The Smiley Smile Message Board

A quote from Mike love from the following link:

http://www2.townonline.com/weymouth/artsLifestyle/view.bg?articleid=551357

"We do about a two-hour show that is designed to satisfy a lot of tastes. We try to appeal to everyone from our hardcore fans to first-timers. We play now to many multi-generational families. When I look out and see people enjoying our music along with their children it just thrills me."

I have to give Mike credit for the shows he's been doing lately, particularly since 2003.  He could easily be doing the same 30 songs every year, over and over, much like they did from pretty much 1995 to 2002.  But at almost every opportunity, the setlist is extended to include not only the basic stuff for the "meat & potatoes" crowd, but several rarities.  In 2004, many of the UK setlists exceeded 50 songs!  Even for several outdoor shows this year, the setlists have exceeded 40 songs.  Rarities this year include "Good To My Baby", "Don't Back Down", "Still Cruisin", "Good Timin", "Getcha Back", "It's OK", "Summer Means Fun", "Cool Head Warm Heart", and on at least one occasion, "Forever".

It occurred to me that since 1998, Mike & Bruce have performed at least one song from nearly EVERY studio album, with the sole exceptions being KTSA, Love You and Friends.  (The last time a song from KTSA was performed, to my knowledge, was back in 1996 when they did a one-off performance of "School Day".)

Of course, the early 60's albums are all represented.  But what is surprising is that nearly all the later albums are represented:

Smiley Smile: Good Vibrations, Heroes And Villains
Wild Honey: Darlin'
Friends: [None]
20-20: Do It Again, I Can Hear Music, Bluebirds Over The Mountain, Cotton Fields
Sunflower: Forever
Surf's Up: Til I Die, Disney Girls
CATP: All This Is That
Holland: Sail On Sailor
15 BO: Rock And Roll Music, It's OK, Everyone's In Love With You
Love You: [none]
MIU: Come Go With Me
LA: Good Timin'
KTSA: [none]
1985: Getcha Back
Made In USA: California Dreamin
Still Cruisin: Still Cruisin, Kokomo
SIP: Summer In Paradise
Songs From Here & Back: Cool Head Warm Heart

Even the selections from some of the early albums have been interesting:

Don't Back Down, Here Today, Graduation Day, Salt Lake City, Then I Kissed Her, Good To My Baby, When I Grow Up (To Be A Man), Hawaii, Kiss Me Baby, Please Let Me Wonder, Wendy, Ballad Of Ole' Betsy, Hushabye, The Little Girl I Once Knew, The Man With All The Toys, Merry Christmas Baby, Santa's Beard, Summertime Blues, The Warmth Of The Sun, You Still Believe In Me, White Christmas, Frosty The Snowman, Their Hearts Were Full Of Spring

I'd say that Mike is doing a pretty good job at keeping the setlist interesting enough for the hardcore fans to keep coming back to check out the shows year after year.  Back in 1998 after the group's split, I would never have guessed that Mike and Bruce would be performing such a wide variety of songs 8 years down the line...

Any thoughts?

The number of live shows Mike has done with the Beach Boys is probably closer to 10,000 then to 5,000... I can imagine he'd want to make some changes in the setlist every now and then...

And maybe the success of BWPS made him realize that it's not just the early songs that the public likes.

Call me the devil's advocate, but I do really think that Mike puts in extra time to perform these songs 1) To cater to the hardcore fans, and 2) Because he really loves the music.  Like I said earlier, he could easily EASILY do a 90-minute show every night.  They did that during most of the 90's when the Beach Boys were still together!!  But he takes the time and makes the effort to include little gems here and there when he clearly doesn't have to.

Keep in mind that I say this as a big fan of Al's...I really do enjoy all three (or four) touring groups...while I may not personally agree with some of Mike's decisions, I do enjoy the concerts.

The sets are better then expected but I think Mike and Bruce are pushed a little to the side. It's a problem sometimes at Al and Brian's concerts too but not to the same level really. I wish more leads (at least non falsetto parts) were done by Mike and Bruce

I love Mike & Bruce' set. Before I went to see them in Blackpool 2004, a lot of fans on the Blueboard were saying "travelling jukebox", "not as good as Brian etc" which had me a little worried as was expecting a real "rinky-tinky", karaoke-esq performance. When I saw them, they were amazing! Those who had seen Mike & Bruce on the UK 2004 tour couldn't say they weren't blown away by the performances and set lists.

The thing with Brian is that when I've been to see him, I get what I want - rarer numbers, solo material, real instruments (real horn sections, strings etc) which is fantastic.

When you go to see Mike & Bruce, you get to see the tunes that Brian tends to stay clear of because of their simplistic / surf nature (Little Deuce Coupe, Shut Down, Surfin' Safari), the very thing that MADE the Beach Boys. Fair enough they use synthesisers for string arrangements & horns, but who cares?  :o I certainly don't! But not only that, they've realised that they are gaining more credibility by playing rarer numbers too (All This Is That, 'Til I Die etc)

I would put Brian's band and Mike & Bruce's Beach Boys on equal pegging, neither one is better than the other for different reasons. I can't comment on Al's band, but I'm sure if they came to the UK and I went to see them I would be pleasantly surprised!

All in all, it's the MUSIC that matters. And it's great to see being performed by those who involved in the original recordings!  ;D

Ugh, the only time I saw Mike & Bruce live was in a bar at 8 in the morning (and people were drinking!) where they were recording for some radio show. They did California Girls three times, and nothing but 60s greatest hits.

Well, even though I think it's good that Mike&Bruce change their setlist (though we don't know who of them submits the tunes, since I can't believe Mike suggests "Til I die") it's still a difference in what you are playing and HOW it is played. Bruce mentioned that they don't play "Heroes and viallains" because the audience didn't like it, which might be true but I don't think I would like it when I hear those guys play it. I mean everytime I heard them, they struggled even with "Surfer girl"....
I guess "Forever" will be done with John Stamos...?

I've seen Mike & Bruce each of the last two June's, once at an American Graffiti festival near my hometown and once at the county fair. Both times they sounded great and the crowd went crazy. They included numbers I didn't expect (Good Timin', All Summer Long, It's OK), Mike had some funny lines and they generally put forth a very positive show. The crowd contained EVERY age group, including at least one or two packs of young chicks screaming their heads off.

