a concerted attempt at credibility, they went with the title of 'Surf's Up' - probably the most generic, throwback-sounding Beach Boys album title imaginable. True, the title track had taken on an almost mythic status among those in the know by then, but even still, I don't think 'those in the know' were who the BBs were hoping would latch on to the new lp.

The press was great for Surf's Up. No "positive apologias" appeared in seminal publications like RS, something more like flat-out forgiveness and acclaim. Tom Nolan's signature two-part RS article followed swiftly on the heels of the album's appearance, further smoothing the way for the BBs to be "rehabilitated."

It helped a lot, but it didn't seal the deal. Adding Blondie and Ricky the following year was great for the touring band but it resulted in a step backward when CATP was viewed with puzzlement by critics and stalled on the charts.

As for the title, VDP (a WB company man at that point) was quoted at the time about how the WB brass had lobbied for it, having concluded that it would be a great boost to "pre-selling," which was (and to some extent, still is...) a way of generating buzz for new product that often pushed an LP higher onto the charts when first released.

I loved and love theSU album, it is the Boys White Album.

Honestly, I think I was more impressed by the LPR and FF  more than SU at the time.

Except for Jack's vocals on Tree, it's a perfect album. Yes even STD, which I actually like despite Brian's dislike of the song , according to an interview or two a while back.

Interestingly, in the '92 Goldmine interview Mike said that he thought that SDT was "too rowdy" and presented the band pretending to be something that they weren't. Personally, I've been a fan of the song since I first saw it featured in the "An American Band" film.

I was at the incredible Carnegie Hall concert a little over three weeks after its August 30th release, 7:30 p.m. show (there was a second one at 11:00 p.m.) on September 24, 1971 and Surf's Up was ALL the buzz throughout the Hall...It was featured in the brochure (which I know I still have in my house somewhere), and when we heard Carl sing Surf's Up for our very first time live, it was absolutely transportive...Very positive reviews, including this one (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/surfs-up-19711014). I entered college that year and saw them quite a lot on the college circuit in upstate NY during the early 70's, and their hipster credentials were clearly on the rise in the new Rieley era. My Deadhead roommates were converted and Holland and the Fillmore shows sealed the deal. Everything changed with the release of Surf's Up, but for most of us, it was already happening with Sunflower, which was for me TRULY a great surprise that came out of nowhere (I remember first seeing it in the record bins at E.J. Korvettes without knowing in advance that it was coming out).

C-MAN'S CARNEGIE HALL SETLIST 7:30 p.m. SHOW

1. GOOD VIBRATIONS
2. TAKE A LOAD OFF YOUR FEET
3. DON'T GO NEAR THE WATER
4. WOULDN'T IT BE NICE
5. DARLIN'
6. STUDENT DEMONSTRATION TIME
7. COOL COOL WATER
8. LONG PROMISED ROAD
9. GOD ONLY KNOWS
10. SLOOP JOHN B.
11. IT'S ABOUT TIME
12. MIKE'S TM POEM
13. FEEL FLOWS
14. DISNEY GIRLS
15. LOOKIN' AT TOMORROW
16. CAROLINE, NO
17. BARBARA
18. SURF'S UP
19. HEROES AND VILLAINS
-Encore-
20. DO IT AGAIN

One thing I find to be very specific about Surf's Up is that it may be the only BB album completely devoid of actual love songs (that is, if we don't count Disney Girls as a love song).

Mike developed a particular aversion, retrospectively, to anything they had done during that period with heavy guitar on it. I also recall him criticising Bluebirds and It's About Time on that basis. Obviously his commercially motivated sense of what was appropriate for the band was radically different in 1971 to what it would become after Endless Summer.

Disney Girls is great in that way - it's not a love song, it's a guy wishing reality were like his fantasies. Actually a rather sad song.

And that's true, there aren't any love songs on the album. The only love song I can think of that was considered for inclusion on SU was WIBNTLA.

Amazing how each member wrote music that fit together the way it did on that album. Dennis didn't have a song in the mix, but listening to SU with WIBNTLA and 4th of July included, they fit perfectly.

Oddly conservative fantasies though, for a band that was making its play for the hip progressive FM market.

I was surprised that Surf's Up charted as well as it did.  I think it sold better because some folks thought the band had come up with a new surf song.  In the DC area, the record did not get much radio play.  I heard Long Promised Road earlier in the summer when it was a single, but only once.  I heard the title song on the hip fm station only once, and I was glued to that station.  I was at the 11/7/71 show at Georgetown University, and even though it appeared sold out and the crowd loved the new songs, they still kept calling out for oldies.  I think it was the live shows that turned the band around, not the records.  If I could get unbelieving friends to go to a show, they always wanted to go again, but if they bought any music subsequently, it was usually a greatest hits collection.  I don't think Disney Girls was totally out of place then-  it went over well in concert.  The Boomers at the shows could relate to it- it wasn't that long ago and 1971 was not a peaceful time.

