The Smiley Smile Message Board

Been revisiting this Lost Classic and it’s really a shame that “It’s Ok” wasn’t a bigger hit despite the commercial success of “15 Big Ones”. Having followed the top 5 hit “Rock and Roll Music” this radio friendly number should’ve been an even bigger Billboard success.

It makes you wonder what could have made the difference, was the single perhaps too short?  Maybe the lack of awareness of the title (only mentioned once, Should've been called Find a Ride or Get With It?) It certainly didn’t help that it was released too late in the Summer, there certainly could have been a lack of promotion as well.

It’s too bad, I think “It’s OK” is one of their best post 60’s Summer themed pop creations and miles above Kokomo.

It's OK is indeed, just that.  :lol

In addition to all the flaws in marketing you mentioned, the song is missing a signature Mike Love lyrical hook. There is no chorus. Just a hand full of verses, then like this pre-chorus type thing with "gotta go to it...YEAH" and then it never really goes to a chorus. The "find a ride" line from Dennis is more of a tag than anything.

It was a recipe for success, but it's missing one of the key ingredients. Just one of many missed opportunities by Mike Love.

Isn't that like saying Do It Again doesn't have a chorus, they just go dit dit dit a bit

And because so many get it wrong:

"Good or bad, glad or sad, it's all gonna pass away, so hey, let's all play and enjoy while it lasts."

I've neglected most late 70s and beyond Beach Boys releases, but I find this song pretty fun.

I can see that, I guess it’s the standout track among more mediocre songs on the album, except maybe for Had To Phone Ya. I think a song as commercial and catchy as “It’s OK” for that time in their career was proof that indeed Brian was Back!

I agree - one of the better "hit" attempts after the 60s.

Should have been the lead single, rather than following a cover song.

Reminds me of It's A Beautiful Day - which is also a great song, if not for the very specific references to stupid things linked to that John Ritter movie, the name of which escapes me right now. A re-write with sensible lyrics, and that one, too, could've been a hit in the same style.

I'd stress more the lack of a "hook" than a formal chorus section of the musical form. "Do it Again" has that hook in several variants throughout the ends of phrases "let's get back together and do it again" etc. But if you really want to get right down to it, "Do it Again" is just a slightly better "It's OK", right? The function of both tunes is to be derivative of their own past and beginnings.

Yes, I wonder to what extent Rock and Roll Music's success was derived from it being the first single since the Endless Harmony comeback. I also wonder to what extent any future singles' lack of success was based on the public deciding that, actually, we don't need new covers of old songs from old artists (then again, Come Go With Me somehow managed to be a hit well after its original release... Who the heck knows how these things work!?). With the benefit of hindsight, I wish It's OK had been released first to at least get them an original hit. By the time It's OK was released, it seems like the moment had passed. At least they had Kokomo years later.

I quite enjoy the song, for what it's worth.

Probably Brian's last real attempt at producing a hit single for the band? Love the vocal arrangements and that bass riff is pretty spectacular too. Definitely one of my favorite BB songs from the 70s; the single version sounds like the synth bass was mixed a little more up front, which is great. They should have completed this song and put it out as a single on the heels of Endless Summer in 1974 or '75. Could have been a bigger hit this way I guess but it's always hard to say with these guys.

Could the seemingly louder synth bass in the single version be the result not of a remix, but the fact that the track was sped up by 2%?

I agree that "It's OK" should have been a much bigger hit, at least Top 10. And I often think that "Keepin' The Summer Alive" could have been a hit single, had it been recorded and released five years earlier than when it was...another "summertime smash"-sounding tune, but with a more contemporary feel - exactly what their audience would've hoped for in the summer of '75.

Another missed opportunity not unlike the Christmas single “Child Of Winter” released too late in December 1974 to really make an impact.