I for one am quite glad that Mike continues to go out there and Do It Again. And it's sure great to hear Sloop John B wafting through the air while walking the Midway in search of the perfect corndog...

CHRIS WALTER
Modesto, CA     

     Excuse me, Eric, but Mike did practically the same hour or hour and fifteen minute hits only show since the very early 80's!   I, too, am very happy to see his new set lists these past couple of years.  However, it's probably going to be a long time before I forgive him for 20+ years of very boring same-old-same-old set lists.  (And why they've been doing "Duke Of Earl" for about 10 years straight now I'll never know!  If Mike feels he's got to perform some old Doo-Wop song, then why not do a different one every year?)

           Love and merci,   Dan Lega

The setlists that are always posted from Mike's shows look great to me.  I saw them in 98 but wasn't a hardcore fan then, just a casual fan (I grew up listening to 60's music as a kid in the 80's).... Even though I wasn't a huge incredible beach boys fan, I had a blast and it was easily one of the best shows I've ever been to.  Now that I'm more familiar with the rest of their catalogue, I don't know if I'd enjoy it as much... I know their recent television apperances have been hit and miss but perhaps in a regular concert they've still got it.  When I saw them, though, they were still great.... the crowd was ALL ages and ate up every moment of it. 

My question... who's singing the songs that Brian or Carl sang lead on?

Excellent post(s), Eric. You make some very good points.

Just to backtrack a little....Whenever a past (pre-Carl's death) Beach Boys' set list is criticized for being too top heavy with oldies and not enough "serious" material, Mike is singled out, as if he ALONE formulated, dictated, and carried out the songs. I have to believe that Carl (especially), Al, Bruce, and sometimes Brian and Dennis had to have SOME input. And if they didn't, why didn't they? Didn't they talk about it? Didn't they care? Didn't they vote on it? Other than when Brian was calling the shots in the early/mid 1960's, I didn't think any group member was DICTATING to the guys. Did everyone, Carl included, simply defer to Mike Love? Did Mike have that much control that he could boss the other guys around, specifically choosing the songs that they would perform live?

As far as the recent past and present is concerned, I don't think enough credit/praise is given to Mike and Bruce for the outstanding set lists that they've been performing. It really can't get much better for the diversified audiences they are playing to. I know their songs are relatively short, but I can't think of another group that peforms as MANY great songs as Mike and Bruce.

I sometimes think Mike and Bruce have an ulterior motive with their diversified set lists - in a good way. It does eliminate one obstacle in the way of having Brian re-join The Beach Boys. Their set lists are beginning to look similar, and I don't think Brian is planning to perform SMiLE in the immediate future, so that shouldn't be an issue.

QUOTE: As far as the recent past and present is concerned, I don't think enough credit/praise is given to Mike and Bruce for the outstanding set lists that they've been performing. It really can't get much better for the diversified audiences they are playing to. I know their songs are relatively short, but I can't think of another group that peforms as MANY great songs as Mike and Bruce.

------

I completely agree. In June at the Fair their energy was fantastic and the crowd was going wild...Regardless of the fact that this isn't the original lineup, it was a very fun show and the people went home smilin'.

BTW: On 8/18 I'll be seeing Papa Doo Run Run (Many BB Alumni including Jeff Foskett) at the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk as part of their Friday night free concert series. Last year was a blast. They play about 90% Beach Boys and do it very well. The other 10% is Jan & Dean and a couple of originals. Their sound was quite comparable to the Mike & Bruce band. I'll be riding the Hurricane while the Sounds of Summer rock the park.   

Sure is nice to live around here...

Can you picture the Mike & Bruce show playing Smile? Or all of Pet Sounds? Brian's band is far better IMHO. Not that the M&B band is all duds - I like Randell Kirsch, he does nice work on some of Jeff Foskett's solo stuff too.

It is nice to see M&B get more serious about representing all the BB music, no doubt Brian's pushing the envelope helped propel that along.

But I'd be curious to hear what criteria you use to say the bands are equal.

The problem I have with Mike & Bruce's band isn't Mike or Bruce. It's the band themselves. Instrumentally AND vocally (but esp. instrumentally) they suck. Very amateurish. There's not  a single player I'd keep over anyone in Brian's band.

Well, I kinda like Chris Farmer. But that's it....

Im with billy, everytime I watch Mike and Bruce I just cant stand how sloppy their backing band is. People always say that Mike and Bruce sound like sh*t, but its like how can you possibly sound good over a shitty band? Put Bruce and Mike with Brian and his band and you'll see a ridiculous difference, imo.

Randell Kirsch does the falsetto parts, and sings lead on "Good Vibrations" and "Don't Worry Baby". 

Chris Farmer does a lot of Al's vocals like "Cottonfields", "Then I Kissed Her", "Come Go With Me", and also does "Sail On Sailor" and "Good Timin".   Also, when Mike was unable to sing recently because of laryngitis, Chris sang all his leads while Mike lipsynced them.

John Cowsill does "Darlin", "I Can Hear Music", Carl's part on "Kokomo", and "Help Me Rhonda". 

Scott Totten doubles Randell's lead on "Why Do Fools Fall In Love".

I agree that nothing after 1968 was any one or two Beach Boys' "fault".

I saw the 'M&B show' last year, and it was the first I've seen them since around '98 or so in Richmond, Va (at Kings Dominion). But anywho, I enjoyed Cowsill's vocal leads when I saw them last December, very strong voice (at least that night I was there). The others aren't that bad either. But out of all of the new members, Cowsill's leads were the best. I was pleasently surprised to hear "Darlin'", wasn't expecting that one. Wish they performed "Sail On Sailor" and "Cottonfields", though. Guess I have to catch those at a non-Christmas show,  ::)  ;)

- I'd take John Cowsill vocally over anybody in Brian's band, as much as I love them. No joke. The guy has a magnificent voice, full stop. And I've never found the Mike/Bruce band to be at all amateurish or lame -- they struck me as quite damn decent. All 3 of the touring groups, I think, have great bands. Brian's is the most technically proficient but everybody's playing the songs quite well.