Why should Brian's dislike influence your opinion? Dennis didn't like "Susie Cincinnati", I love it, Mike doesn't like "Summer's Gone", I love it, Brian doesn't like SDT, I ... er ... think it's a good rocking track, I don't think it's anywhere near as crappy as many others think it is; I like it too.


Edit: Originally I had the letters SDT accidentally switched too, see below...  :-[

Very good point! Disney Girls is pretty close to the world view they were sort of mocking whenever they did Okie from Muskogee in concert. I think that makes this whole era in the history of the BB even more interesting. The cover art of Endless Summer is kind of similar too, picturing the guys in their scraggly 70s looks and then there's stuff like Be True to Your School on that record. For me it really works, in a strange way. There's something utterly magical about that chapter in BB history.

I've always thought that Disney Girls was actually an incredibly non-sappy song in a way; its nostalgia is so overblown that it becomes self-aware and actually incredibly bitter. But, of course, it was written by the guy who wrote Tears in the Morning, so can we really trust this intuition?

Anyway, Long Promised Road and Disney Girls were the songs that gave me the first little inkling about a year ago that the Beach Boys were more than a surf band, and I'd imagine that they must have done the same for teenagers and young adults in 1971. And I'm sure calling the album Surf's Up did help a little with sales from people who were expecting more surf music.

I always took that as an example of the disconnect between Bruce's sensibilities and the band's Rieley-helmed era. Not necessarily a conscious f-you or anything, but just an example of it. It still works perfectly for me on the album because it can be heard as almost ironic, or as a pleasant nostalgia trip ("things were like that and they were nice but now we're moving along") or purely literal, with the latter the only one that actually clashes with the likes of a "Feel Flows." And honestly, a little intra-band creative tension is a good thing, as long as it is as manageable as this one was. 

Billy, I am so, so bad...but I had a great laugh seeing "STD" posted above...something I'd have done accidentally (given half the chance) and would have been crucified here for doing so...Sexually Transmitted Disease.  Oops...Yeah, I knew what you meant...

Let's ALL call it STD from now on!!  >:D

FM radio did pick up on this song, though (I remember, as does filledeplage, hearing it regularly in the fall of '71). So while it may have been "calculated" (and was Mike belatedly disowning his own calculation in '92??), it served a purpose...which was to get the BBs back onto the radio. The first stirrings of what became AOR helped the BBs a lot that fall: we heard SU, FF, LPR and DGNTW played (albeit irregularly) on FM during that time frame.

The great breech between counter culture rock (which had now become the mainstream ) and pre-1967 "commercial" rock was healing by 1971. Carole King's 'Tapestry' was key here.

Interesting! Thanks for that.


Have to disagree on that. Some review I saw a while back said Jack's vocals sound exactly like what you'd expect a dying tree to sound like. I couldn't agree more. While he doesn't have a great melodic voice, for me at least its chillingly effective.


Would absolutely love to see scans of said brochure if you stumble upon it. Did the BBs ever play so much of a new album live in a setlist after this one?


That sounds dead-on to me.

So is that the main reason SU did relatively well commercially, while Sunflower flopped? Or was it Jack Rieley's leadership? The more socially conscious lyrics? Sunflower's abysmal commercial performance compared to SU has always mystified me, considering how similar the two are.

Dennis was aggrieved that they were dredging up old b-sides for new singles, and Mike wanted up-tempo material played at the live shows. Does it necessarily follow that they respectively didn't like, or felt particularly strongly about, Susie Cincinatti and Summer's Gone?

He probably thinks lyrically it's too negative. What do I care! :) BTW, I like "Daybreak Over The Ocean", too.

I always wonder about this 'gap' when you have the success of the likes of Simon and Garfunkel and The Mamas and the Papas during this period. I know what you mean though, the BB aren't known for heavy guitar gurning which had - and still has - a huge following and is, in some minds, the definition of 'rock'.

Also, let's not forget that Mike's singing on Brian's "downer" songs (like 'Til I Die or Summer's Gone) has always been really good no matter if he personally likes them or not.

Come to think of it, he even wrote some pretty sad songs on his own, like Wrinkles. :3d

The huge success of Bridge Over Troubled Water versus the commercial failure of Sunflower has always puzzled me but then I wasn't even born yet by 1970 and so I can't relate to whatever subtle differences there might have been in terms of coolness.

PS - spectacular post! Including the RS article that Don Malcolm referenced. And the c-man setlist.  First, I'm jealous.  And you really caught the feel of what was going on at warp speed in 1971, also being in college.  And bravo for driving around to see them, second, I'm jealous.  

This was so much "in the moment" that you could almost taste it.  The RS article says, "Wilson, Wilson, Wilson, Jardine, Love and Johnston form rock's only choir..." And, "Like their very best music, it is Light(ness) itself, fragile and transparent as sunshine."