There’s been several times they didn’t strike while the iron was hot. There’s numerous Beach Boys songs from the late Sixties through the Eighties that with the right timing and marketing could’ve been hits or even bigger hits. Heroes and Villains, Darlin, Wild Honey, Do It Again, I Can Hear Music, Slip On Through, This Whole World, California, Sail On Sailor, Good Timin, Keepin The Summer Alive, Goin On and Getcha Back are all good examples.

At least The Medley, Wipeout and Kokomo charted well.

Since It's OK originated from the Caribou Sessions, imagine if the Beach Boys released a comeback Double A-Side with It's OK and Good Timin'? I know this hypothetical has been brought up before here and elsewhere, but what a wasted opportunity. Other than Rock and Roll Music (and Come Go with Me if you count it, since it came out on LPin 78 but charted as a single in 81 with the Ten Years of Harmony comp), those two songs were their only top 40 hits of the 70s.

Timing..... it seems like so much of the Beach Boys career after 1966 had to do with timing. I agree that It's OK should've been there first release after three years of almost no new material.  I thought then and now that RNRM was just weak: a song about rock and roll that didn't rock or roll. I thought It's OK was a great '70's BB's summer single. As someone mentioned, putting it out in '74, the summer that Endless Summer came out might've been a great idea. I think what might've happened to the song was that in between RNRM and It's OK the reviews of the album came out, which as I recall were mixed after a lot of anticipation.

I think that c-man is correct about KTSA, the song ,it could've been a smash if released in the summer of "75-'76. So many missed opportunities by these boneheads.

In all fairness to rock and roll music the single mix is far superior to album version

I've never played both side by side, what's the difference?

The single mix is punchier and there’s different back ups.

It’s Ok I feel like did as well as I would expect it. KTSS could have been a hit in 1980 with a single version that resembles the live version they did that summer . It smoked.

To me, KTSA always sounded a little too wooden and forced to be a hit. The songwriting isn't particularly strong, worlds apart from Do It Again and It's OK. Brian was the only one in the band who ever came up with convincing good-time summer songs, with the exception of Alan's California, which of course is partly based on Brian's material. Most other attempts to come up with Brian-like material were pretty awful, like Kona Coast, so at least KTSA wasn't like that, but still...

I think we had that a while back:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,27098.msg660840.html#msg660840


IMO the "Rock and Roll Music" single for it's rawness fits very well into that time when people were turning to such a sound. Wasn't this the time when Punk music began it's way? I remember reading reviews that criticized the single for being so unpolished, analogies like forgetting what they achieved with "Pet Sounds" for going back to "Surfin' Safari" come to mind. But I disagree with that. The early surf-rock records are just as much a part of the Boys greatness as Pet Sounds.



Oh and re: "It's ok, I like that song very much. Again I prefer the single version. Certainly better lyrics could've been written, but the ones used work and are not what the main focus is on. So, yeah, should've been a bigger hit imo. I never heard a live version though, that lived up to the recording.

.

Almost nobody in the U.S.A. was aware of punk music yet in the first half of 1976, aside from some very hip people in N.Y.C., L.A., and maybe Detroit. The vast, vast majority of the AM radio-listening and record-buying American public were either into the Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, Elton John, ELO, and the Doobies, or into sounds even more polished and softer-sounding still. So if the BBs wanted big radio hits, those are the sounds they were competing with.   

Don't forget the huge hit that was Endless Summer in '74. People wanted the BB's to sound good. I was working a landscaping job in 1976, outside , summertime, RNRM comes on the radio. I think it was the dry mix and a guy hears Mike and says " that guy really sings flat". I couldn't really argue with him.

Ah, thank you!
But I guess one could say that an audience for that sound was there even if it wasn't mainstream yet. Anyway, I personally like this bare-to-the-bones BBs sound

Many critics tend to see the band's early work as a four-year build-up to Pet Sounds because that's the album that is singled out as the masterpiece. Anything stripped-down or fun isn't what the critics are into.