Oh, was Mike going out solo that entire time, Dan? Wow, that's twenty years of Mike solo flogging the hits. What a drag. Only -- wait -- for like ten, fifteen of those he was joined by THE ENTIRE REST OF THE BEACH BOYS who were apparently quite glad to play whatever set repulsed you, there. And that includes fan fave Carl Wilson for quite a number of those years.

Oh, but maybe Mike bullied them into playing the hits. Yeah, must be it.  :lol

 "Also, when Mike was unable to sing recently because of laryngitis, Chris sang all his leads while Mike lipsynced them."



...what a pro!

Not that they would, but Mike and Bruce have the capability to perform Pet Sounds and Smile to an excellent standard if they had Brian's resources (i.e. the Stockholm String & Horns). Why couldn't they? Even without strings and horns they performed at least 5 songs from Pet Sounds, and they've performed Heroes & Villains and Good Vibrations from Smile. And GV by Mike and Bruce is performed BETTER by them than Brian's band IMHO.

Let's face it, to see Brian it's roughly £50.00 and to see Mike & Bruce it's £20.00. That extra £30.00 in Brian's ticket price is paying for the luxery of string sections etc. The *MAJORITY* of fans who go to see Mike and Bruce's shows don't give a toss about musicianship and rarer material, hence the use of synthesisers. I think there is a huge difference in general in the fans who go to see Brian and those who see Mike and Bruce, except for the hardcore fans would go and see both.

Mike and Bruce's band has less musicians and less resources, and yet they play over 50 Beach Boys tunes over a two hour period to an excellent standard. They are good at what they do, as is Brian. So surely, their band must have to put in a lot of hard work and have exceptional musical ability to equally match the standard of Brian's 12 man band?

I'm glad Brian has pushed Mike & Bruce to doing some of the rarer Beach Boys numbers. I've no doubt either that this is response to Brian's acclaim in the press for his shows(?)

In your opinion, but not in musical terms...




That's probably the secret of their success, that and the name.
People who are watching them are just there for the party. But this doesn't do the BBs-legacy any justice.

In YOUR opinion, but not in musical terms...

I always enjoy the snarky disdain of the "discerning" Beach Boy fan for the "common" Beach Boy fan.

Yes, it has done so much damage to the legacy that they are still going after 40+ years as one of the world's best loved bands and their music is continually so popular with each new generation that they have an album almost continually on a Billboard chart.   ::)

Yes, in MY opinion. As I said Rocker. But what do you mean "in musical terms"? Both Brian and Mike's versions of the song are performed in the same key, same vocal arrangement etc. If it sounds like Good Vibrations, it's performed like Good Vibrations then by God, it is GOOD VIBRATIONS!  ;D

But Brian's lacks the energy of Mike & Bruce's performance, but hey, that's my opinion.

The Beach Boys legacy has not had any damage done to it through Mike and Bruce's performance. In fact, like Cam says new generations are discovering the music. Is that really a bad thing? I'm glad that I can still go and see Beach Boys music perfomed live by members who performed on the records.

I completely disagree.  And not just M&B but 'The Beach Boys' over the last 30 years.  I don't know how many times I meet people who are really dismissive of The Beach Boys because they just have this image of a rather tired surf nostalgia act in their minds.  Not that I've got anything against the early song catalogue (far from it!) but the group's treatment of these songs down the years has done nothing for their standing as great records.   

With "musical terms" I meant that Brian performs the whole record with every vocal on it while M&b have to left some vocals off and some other things that are not like on the record. I didn't say you can't like it, but from a musical point Brian's version is better alone for having the complete arrangement.

For the other thing, I agree with Sir Rob and he probably know what I mean. The beach Boys' legacy has been destroyed little by little since '78 I would say. Almost no one outside of us fans, takes them serious as a band with artistic innovations and succes. It's all about "Barbara Ann", and that wasn't even written by the BBs

But Rob, that's the problem of them calling themselves the Beach Boys from day one. They are constantly linked to the beach, surfing, sun etc and they're hardly boys anymore. Are you saying the name has been detrimental to their career? If they'd been called the Pendletones, they may have had more respect from the start of their career like the Beatles had respect, because their name didn't relate to anything...?

When I tell people I like the Beach Boys, I get laughed at. I get the usual "you'll be saying the Bay City Rollers are good next etc" But when you LISTEN to the music, there's so much more to it. I've turned at least 5 people I now on to the Beach boys after intial humiliation by them, and now they've apologised for being so dismissive!

I think they've been faithful to the legacy, what more can they do? Would we prefer that they just mime to the record? Ok, so the cheerleader years weren't great, but it didn't harm the songs! It was the cheesiness around them which now, thank God, has been brushed aside... :lol

With "musical terms" I meant that Brian performs the whole record with every vocal on it while M&b have to left some vocals off and some other things that are not like on the record. I didn't say you can't like it, but from a musical point Brian's version is better alone for having the complete arrangement.


I'd have to go back and listen to both versions again, but if M  & B did, I didn't notice. But this goes back to my point that M & B band is a lot smaller than Brian's, and therefore they have to work harder at getting good performances across. But Brian is now performing the Tony Asher lyrics with the Hawaiin chant thing in the middle, which as nice as they are, they aren't and never will be as good as Mike's lyrics IMO.

We could go on forever saying Mike's performance of one song has this added vocal that Brian's doesn't etc and visa versa. But the point is, they are both good at what they do! In different aspects of their shows.

I hope I didn't sound petty in the last post Rocker, I quite like this debate!  ;D

Funny that you mention The Bay City Rollers.  Because that's what someone said to me recently "I rate the Beach Boys somewhere below The Bay City Rollers".  And that's the sort of thing one hears all the time.

I agree the name and early image have not done the group any favours in the long run but you can't put all the blame on those things alone.  The band chose to pursue a short sighted and narrowly 'commercial' nostalgia strategy based on that image.  

If the the cheesiness and cheerleaders etc didn't harm the songs (by which you can only mean the reputation of the songs)  - why be glad those aspects have (to some extent - I'm far from convinced it's total!) been swept aside?