Five years had elapsed since this solo Brian's Surfs Up, with Leonard Bernstein's "Inside Pop" rock-doc, translating for the Greatest Generation (parents of Baby boomers) what was really going on in rock music development and how it "related back" in many ways to classical music.  

Five/six long years, where listeners scoured every new BB LP back jacket looking for Surfs Up.  Where was it? Granted it wasn't Smile, with it's 37 year wait, but it sort of mythically took on a life of its own.  FM radio often asked the question.  When is Surfs Up (the single) being released?  It was "news."  

It ranked Disney Girls (1957) as second to Surfs Up and although I've always found it sort of "concrete stream-of-consciousness" it is contrasted lyrically to the more abstract musings of Parks' lyrics in Surfs' Up.  It also points out the Eco awareness, which even for 1971 was definitely a socially responsible move.

And Student Demonstration Time, was contemporaneously reported, even with the fake sirens, and somewhat controversial lyrics, became the "show stopper at their current round of concerts." (RS) The sonority of those sirens resonated with college kids whose classes would be cancelled during an anti-Vietnam War demonstration or rally.

Thanks, PS for your thoroughness, with the Rolling Stone article link and setlist from c-man. It really helps paint the contextual picture.  I've always held that this was their album "of redemption" and finally shedding the connotation of being shallowly embedded in a hedonistic mindset. And finally, beating the prior record company injustice, at their own game, and on their own terms.

PS - One for you!   :beer

My hypothesis is that Simon and Garfunkel, regardless of whatever experimentation they did later in their career as a duo, were a pretty traditional folk-rock group who basically stuck to the formula they had. The Beach Boys, on the other hand, had alienated a pretty good chunk of their audience by the time Smiley Smile came out, and continued to do so even more with Wild Honey and Friends, so by the time more accessible (if completely deviating from their original formula) albums like 20/20 and Sunflower came out, their older audiences wanted nothing to do with them and the newer ones were left in the dark because of (I assume) lack of promotion. And again, Simon and Garfunkel had kept with the formula that made them popular while the BBs, even while making perfectly accessible and commercial music, had drastically deviated from it.

Okay, I get you now. Bizarrely, it was the BB's experimentation that alienated them. Don't get me wrong, I love SnG, especially Bookends (though I prefer Mr S on his own)

You may find this excerpt from a memorable review from Jim Miller in Rolling Stone illuminating as well:

"All of these tracks are executed with a certain aplomb that often was lacking in post-"Good Vibrations" Beach Boy music, as if the self-consciousness of such homogenizing enterprise as making a new Beach Boy record has been again overcome. As a result, the naivete of the group is more astounding than ever — I mean, good Christ, it's 1970 and here we have a new, excellent Beach Boys' epic, and isn't that irrelevant?

In any case, Brian's new stuff is great, especially "This Whole World" and "All I Wanna Do." Which brings up the engineering and production work on this album: it's flawless, especially in view of the number of overdubs. There is a warmth, a floating quality to the stereo that far surpasses the mixing on, say, Abbey Road. The effects are subtle, except for the outrageous echo on "All I Wanna Do" that makes the song such a mind — wrenching experience. And then there is "Cool, Cool Water," Brian's exquisite ode to water in all its manifestations, which, like "Add Some Music," is encyclopedic in its trivial catalogue of the subject at hand. "Cool, Cool Water" pulls off a Smiley Smile far better than most of the material on that disappointing venture.

The inevitable saccharine ballads are present in abundance. "Deirdre" and particularly Brian's "Our Sweet Love" rejoin the ongoing tradition of "Surfer Girl," although "Our Sweet Love" is most reminiscent of the mood of Pet Sounds. Of course there is some lesser stuff here, like "At My Window." No matter: as a whole, Sunflower is without doubt the best Beach Boys album in recent memory, a stylistically coherent tour de force. It makes one wonder though whether anyone still listens to their music, or could give a sh*t about it. This album will probably have the fate of being taken as a decadent piece of fluff at a time when we could use more Liberation Music Orchestras. It is decadent fluff — but brilliant fluff. The Beach Boys are plastic madmen, rock geniuses. The plastic should not hide from use the geniuses who molded it."




Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/sunflower-19701001#ixzz3MfYBprGA
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook



http://www.rollingstone.com/music/albumreviews/sunflower-19701001#ixzz3MfXXuPuT

Oh, OK; I thought this was a Surf's Up thread, not Sunflower, but I see it's to become all-encompassing

Thank you, filledeplage, I will accept your beer! And you are absolutely right - Surf's Up was somehow in the "news", whereas Sunflower just seemed to appear. And I don't recall seeing any promo for Sunflower at the time, and
I worked in a record department of a department store in suburban New York (Spring Valley) at the time. I distinctly remember the arrival of the single of Breakaway/Celebrate the News (and it was in stereo, which was just starting to happen with 45's with Hello I Love You by the Doors in '68) and that really rocked my world - we played it in the store over and over again.  So even though I considered myself something of a Beach Boys fan, I was now starting to hear the changes in the music at the same time I was going through my own (like starting to get high, etc.).  That's when I became hip to the Smile legend, beginning with finding the Jules Siegel article reprinted in a book in my college bookstore and the Boys on the cover of the Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/1971-rolling-stone-covers-20040512/rs94-the-beach-boys-46683587). But my alternative Beach Boys education was really instigated by living in the New York metro area and listening to WNEW-FM - especially with the wonderful DJ Peter Fornatale, who played them all the time and was to go to man for interviews when any one of them happen to promote in NYC.

To wit:

http://youtu.be/-VQvm0cbnAA

I'm particularly interested in how fans received advanced rock "news" back in the day, or how promotion worked its way into the hip rock culture at the time. I recall that the Carnegie show definitely had the feeling of a (high class) cultural "event" (and the program was like a Playbill booklet from a Broadway show), a gathering of those of us who knew that this was was something special (just the sheer number of musicians onstage! It's About Time was overwhelming with all that percussion onstage...) and not just about playing the early 60's hits - and I'm sure that part of this momentum was due to the arrival of those key articles in Playboy, Rolling Stone (Creem?) and to certain big city radio personalities like Pete Fornatale, who clearly always treated them as artists. Getting a feel for the differences between the releases of Sunflower and Surf's Up is essential, in my view, to answering the original post.

I was at the record store in town and there is an older hippie dude that works there and I was telling him that I liked the beach boys and he said that he didn't really care for them but that he liked "Surfs Up"..

One of the main disputes that led to David Crosby getting fired from the Byrds was the inclusion of a couple of Goffin-King songs on 'the Notorious Byrd Brothers'. At the time (1967-68), Carole King was considered by Crosby and fellow hipsters as a commercial hack. Musical identity had become highly ideological, as it would do again in the late 70's with the whole punk /New Wave movement.

1971 was a major transition year. It become ok to appreciate pre-folk rock pop music again.  "Progressive" rock itself became commercialized. The zeitgeist was suddenly ready to welcome the Beach Boys into the fold of bands acceptable to FM, AOR radio.

Alright;


So maybe WB thought the BBs release would sell itself with minimal support? Seems odd thinking for a 1st LP release on the label.  
Or maybe they were just lackadaisical, having been waiting to release it since April or May?
 

That was a lovely tribute to Pete Fornatale, whom, IIRC, was duly noted, and to whom the show in White Plains during C50 was dedicated. And you nor I underestimate the "education" from the DJ's in the radio stations at that time. I guess the term "news" had a dual connotation.  The real "news" I guess was what people now call "buzz." The listeners and concert goers.  

At a show, like-minded people would be asking "Where is Surf's Up?" And, what is the "holdup?" A lot of people saw Bernstein.  I think it was that curiosity factor, just wondering how a classical conductor, would be wading on national TV into rock music.  So people saw Brian doing Surf's Up, solo, at the piano.  And I think that people bought and sought out the album for that one song, without even grasping what else was hiding beneath the surface.  

You certainly enjoyed a great "perch" working in a record department.  You could see what was the "eye candy" in terms of LP covers.  And the great radio stations that some of us could listen to, if located along the coast of the East Coast, at night when the signal was strong.  I could get WABC and WNEW (if lucky! )

Glad you enjoyed the virtual smiley  :beer

 ;)

Double post! 

Mea culpa!

It happens to the worst of us!  :lol

So this is a little out there, but maybe it had something to do with the artwork? I mean, as much as I love the BBs' '67-'70 material, the album art is honestly kind of horrific (a picture of stained glass? Whatever the hell Friends is? Creepy guys sitting in a field playing with babies? I mean come ON.) Surf's Up has infinitely better cover art, and if I had been around then (I wasn't alive yet) I'm sure I would have been much more inclined to buy Surf's Up than Sunflower based on artwork alone, which is a big part of casual listeners' first impression.

Good Point. Actually, what I like least about Sunflower is the cover, and what I like most about the Surf's Up album actually is - the cover.

I think the Wild Honey cover is one of their best - but Surf's Up, Surfin' USA, All Summer Long, Holland, POB and BW88 are better. I like the Sunflower cover too

Yeah, the album artwork may have something to do with it. A bunch of guys sitting with their kids wouldn't look very appealing to the hip crowd (I would prefer and actual large Sunflower on the album cover.) whereas Surf's Up looks dark, mysterious, artsy, and unlike any other Beach Boys album.  Even the sculpture featured on the album means "end of trail," or end of an era.

Which is funny, I don't see huge musical differences between Sunflower and SU, but they sure wanted it marketed that way.