Sorry, what I meant that just because there are cheerleaders bouncing around the stage the quality of the actual song doesn't diminish. It still is a good song. I cringe at the fact that the band have been reduced to have young, dancing girls in leotards dancing around to add a "new dimension" to the shows. They weren't needed in the first place!

What I've heard them play is "dumbed down" simpler versions. And Brian and his band play all of Pet Sounds w/o the Strings & Horns extremely well. Look at the Pet Sounds Live DVD. M&B don't have anybody in the band who can come close to the musicianship of Probyn Gregory, Scott Bennett, or Paul Mertens - let alone Darian... Performing a simplified GV and that mess that Mike passes off as H&V is a LONG way from playing Smile in its entirety.


Wow, you are entitled to your opinion. Maybe you like the ML lyrics better and that's why. But heck, even Sir George Martin called out Brian's band for being able to perform GV the way it's supposed to be done.


I wouldn't claim to know the percentages, but that's quite a statement. Maybe that's why some call the M&B show the traveling jukebox...


First off, Brian only has 10 in his band. Second, what's stopping M&B from increasing the size of their band if they want to tackle more difficult material and do it properly? Third, while I don't think the M&B band is talentless by any means, why do you suppose Brian's group is so widely acclaimed by critics and fellow musicians alike? Come on, be honest - if you were a performer who would you rather have behind you?

How is the complete arrangement for recording better in musical terms in a live performance than the arrangement to suit the band performing live?

Please demonstrate how the legacy has been destroyed.

I don't think GV is supposed to have comatose lead vocals as we hear in Brian's Band version. This Martin dude don't know sh*t.  :-D  

I'll second every point made by Mr. McShane. 

I think the legacy has been primarily damaged buy a lengthy public display of pettiness and litigation.  Secondly...the very fact that you have Brian's band, Al's band, and the M&B show is statement enough...there really isn't a "Beach Boys" anymore.  Mike can call his band whatever he chooses...but it just doesn't seem to have the artistic legitimacy to carry the BB name - none of the individual bands do.

I really can't believe that, on a purely musical level, anyone with a good ear would believe the travelling Beach Boys band is remotely close to as good as Brian Wilson's band. I'm not saying that to take away from the travelling Beach Boys, either. They are professional musicians who make a (very good) living touring and playing that material, so they aren't worthless, musically speaking. But Wilson's band is simply ridiculous. The only criticism I can recall ever hearing is that they sound too note-perfect, as if they're recreating recordings. ("Lacking the soul of the originals," is what I've heard, although I think that is a bullshit criticism, especially in that case.)

The travelling Beach Boys band, on the other hand, really is just a different experience. It's fine for people who are into what they do, and I am sure there are different reasons for seeing them. Some people are hardcore fans who will attend any Beach Boys-related show; some are interested in the fun 'n' sun show; some honestly couldn't tell the difference between the original Beach Boys, the current ones and me playing a toy piano belting out the tunes, so it doesn't matter anyway.

There are obviously markets for both bands (and more besides), so I don't think it is too big a deal. The only problems, I think, are those that people have regarding what they consider the bands' legacies, shady business or whatever else. As for me, I'm not interested. I'll see any Brian show that comes my way because of his band (much more than because of him, actually, as he's easily the worst member of his band). I won't ever see the touring Beach Boys.

Yeah! What makes him think he's qualified to open his mouth??  ;D

If given the opprotunity to see either Mike & Bruce, or Brian, I would definitely opt for Mike & Bruce. I'm not going to be spending all that extra money just to see some fanboys and a lead singer whose worst musical attribute is his singing. sh*t, at least plug in his keyboard. People call the touring Beach Boys a tribute band.. Brian's band is much moreso a tribute band than Mike & Bruce. Sure, it's annoying when Mike does that creepy wave to the girls in the audience, or when the girls come on stage and Scott Totten is a thin layer of clothing away from full-on intercourse with someone half the time, and yes, I would prefer to hear Brian singing the high parts than some random no one, but half the time BRIAN DOESN'T EVEN SING HIS OWN PARTS! He sings Mike's!

I've never seen Al's show, but I'd imagine that would be the best of the three, memberwise. Ed Carter, Billy Hinsche, Bobby Figueroa and the Jardine brothers are all excellent musicians. And when Brian's daughters were in the band, that's two Wilsons.

Bottom line: If you want to see some ubernerd who's obsessed with the Beach Boys, don't pay $50. Look in the mirror. If you want to see what's left of the Beach Boys, see Al or Mike & Bruce.

I'm an obsessed ubernerd...I'll spend the $50 thank you very much.  But let's be honest...Mike couldn't sell tickets without the Beach Boys franchise name.  It it were the Mike Love Band all you would hear are the crickets chirpping....he would like end up about where Al is now. 

Stating that Brian is currently the "worst" musician in his band is hardly an insult.  I imagine Bob Dylan is the worst musician in his band and always has been.

edit for spelling

I'm with you, Mark H. And it isn't $50 to see what's left of the Beach Boys. f***, it isn't to SEE much of anything. It's to HEAR the best musical performance of Beach Boys material. I don't care that Brian sings Mike's parts, or, as I said earlier, that he is easily the worst member of his own band. His band is BRILLIANT. Every one of them is an absolutely wonderful musician. Their singing and playing is absolutely spot-on. The Beach Boys' band isn't. It is really that simple. If you like them, fine. If you want to see them, fine. If you think it's more original members, original members who are better, etc., fine, but they aren't a better band.

I guarantee you this: if Mike were given Brian's band at the same price of his own (or, at least if he could have before they became Brian's band), he'd have jumped at the chance to use them.

How is the complete arrangement for recording better in musical terms in a live performance than the arrangement to suit the band performing live?

Please demonstrate how the legacy has been destroyed.


I've never seen the BBs live (except on TV). But having grown up in the 80s, myself and my friends NEVER took the Beach Boys seriously, and that was based on what we saw of them on TV. They looked like an oldies band. They played surfing and car songs. I enjoyed the surfing and car songs, but the BBs themselves in their 40s didn't strike me as innovators ,and when I saw the striped shirts pictures, I figured they were discovered by the label and instructed to sing other people's songs, a la New Kids on the Block. And that in the 80s they were still riding that very commercial wave.
When I heard Pet Sounds at age 15, I was surprised. When I heard H&V at age 22, I was flabergasted. Never, ever, ever knew that the Beach Boys had done anything like that. And I didn't even realize that they were responsible for their own material until I read the liner notes of Pet Sounds.