CATP's cover art isn't very hip either, and I see a lot of musical differences between that and Surf's Up.

When I was real young (6-9), I listened to the Beach Boys all the time on my portable CD player. Interestingly enough, when my interest in the BB sparked again, those Sunflower/Surf's Up era songs were the most memorable and nostalgic.

Absolutely THE BEST Beach Boys show I ever attended. Of course, had Brian been there... well he wasn't although there were rumblings among the audience that he was backstage and was contemplating coming out for a number or two-we could only hope. But they were, in a word, perfect.

That is definitely true. What's also true is that CATP performed a whole bunch worse than Surf's Up chart-wise (#50 as opposed to #29, I think) and then Holland, with cover art in a similar vein to SU, did much better. The actual quality of the music must have had something to do with it--I think most of us can agree that Surf's Up and Holland are stronger albums than CATP--but it's strange how much influence artwork can seem to have.

I've never quite understood why people even care how the hippies of the late '60s and the pretentious twits at "Rolling Stone" received the Beach Boys.  The fact that younger people who weren't even born yet have come to enjoy that music is more significant.  People back then weren't the brightest, certainly not as smart as they thought they were. I'm also sure they weren't discussing what their parents and grandparents were saying about Bing Crosby back in the '30s. Weird how the boomers have staked a claim on how things are perceived, even at this late date.  As it was, people back then were not likely to ever see the Beach Boys as hip. The Four Freshman harmonies alone were weird and retro and suggestive of pre-rock music compared to other music that was around at that time.  They were white guys from a conservative part of SoCal, too.

This would get really broad and off topic quickly if I let it, so I'll try to be brief and somewhat on-point. But in short, the bigger topics you raise here about [what I'd call] insecurity about personal taste and the boomers' relatively immediate self-annointment as arbiters of all things cultural are really interesting to me.

Regarding insecurity of taste, I think everyone (to some extent) has this. We say "I like what I like and I don't care who agrees," but most of us are looking over our shoulders, asking our friends, touting those artists or magazines that agree with our taste, etc. If you disagree, think about everyone else you know. Do you see the phenomenon in them? If everyone else behaves that way, consider whether it's very likely you're truly the only exception (or whether you're blind to it in yourself).

Regarding the boomers, I don't know if it's just that theirs was the era when pop culture/rock and roll "grew up" so they got an early foothold with things like Rolling Stone, or what. But it seems that since their era, they have served as gatekeepers to some extent, or even the lens through which we're supposed to view things. We're all supposed to believe that they were the transformative generation, and some sort of authority was earned through this. I'd argue that every generation is a transformative generation. So I don't want to hear about how "back in my day, everything was great." It was great because it was yours. What matters to everyone is what they came up through, what they experienced. Boomers are just another generation, and they shouldn't be given outsized importance.

Because the music of the Beach Boys was produced in a historical context. In 1971, they were not writing songs about surfing, hot rods, and cheerleaders -- they were writing songs hoping to connect to that hippie audience. I care because the Beach Boys cared, and that caring is reflected in the music.

And as far as being "white guys from a conservative part of SoCal" : with the exception of Hendrix and Arthur Lee, rock music of the hippie era was made by white people. Who was holding their being white against the Beach Boys? Furthermore, they were identified with the Los Angeles scene, not with the totally obscure Hawthorne.

Finally, as to the "weird and retro" harmonies -- in fact, those harmonies (in simplified form, granted ) proved to be highly influential on the music of the day, adopted as they were by the Beatles, Rolling Stones, and the Who, among others.

Agreed this is a far bigger discussion than just a few lines. What I do see and agree with is this measuring-stick mentality regarding what is liked versus what is considered "good", or whatever the case. Ultimately a lot of it if not all of it comes down to personal opinion, as it should. Those debates have no winner. But I do see a level of hypocrisy, mixed in with selfishness, mixed in with a bit of importance as well...quite a blend. But with publications like Rolling Stone, some of what they have printed especially regarding the Beach Boys has been important to the history and to the dialogue. Their 5-star review of the box set in 1993 was to me a watershed moment in the public perception of the band which simply *had* to happen after a series of embarrassing mistakes and miscalculations which almost squandered 30 years or more of building up a cache among fans based on the strength of the music. Yet among the demographic, especially the late 60's/early 70's, there was and is an element of self-importance as to who gets the nod of approval versus who gets shunned.

Just ask people in the music business who have been in the business for decades what they think of Jann Wenner. That in itself speaks volumes about where much of the readership falls. So much has snowballed from there...and a lot of it can come back to whether Wenner and his employees thought an act was "worthy" or not, and how the history was written. Let me throw out just a few names: Chicago, Toto, The Monkees...need any more examples? Is their music any less "important" to listeners and fans as the New York Dolls or Elvis Costello? Or even "The Boss", who hasn't done much of note for the better part of four decades, yet can do no wrong in the eyes of some.