Al's band is the best of the three out there - his voice is the best, his backing musicians are exemplary, and he has Matt doing the falsettos! Gimme Al's band over Mike and Bruce and Brian's band any day of the week.

Mike and Bruce's recent set lists are the best I've ever seen/heard by any major rock band.

Also, The Beach Boys' legacy HAS been affected by Mike and Bruce's decision to keep touring. But it's not so much because of the songs they perform or how they perform them. It's just the fact that they're a rock and roll band, still doing it after 45 years, and now as senior citizens.

How many rock and roll bands have toured for 45+ years, singing basically the same core of songs, over and over. And again, I'm not knocking them for it. They have become a bit of a joke, but in a non-hurtful way. I think people joke about The Beach Boys affectionately. I mean, even Mike Love jokes about their age and longevity at concerts. People are still happy to have them around.

The Rolling Stones are starting to get the same things said about them, about how old they look, about Mick Jagger still singing "Satisfaction" as an old man, about them still being alive! Frank Sinatra went through the same thing. People used to say that he was going to die on the stage. I'm trying to think of other acts who are comparable to The Beach Boys in age and popularity who are still around. There aren't many. So maybe The Beach Boys - and Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Ray Davies, The Who - are breaking new ground. And someday people won't joke about old guys still playing rock and roll!

Fanboys? Man, if that's all you can give that band credit for I think you're badly mistaken. And remember, many of them had no tie to Brian at all before 1999. Scott Bennett, Taylor, Paul, Bob, and Jim were all from Chicago, not LA. Hardly fanboys.

BTW, is there something wrong with really liking the music you play and the person who wrote it?

Sometimes Brian doesn't sing so well. But often his singing is still quite good, and he knows his limitations in most cases. As Luther pointed out, in a band with virtuoso musicians and incredible vocalists it means Brian is the weakest performer on stage.


Who sings Brian's parts with the M&B show? Who sings Carl's parts? Who sings Dennis's parts? At least Brian wrote or co-wrote most of the songs he sings on stage.


Mark hit it right on the head. Mike would be playing 100 seat lounges with the "Mike Love Band". I guess what you say is true though, if you go see the M&B show that's what the "Beach Boys" have become. Sad...

You consider them better than Brian's Smile show set lists? Or the Pet Sounds tour setlists?

The other thing is that Brian doesn't wear an ear monitor, does he? With only one good ear, it doesn't seem like he could. I agree that Brian is the weakest performer on stage, but that whole band (Brian included) is able to perform Smile night after night. That takes a lot.

Jim, that answer could create 43 more pages of debate :police: It's all a matter of numbers. For 99% of the world's listening public, Mike and Bruce's set list would be preferable. For the other 1% (and you know who you are), Brian's would be more desireable.

I'm not dodging your question. After seeing the Beach Boys in concert over 30 times from 1978-1998, Brian's Pet Sounds and SMiLE shows were quite welcomed.  But now that I've digested them, I can honestly say that it's hard to choose. They both have something different to offer. It's not easy to pass up Mike & Bruce's 40 or 50+ song list - whether I'm in that 1% or not.

I guess it was already answered in this thread. For example, for awhile people were looking with awe at what the BBs did, now they laugh at them. They were the band that did "Pet Sounds" and "Good vibrations" and change the music-world, nowadays they are the surf-oldie-band that did "Kokomo". They are looked at the same way the "Surfaris" are, only that the BBs had alot more to offer, if you know what I mean.


@Zander : It's allright. I like these discussions too.

Who are you guys listening to? The Beach Boys are still one of the most respected bands in the world as evidenced by their bookings and TV shows and tributes and album sales. We may have to deal with the fact that the band is knowledgably respected for something other than what we think they should be, I don't know, I'm just sayin' we may not be the be-all and end-all in the judgement of their legacy.  :o

They are? By WHOM? Their TV shows? Their tributes and album sales...please...not true. Sorry, but no. Not true. They sell the same old songs to the same old people who have been buying this version or that for 30 or 40 years. It isn't as if 16 year olds are banging down the door for new product.

Brian Wilson as a solo act is where all the college kids are at!  As someone in the younger demographic, kids who are into indie music know damn well who brian wilson is and what he means to pop music, kids with little to know knowledge of their history know Brian is the genius, and they know that SMiLE was brilliant.  Not one of them hears an ad for the beach boys on the country music station and thinks, wow, i should go see that innovative band of quality musicianship, they think, surf, car, beach,  thye hear brian wilson and they think: brilliance

I'm curious, jlaird, it's been two years since the release of BWPS, is the interest in Brian still there, among the younger demographic? I have a niece in college, and when BWPS came out, I almost fainted when she asked me to burn her a copy of BWPS (I made her a 66-67 SMiLE mix instead :p). She hasn't mentioned Brian much since BWPS; I'm wondering if the interest faded or if it stuck.

Also, are the kids you referred to aware of Brian's other legacy, specifically the drugs and mental health issues. Is there any fascination with that stuff?

If Brian were more active, I would definetely say there is an audience in college.  All of us in the dorms tend to use iTunes, which allows us to browse eachothers library, and a substantial amount, less than half, maybe a third, have pet sounds on their computer, most of the people with petsounds are aware of Brian to a fair degree, meaning, they know about SMiLE, I think many are intimidated about it seeing as it took the indiepop world by storm, there is such a history around it.  But if Brian were more active, the audience would be there in the college kids.  Most of the kids are aware to some point about his breakdowns, though most wouldn't know who Landy is, they may be familiar that someone did something with Brian's health.  I suppose the point of this rambling si taht college kids recognize Brian Wilson apart from the Beach Boys.  SMiLE, Pet Sounds, Today, and the Elephant 6 Recording Company are all tossed around within the indie hipsters community. 