So "Surf's Up" or any 1970's BB's product didn't quite measure up for some critics...what were they promoting in their pages instead? Some of the bands being hyped at the time of Surf's Up have simply disappeared without a trace. Some of the styles of music from prog-rock to the idea of trying to push a 30 minute live blues jam into "new" artistic territory is all but laughable today, save for a few truly innovative musicians like Duane Allman. Some of the music that was following Lennon's "Instant Karma" hype of singles having the immediacy of a newspaper delivering the headlines as they were happening has survived simply because the *music* above everything else was good and made listeners want to hear it repeatedly. While others who went more for the message over the music, whether it be Student Demonstration Time or a song by Coven or whoever...no one plays them anymore. For good reason - they're simply not good songs. Yet "Ohio" and "Instant Karma" or even "For What It's Worth" were plain and simple catchy songs that sound great on the radio - FM or AM. No substitute for that, no matter how much Rolling Stone in 1971 wanted to push something that had no business being hyped.

It's a difficult thing to weigh. Ultimately I think it's up to the individual. If something said or not said by a mag like Rolling Stone matters to a person reading, then it matters to that person. I think taking the opinions on any given album as expressed in a magazine has to be weighed individually. Like the 5-star review in 1993 for the box set may have transcended its place as a simple review of a new release, similarly any review from 1970 that over-hypes whatever flavor-of-the-month band was in vogue back then has to be taken in the context where it appeared, and judged accordingly.

To have in the back of anyone's mind "I wonder what *fill in the blank* thinks of this music I'm liking so much" is such a disservice, it's beyond ridiculous to weigh that into judging an album or song or any work. And those who give that kind of weight to Rolling Stone or any other publication's reviews should consider beyond what someone else might think and dig deeper to find what the real fans and listeners think.

I believe Surf's Up did better than history would suggest. However I also think having researched it pretty deep that Wild Honey going back to 1967 was a much stronger and much better received project overall than the impression you'd get by reading the Billboard charts and assuming it was a stiff. It was not. Not suggesting it was "Sgt Pepper", but history in that one case alone has written a version which doesn't tell the full story of that album.

Good post. But I'd argue that history in every single case has written a version which doesn't tell the full story of any album (or book, person, event, etc.).

It's for that reason that one of my favorite ways to talk about music is to ask for--or share--personal memories about music, and specifically how it fit into or defined people's lives at the time: time it was released, time it was discovered, or whatever. Those personal experiences are always incomplete, obviously--nobody had the all-encompassing, defining experience of an album--but they can be illuminating as to nooks and crannies of the art. And I'm not ashamed to say they can help influence my approach to the music. Other times I don't relate to the story (or the music) and my opinion might remain unchanged.

But that shared experience--maybe meaning jointly, similarly experienced, maybe meaning the sharing of one's own experience--is for me a big part of what art is for. Nobody owns the narrative. Not the artist, not the critic, not me, and not you.

With Wild Honey, I rarely see any citation of that album or the singles spun off the album as anything but a suggestion that it was a "disappointment". Whether it was laziness, or people who simply don't know how music was charted in 1967, or simply a narrative which wants to be told over what actually happened...whatever the case, the singles from that album did well regionally, in some markets more heavy into R&B the title song actually went top-5. Do we hear that told often? How about the fact that many working cover/GB bands throughout 1968 were featuring Darlin in their nightly sets, as horn-driven R&B sounds were the flavor of the day? Count among those working bands one called Chicago Transit Authority who were covering Darlin. And consider how a Beach Boys single...those sunny, fun conservative guys from Hawthorne, was doing top-5 in cities like Washington DC and Philly, and that single was Wild Honey. Again, part of the story which gets swept aside in favor of opening a Billboard singles reference book and judging the whole of the story based on a number in those pages.

Were some BB's singles and albums complete stiffs from 67-72? Naturally, of course they were, no argument. Yet some were more successful regionally and among fans than the charts would suggest, and sales numbers as well. How about the song "Surf's Up" in the Boston market? Perhaps the charts wouldn't suggest what fans in the area thought of the song. Maybe 'BCN or whatever was the FM station of note was spinning it more than the charts would suggest...just one example.

I also think the image of the Beach Boys can be used as a pretty cheap shot, especially in context of 67-71. To me it is as ridiculous and as unwelcome as someone suggesting Arthur Lee should have played more blues music, or Canned Heat shouldn't have played as much blues music...in both cases, it totally ignores the backgrounds and the true nature and history of those artists, and instead does what nearly every so-called "rock journalist" seeks to avoid, and that is stereotyping artists or genres based on expectations and perceptions rather than weighing the music itself.

Thanks for your usual thoughtful commentary, Guitar Fool.  I guess we could speculate forever about how much the reception to "Surf's Up" matters and how much it's changed.  I don't think we'll find many people covering the song itself though, for the simple reason that it's such a challenge to sing.

Agreed, Captain.

I rarely post on this board, but I am an avid reader who quickly scans over the BS posts and the fanboy flamers for quality information or revelatory anecdotes. In this case, I was specifically responding to the request of Blossom World's original post and searching my mind (and the web a bit) to try and offer the flavor of what it felt like at the time to encounter this music - yes, from my own context. My personal history, and the culture at large as I knew it as a New York suburban 17 year old in 1971. Rolling Stone, as far as I knew, was the only game in town for hip rock and roll news besides FM radio (yes, there was Creem and Crawdaddy, but it took me longer to find those - Lester Bangs, Paul Williams, etc.). Rolling Stone was tremendously important in the paper fold days, before it became the slick GQ mag it is now. Random Notes was where you went first for any gossip, news, coming attractions. Then the (mostly excellent) interviews (who could forget the shock of the Lennon), then the hit or miss album reviews (where one could find Greil Marcus' famous Dylan Self-Portrait opener "What is this sh*t?") When Jim Miller wrote of Sunflower that the Beach Boys were "plastic madmen, rock geniuses", I understood what he meant immediately, and that kind of pull quote was something that stuck with me all these years...Goodbye Surfing (Saturday Evening Post!) and California Saga were incredibly important to those of us who were amazed to see the words "Brian Wilson" in a serious essay about his life and art at all. There was so little to read in order to possibly glean the inside story.

I'm also interested in anecdotal histories and the historical trajectories of the arts, especially rock music and film (I'm teaching the history of rock and film next semester, in fact). And not just of my own time. Not so much interested in most of what I find on the web, hierarchical lists of this or that...and (mostly) young men and their opinion flame wars. Yes, I'll be showing High Fidelity...

I was a new entry to the dorm that Fall. I attracted an audience with that album. Several of my new found friends became best friends and one even best man at my wedding. What else can I say? Surf's Up had a profound effect on my life and those around me. 

''Surf's Up' was a very, VERY fine album.  Certainly it was a most worthy Beach Boys effort.   T'was my first year in college.  It was what it was in part because so many Brian Wilson songs had to be included on any release as per the contractual agreement.  And so...it was exactly what it was, thanks in part to the vault.  I would suggest that both 'Sunflower' and 'Holland' outdistance 'Surf's Up' by a lot/by a bit respectively...which should not diminish 'Surf's Up' but rather elevate the other 2 albums.  I appreciate it marginally better than I do 'Carl and the Passions'...and by eons over everything which followed the subsequent LIVE album which showcased exactly why the Beach Boys were one of the BEST touring groups of the 1970s.

Not until 'TWGMTR' did the group release ANYTHING that was any better than an excuse.

-----------------------------------

By the way...in the context of Beach Boys' releases....'Smile' is a 1967 album.  Not any album of the 21st century.  [just so we're clear here.]
-------------------------------------
By the way 2.  Bruce Johnstons' absense didn't do much to add to or subtract from the group during this time-frame although 'Disney Girls' was OK.  Then again...so was 'Sail on Sailor'.  So really???  What does Bruce do other than make the wearing of shorts an extremely nasty thing to do on stage?

He adjusts a wicked mike stand-did you ever watch him do that? Holy crap, man, it's incredible to watch. He must have taken a course in it and gone to the head of his class. But beware...it goes beyond that. Yeah, it really does. When the man puts his hands together to make a clapping sound, you're seeing it done as no one can even come close to doing. Absolutely flawless. Genius. All this talent going on and a Hawaiian shirt to top it all off. It's the whole shebang! :o

 :lol

Just watched "Almost Famous" I was ecstatic to hear Feel Flows in the background of a scene.  Pet Sounds vinyl also made an appearance at the beginning of the movie.

Feel Flows also plays over the end credits montage.  The first time I heard that song was from the Almost Famous soundtrack actually.  Realizing it was a Beach Boys song, and one without Brian Wilson's involvement too just blew me away at the time.  I've read that Cameron Crowe's wife at the time, Nancy Wilson from Heart who helped score the movie is a big fan of that song.

I can't listen to "Feel Flows" without thinking of Carl Wilson as a turtle, arms outstretched, menstruating.

We all have our problems.

Bruce's voice on That's Why God Made The Radio made the experience substantially more enjoyable. I know he was occasionally spotty on the tour, but on that album, after Al, his voice sounds the closest to his vintage voice and really takes me back, man.

I know he's kind of a nitwit, but I'm glad he's still in the picture even if he's contributed like two songs to the Beach Boys catalog since I was born.

I love Bruce, even if it's only because he wrote Disney Girls.

Bruce has a nice voice but I'd take Blondie Chaplin over him any day.