I think there is always a fascination with the history behind Brian, but most of them seem to stick with the music, Pet Sounds is the definitive college album, pure and simple, that record was built for college.

jlaird, you've just given me hope for humankind. Long live E6! (Oh, and BW/BB...)

I'm glad E6 is somewhat recognized on this forum :)

How do we know that M & B band members don't come close in terms of musicianship? Just because they don't do it doesn't mean they CAN'T? Anyway, as I said in my post on page 3, both bands have different objectives and neither one is wrong for doing so.



It has nothing to do with Mike Love's lyrics why I like the PERFORMANCE better. I think it has more energy than Brians. Simple as.  Me and ol' George obviously have something in common as well.



I don't percentages, I don't wanna know them. But I think it's quite a fair statement of the general public who go and see Mike shows. I went to see Mike and Bruce at Blackpool, and I had one person come up to me and ask which one was Carl and which was Brian. That says a lot about what the general public know about the Beach Boys! Maybe purists call it the travelling jukebox, but hey, they have two members of the original band, the lead singer on most of their records and main lyricist. Surely that counts for something???



There's nothing to stop Mike and Bruce employing more members! But what would be the point? They're doing something different than Brian. They don't WANT to go out and perform Pet Sounds and Smile. But I'd be on the front row if they did!

Brian's and band are acclaimed for the obvious reasons. We ALL no that or we wouldn't be on the message board. I've never questioned their ability or reputation. But hey, if it was me, I'd rather have Brian's band behind me as I'm sure Mike and Bruce would?? As I said, Mike and Bruce are doing something different than Brian

 :)

Yeah, and I wonder what it was that might have caused them to raise their game slightly in recent years?

Their low-class, no-taste, ignorant audiences?

No, I don't think so.  Being a great live act sometimes involves more than just 'giving the audience what they want'.  And 'giving the sudience what they want' will often define who your audience are.

Which could be no audience.

What do you think it is then?

The touring Brian Wilson, of course.

Surprise, surprise.  I don't think the BBs are touring anything they hadn't toured years before there was a Brian tour so maybe it is the other way around.

Well, I saw The Beach Boys in early 90s and it was 'the hits' (not incl. H&V) cheerleaders and sing-alonga summery medleys featuring Dancing in the Street and California Dreaming.

I've heard they played a few concerts even before that.

I'm talking about the generality of BB concerts over the last couple of decades or so.

I'm including those also.

I really hate to do it but: In fact they got only one original member.

Yes, well there's always the exceptions that prove rules:

http://members.tripod.com/~fun_fun_fun/setlists.html

Ha Ha! Let's not go back to THAT discussion Rocker! For the sake of arguement, I was calling Bruce an original as in he has been there from the 1960's and rightly deserves to be called a Beach Boy.  ;D

Yeah, that's why I said "I hate to do it", because I like Bruce too, but for some reason I can't look at him as an original in every way. I think his contributions are great at times and he was very important. I can't call Dave Marks an original either although he did contribute as well.

Personally speaking, I think it's fair enough to regard Bruce as a Beach Boy in the fullest sense.

Cam, don't let the number of bookings or album sales be your guide. Most of the Beach Boys CDs that sell well are old material that's been repackaged. And according to my quick count the Grass Roots will have played more 2006 dates by year end. And I'd bet almost as many people go to see Papa Doo Run Run as the M&B show. I'm not knocking either band by any means, but I believe the Beach Boys (meaning the M&B show)  "respect" is a reflection of their past, not a recognition of their present.

I would like to, but I can't. Too many reasons imo.  Anyway it's just a personal thing for me.

Keep the discussion goin'...

Jim, perpetual popularity of their albums and the continual popularity for bookings across decades into the now do indicate the strength of their legacy to me, I don't see any other way to see it. Their legacy is respected, maybe not with a handful of the thimbleful of fans who frequent these boards,  but in the world imo.  Respect in the present for what has been given, what else is legacy?

Cam, I'm sorry but that has to be the most tortured, twisted logic I've ever seen.

A reminder - here is what you said:


So are The Beatles - that doesn't mean they are doing anything good now. You didn't say people respect the BBs legacy, you said they "are still one of the most respected bands in the world". Not were - are. Quite a difference...

According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of legacy is "something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past".

So if you want to say the BBs have a wonderful legacy, that's true and I think there would be near universal agreement both on and off this board. But having a legacy, a past, isn't the same as earning respect and adding to that legacy today.

Brian and his band are adding to Brian's legacy quite regularly, and they've earned a ton of respect based on what they've done in the last few years. The same can't be said about the M&B show - except to say the name "Beach Boys" has survived in some form or fashion for a real long time. Of course, so have Peter, Paul & Mary.  :o

Jim, were and is.

I'm not torturing logic, I guess you and I just disagree or we aren't talking about the same thing.

Gimme a break, Brian's band audience is there to listen to songs written between 45 and 30 years ago. Exactly like M&B's audience. If you like one act better than the other, great, it's totally subjective.

But both (and Al's) are OLDIES / NOSTALGIA gigs. Period.

Uhhhh...no.

BWPS is a "new" release and a major artistic statement.  Songs from BW 88, Imagination, and GIOMH were featured heavily in the shows I saw.  The oldies were sort of in a segment by themselves.  You can call it subjective....but that would be wrong.

BWPS may be a new release, but 90% of the material is old and has been known to the fans who go to see Brian Wilson shows for years. Hardly cutting edge in the temporal sense, anyway. And most of Brian's other materials was, or could have been, written in those same years as the Beach Boys material. Let's be realistic, GIOMH (for example) isn't some kind of modern work, regardless of when it was released--it's nostalgic, meant to appeal primarily to Beach Boys fans. The others are the same, albeit with slightly different slants ("modern" synth sounds on 88--which suck by the way--and adult contemporary sh*t on Imagtination).

I've got to say Dancing Bear is correct--they're all pretty much nostalgia shows. And whichever you like best is a matter of subjectivity, so you are wrong there, Mark H. In fact, liking it or not is the definition of subjectivity!

Now, as to using some criteria to say which band is BETTER, that would be a whole different thing, and might be less subjective. I would not hesitate to say Brian's band is the most technically impressive, which you might consider the criteria for best. (I like them the best, but that is again subjective.)

I don't think I'm wrong...fact is BW has released new material.  Just because it doesn't sound like indie pop doesn't make it not new.  Are you saying that Brian is, has, been writing oldies?  Not that it matters...butI don't think Brian's show appeals, in general, to the same audience as Mikes.  Of course it has older stuff...the guys been writing hit sings for 45 years.

BWPS was written along time ago...and those boots have been heard buy what, a small small fraction of the listening public...so in that sense is was new.  The guy got a Grammy and it wasn't for the best golden oldie.

So was "Give My Regards to Broad Street", though no reviewer in 1984 was saying "Look, this is the best McCartney album in years, great new songs like Eleanor Rigby, For No One, The Long and Winding Road"  ;D

 

1. This is subjective
2. I don't want to start a multipage battle about the merits of BWPS. You like it and I don't.


So are Kokomo and Make Love Not War in M&B setlists. And what their audience really wants is to dance to I Get Around. As Brian's audience go to his concerts to listen to Little Girl I Once Knew, not Desert Drive or South American.


Don't you count Smile and Pet Sounds songs as oldies? 'Songs written more than 30 years ago' = oldies

Mark, I didn't say his new releases aren't new (except BWPS, which isn't new), I said they're nostalgic. I said they're in the style of old BBs stuff. That's all.

I also didn't say the audiences for BW and BB are identical. I said they're both primarily people interested in some amount of nostalgia, primarily people interested in hearing 30-to-(almost)50-year-old songs. They are interested in slightly different songs, and different aspects of the songs, but still in old catalogues.

As for the percentage of people who went to Brian's SMiLE shows knowing the material ahead of time? I'd guess pretty significant. Of the general public, not much. But who went to those shows, probably pretty high.

I will agree to a point. But look back at some of the posts of that period and there were a lot of people writing and expressing surprise regarding parts of it. It may have been partially known, but it certainly wasn't completely known. Nobody knew the sequence, nobody knew if it would be presented as songs or movements, a number of new lyrics debuted, and so on... And not everyone who went was a hardcore fan anyway. There were a lot of people there who hadn't heard but a few notes of Smile.

I've also heard GIOMH, Your Imagination, South American, Desert Drive, Lay Down Burden, Melt Away, Love & Mercy, City Blues, and other late compositions performed at Brian shows.

I think the public at large (and certainly the music critic community) look at Brian's shows much differently than the M&B shows. And it's not only the newer material (whether its new to you and I is immaterial if it's new to them) - it's the more offbeat obscure older works too. And finally, I believe the incredible quality of the live shows also have a big impact.

No question about those two points. I said all along I think people view the bands differently, and go for different reasons, and the first of your two points quoted above is why. As for the second above, I'm 100% behind you on that one.

While all of the above solo songs you listed were played at one time or another, how many of them were played together at the same concerts? I wouldn't say a great appeal of Brian's shows has been his performance of his solo material. Obscure(er) Beach Boys' songs is even a stretch, but not his solo stuff.

I'm not totally sure the public at large views Brian's shows much differently than Mike and Bruce's - at least musically speaking. I think there a large overlap of fans who go to both, not just to hear the difference in the songs played, but to hear a different voice and see a different face. Yes, there is that small percentage (like us 1%) who are dying to hear SMiLE or even "That's Not Me" performed live, but I believe most people think "hey, let's go out tonight and hear some good old Beach Boys music".

Whether I liked it or whether you did not are not material.  The release of this work via the live shows and recorded cd were viewed by the music community as a whole as important.  Frankly I doubt the Royal Festival Hall was filled with fans hungering for Surfin USA.  I would be hard pressed to call that an oldies/nostalgia show.

The age of when a song was written doesn't really matter, I think it's the intent with which that material is presented and received.  People go to a Brian Wilson show to see the man and hear both old and new music buy a killer band.  You don't see, or I didn't anyway,  the beach balls party atmosphere you see at a typical BB show or I'm assuming a Mike/Bruce show.   The Mike Love show is the beach party nostalgia thing.  People don't go to that show to see Mike Love or Bruce Johnston, they go for the music party atmosphrere.

I see these as two totally different takes on music largely written by Brian Wilson.  He profits by both actually.

I'll bet he had about as much newer stuff in his shows as say Bob Dylan does.  With a back catalog as deep as Brian's, he obviously plays stuff from all stages of his career.  Last time I saw him he played about 4 songs off GIOMH, 2 from Imagination, and 1 or 2 from BW 88.  About 30 minutes worth or so.  That doesn't make his shows inherently better or more satisfying...just to note that he is attempting to remain a viable artist with new things to say.  Even if they sound older.

Having seen both shows, possibly the way to reconcile all this back and forth is to note the differences in approach between Brian on one hand and the Mike & Bruce shows on the other:

The Mike & Bruce shows present the "good old Beach Boys music" (at least the show I saw did), much as other "legacy acts" like Steppenwolf or Blodd Sweat & Tears do.    The people who go obviously like what they hear and that's been a good business model for Mike & Bruce.

Brian's shows present a composer performing his work in repertory.  Including "Smile."   Yes it's a lot of the same "oldies" as Mike & Bruce present but the organizing concept is different.  The idea is to replicate the original sound and arrangements of the records, and achieve what Brian wants the songs to sound like.  Sort of like "original instruments" performances of Mozart symphonies using the tunings, instruments and performance practices of his day.  The parallel with classical music is apt.  After all, a lot of this stuff is getting long in the tooth.  We are seeing more musicians taking this approach as well, such as the Fab Faux replicating the Beatles records onstage, right down to the tape FX.  Another example: Wynton Marsalis presenting new concert versions of Coltrane's "A Love Supreme".

Which approach of these two you prefer is the subjective part.

Though I think it's only a good thing that, thanks to Brian's success, Mike & Bruce now feel more comfortable mining the legacy and doing more LP tracks and material from their early 70s renaissance, as the quoted set list reflects.    And throwing in the odd new song as well! It's their legacy too, they were a part of that history, they should claim it and own it.  Again, the audiences seem to be OK with it, and it's still in keeping with their chosen approach.

How's that?

I think so. Ever since the late 60s "Brian Wilson" and whoever was "The Beach Boys" at that time, had a different status in the public view.