I think surfs up was just marketed better. Its great but doesnt surpass sunflower..and catp/so tough is one of the least substantial albums in BB history. Every BB album from surfer girl thru holland was/is great, its undeniable that the BBs were/are the only rock band in history with that many great,essential albums. Think about it, pretty much every other group/artist had an album or three worth owning but the BBs body of work cant jus be sumed up with pet sounds and endless summer;; all summer long, today, summer days, surfer girl, wild honey, sunflower and smiley ALL must-owns by every true pundit/rocker.

True 'kook'.  The live album should be included...TWGMTR too.  And then there are loads of select songs from almost every subsequent album which were and are GREAT.  It's not like they NEVER ever did anything of value again after the last note of Holland [or the litttle bonus 45rpm fairytale] faded away.

As for Bruce...I didn't mean to carve him a new one.  His 'sell' of Pet Sounds in Merry Olde was important.  He'll be celebrating 50 years [mostly 'on'] with the Beach Boys this coming year.  Sunflower is an outstanding lp and I very much enjoy Deirdre and Tears in the Morning in addition to Walt's gals...and he did write 'the songs' as well.  I also dig Endless Harmony.  It's just that the group always seemed to under-utilize him.  They pissed him off enough times that he either left or contemplated leaving his perch.

I'm just kinda wondering...what does he really do now?  Just add a vocal part to the mix?  He did that symphonic thing years ago that was...well...kinda Montovani-ish..ie: boring.  But what does he do?  It's like he's been relegated to the role of glorified side-man.  Seems kind of unfair...or wasteful...or something???

------------------------------------------------------

Given that I Write the Songs was as gigantic as it was...Did the Beach Boys ever perform it or record it?  Heck...they used to stop down mid-performance so that Dennis could wander up front and centre and sing You Are So Beautiful.  So why not?  I certainly NEVER saw [or heard] them do it.

True, theres plenty good cuts after the mid 70s, just not as consistent. And thats a good query bou bruce, if they cut I write the songs or not...

Geez...my memory is pitiful.  It just occured to me...and I own a copy...that Carl and somebody else...probably Bruce???... joined David Cassidy for his GREAT version of I Write the Songs on his The Higher They Climb album.

Doi oip dee doip. ::)

Now that I think of it...pretty sure Bruce produced this one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgXE1JTOFfs

Didn't Bruce perform it at Knebworth?

I have that dvd...I'll have to check it out.  My memory is poor.  Too many games w/o a helmet?  No.  Too many trips w/o a suitcase?  Maybe.

IIRC he performed it but its not on the DVD/CD.

'Tis on the boot...

Jeezus, are there any songs they DIDN'T perform at that show? "Ten Little Indians"? "My Solution"? "SOUL SURFIN'"?

Yeah, he did - Bruce has also said the David Cassidy version is his preferred version, or similar words to that effect.

I'll betcha his favourite version of 'Darlin' ISN'T on that same album.  Great open.  Excellent close.  Mediocre in between.

Cassidy is pretty mediocre to be fair. Saw him in concert once … not moved.

So David's Darlin isn't Bruce's favorite?

I worked at my college radio station at the time Surf's Up came out. Our music director had scrawled on the back of Sunflower, "Side 2 is bearable," or maybe it was Side 1. Such was the BB's status at the time. When they played at our school, though, Carl and Al came wandering through our station and I was handed an acetate of "Long Promised Road" I understood to just have been delivered to them. I *may* have been the first DJ anywhere to play it on the air. Dunno for sure.

That is awesome.  Did you get a chance to talk to them at all?

No, unfortunately. I was on the air when they passed by the broadcast booth. A couple of minutes later, I was handed the acetate. Carl look a lot more imposing up close than I expected.

I remember that SU was sympathetically written up in RS with Carl explaining a lot of the process on LPR and FF etc.. SU did not generate the buzz of the old days but I seem to remember it getting a significant bump up over the recent past amongst the college crowd of which I was one. Do I remember any of that correctly?

Cam - you're correct. It got "buzz" of a non-traditional, non-commercial, and non-AM radio sort. It reminds me of a brush fire. Slow, constant and not explosive.  FM had paid attention to Brian's Surf's Up and kept it in the discussion, at least where I was, and in college as well.  And they were already on the college campuses to network that.  

And, I like to think of the 73/74 Concert album as the one for the college students, because it captures exactly that era and feel, at least for me.  

Ya Cam...I'd say that's reasonably accurate.  The album also got airplay on free-form FM and campus radio stations.  I'd say that THAT was at least as important as the words contained in RS Mag.  No hit songs on Top 40 radio but for some...it was a 'cool' album to hear and/or own with SOME of the college crowd. :hat

------------------------

I was typing as 'filled' was filing.  Seems we agree.

LPR charted fair around Michigan and SDT went to at least #7 for a few weeks in Boston.

deleted - posted in wrong thread - y mistake