One random thought that also came up in this thread. This is just my opinion(not totally thought out, probably not perfectly verbalised) and it is not based on any special definition or something:  

"Oldies" are songs that are bound to specific times. So "Pet Sounds" doesn't have anything that bounds it to the "beach party"- or "fast crusin cars"-or "yea,yeah,yeah"- time or even "disco" and therefor is timeless.

Because of 40 years of hype of Smile as the great lost Beach Boys album. The live shows and cd and DVD release got a lot of attention, but the point is, it was a work based on material written 40 years ago. We're talking about how Brian is 'relevant' today.  


It was filled with fans hungering for Cabinessence. Oldies moldies.


Ok, let's stop with those oldies/nostalgia accusations. How about 'Concert which setlist consists of songs written more than three decades ago and performed by an artist way past his prime'? This description fits Brian and Mike.


Again, going to a show to listen to "Little Girl I once knew" or "Surfin' USA" is the same thing.


New music? If all those people wanted to hear Brian's new music, Imagination, GIOMH and WIRWFC would have sold way better.


Those bastards.


Amen.

I see where this is going. Well, I'm not changing my understanding of what an oldie is or if Brian is a relevant artist today. There was recently a long thread about BWPS / Smile which surprisingly went very smoothly. Let's try to keep this one in the same path. I've said my piece on the subject, now I'm done.

Just as a response I'm not being accusatory (is that a word?)....nostalgia/oldies ain't a bad thing.   Actually I agree with just about everything Dr. Tim said.  I got no axe to grind just a 2 bit opinion.

Looking at the world of classical music is indeed apt. But I would describe the M&B shows as the equivalent of the "Pops" concert - lighter fare, presented more as "entertainment" than a serious performance (not that a shoddy performance is acceptable!). Even the code of audience conduct is loosened a bit in an attempt to make the music more approachable. Sometimes some great music is played at a Pops concert - you might hear Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue or Concerto In F, for instance.

Brian's shows are serious musical events, they are the equivalent of a subscription concert. They are presented in a way that certainly does not preclude an audience's ability to be entertained. But rather the goal of these concerts is a world class performance of the works being played from the conductor, soloist(s), and the orchestra - presented in a world class environment with an audience solely focused on the music. It's these concerts where you might find a bowl of cough drops at the door - coughing during the performance is a faux pas for sure. Talking during a performance? It'll get you ejected from the hall. Want to hear a great performance of the Rachmaninoff 3rd Piano Concerto? This is where you go.

Brian's shows are much closer to that level of intensity IMHO - the virtuoso musicianship, the deeply held respect for the performers and the pieces of music being performed, the more challenging repertoire, etc.

If you want to go hear some nice music and have a nice night out, you can go to a Pops concert and have a wonderful time. Want to do some serious listening? Then it's a different type of concert.  The M&B show is the equivalent of a Pops concert, whereas I see Brian's shows held in a much more serious vein.

Lately Brian's setlists are pure oldie, almost identical to the BBs'.  Is Brian taking his cues from Mike & Bruce?

There goes the legacy I guess. The Beach.....uh....whos?....oh my gosh, it's already gone.

One...even two swallows - does not a summer make.

Guys, I don't see the value of tearing down Brian to build up Mike Love......and vice-versa.

Swampy, where did I tear down Brian or Mike?

You're always tearing down Mike - why don't you give the guy a break?!

No break. No one else ever does it, it's so unbalanced, so I have to.

Look Mike and Bruce deserve praise for becoming a little more creative. Brian deserves praise too, and I really don't think he is the least talented in the band. He really comes across well to me. Not as someone in their prime per se, but someone who can still express himself creatively. My girlfriend said that at Brian's show she never saw a more loved artist. I think that says a lot. Taste is taste, but I think we aren't allowing each other to be individuals here. If Mike is to your liking ,see him. If it's Brian, see him. If you only like what they did when they were young stay home and play the reocrds or watch the videos. One day not so long from now not one of the Beach Boys will be performing.

Playing 'Mike's advocate', huh?!   :)

I nearly choked on my lunch there (until I got your meaning)!

I am glad you realised I didn't mean in the Beach Boys. As great as his band is I am not going  to see Jeff Fosket (Ok maybe Taylor).

Cam, I wasn't trying to single you out.  I don't have a horse in this contest. 

Having seen both shows in the past couple years, yes, Brian's show is different than the one Mike and Bruce present.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  I get tired of both stereotypes ie... Brian's a drooling loon who can't even tie his shoes for himself and can't sing anymore, Mike is the devil incarnate and ruining the Beach Boys legacy etc...etc...   

I agree that Mike has presented a more ambitious set than the days of the much maligned 'traveling jukebox.'  I also believe that Brian as a performer has improved tremendously since the Farm Aid disaster.  I don't particularly care for the whole 'David Byrne in Once In a Lifetime' thing he does with his hands, but Brian did sing his ass off last summer when I saw him play in Detroit. 

I think in some measure we'll all pining for things the way they used to be and know will never be ever again.  Dennis and Carl are never coming back.  And the rest?  Well, even good marriages sometimes turn bad.  So tearing Brian and Al down to build Mike up or Mike down to build Al and Brian up is a self-defeating exercise.  The Beach Boy's legacy is secure in rock history.  Brian Wilson's legacy is secure.  Let it be.

My point exactly. Great minds..... ;)

Bottom line - we're talking here about one of the richest and most incredibly diverse catalogs in popular music.  Over the years, The Beach Boys' music has gone to so many different (and seemingly incompatible) places, there's literally something for everyone there. 

It's obviously been both a blessing and a curse.

 

I am seeing "The Beach Boys" tonight and I'll decide for myself.

Sad. No Getcha Back, No Disney Girls.

Hey, I did a Smile radio show on my college station a few months before BWPS premiered, and I had hardcore punk and metal fans telling me that Smile was fucking amazing music. Brian Wilson is the one with the indie cred. Great post.

But don't discount the Beach Boys, because the 1966-73 Beach Boys stuff has some indie cred as well.

That's certainly true, but none of the "Beach Boys" on tour, Carl and Dennis are the 70 stars