"It's OK" is a dumbed-down rewrite of "Mess of Help." They've added a half-line in the verse of "It's OK" in place of the backing track vamp in "Mess," which seems to trick many folks into not discerning just how similar the two tracks really are. The extra couplet that operates as the chorus for "Mess" ("belief I cried/ain't no shuck'n'jive/I need a mess of help to stand alone") is removed, and instead of a middle-8 that gets repeated/augmented as the tag ("She don't know a thing" etc.) you just get a closing tag that gets embellished as it repeats ("Find a ride"/"in the sum-sum-summertime" etc.).

Brian is well-known for reworking tracks, and I'm figuring he figured that all that funky over-production on "Mess" was simply obscuring an up-tempo hit. A snip here, a chord substitution or two there, Mike with a clothespin on his nose doing the lead instead of the larynx-destroying growl of Carl, textbook 60s harmonies to further disguise the fact there's no chorus, and--voila! Semi-crypto-ersatz BB "Do It Again" again (with that endearingly cheezy electric piano riff).

It had a good lead-in with "R&R Music," but they waited 2-3 weeks too long to release it; the momentum on album sales for 15BO went cold very quickly once word of mouth about the LP got around, and the single stalled.

I continue to hear "Keepin' the Summer Alive" as a valiant but ultimately lame attempt to mash up "Marcella" with "Takin' Care of Business," to the detriment of both. Transporting that back to '75 or '76 is impossible, of course--and even if you could, there's the fact that Bachman-Turner Overdrive was already fading out at that point (their peak was with "You Ain't See Nothin' Yet" in mid-'74), so one has to question if that really would've put the band on top in that time frame. I'd still contend that the best shot at a hit single in '75 for the band would've been a version of "River Song," but the ship had sailed on that already. A somewhat altered arrangement of Dennis' version from POB with Carl on lead, and some added contrapuntality on the tag might have been the ticket to getting the band its first hit from a member of the band other than Brian. But the specter of ENDLESS SUMMER was creating a lot of uncertainty in '74-'75, which translated into a lingering creative paralysis.

Agreed and well put.

You just listed some of my all-time favorite Beach Boys songs.

I don't think the timing for "It's OK" was that big of a deal; the Beach Boys were still enormously popular in 1976, and if they had come out with a classic record - California Girls/Good Vibrations/I Get Around quality, it would have been huge. Endless Summer and Spirit of America were successful albums because Capitol promoted them like crazy, and people loved the music. My guess is that 15BO sold well initially because it was promoted as the second coming of Summer Days and Summer Nights. When word got around that it wasn't Son of Beach Boys Today, sales dropped quickly. The public wanted more sounds like they heard on Endless Summer, and the group did not deliver.
I suspect, though, if the group had stayed on the course started with CATP and Holland, that would not have sold in huge numbers, either. Us cultists love the "artistic" side of the group, but the casual fans never wanted to beyond Pet Sounds very much.

Here's one for perspective... I saw IT'S OK performed live in the summer of 1976 (Oak Glen Park, Peoria, IL).  For the tag, over Dennis' "Find A Ride," someone on stage - either Al or Billy Hinsche - sang a beautiful falsetto tag.  For years, I had a recording of the show (no longer have it) and always thought it would have been a bigger hit with the falsetto tag.  in those days, us younger fans (I was 17) really dug the falsetto tag on Fun Fun Fun.  It was "the" signature Beach Boys sound.  If you want to hear what it sounded like, Celebration does the exact same falsetto tag on the end of their IT's OK cover on the ALMOST SUMMER soundtrack album.

I also think those greatest hits compilations sold well because there was a huge wave of 50's-60's-Golden Oldies nostalgia in the mid-70's which I don't believe has been matched by any generation's or decade's nostalgia kick ever since. The discussion trying to pinpoint exactly how and why is a fascinating one, but not for a few minutes or posts. I have to pinpoint George Lucas and American Graffitti for one catalyst, and that had several Beach Boys classics featured prominently, including one of the best uses of music in a film when Lucas played All Summer Long under the credits. Then jumping on that trend, there was "Happy Days", which was American Graffitti watered down for TV but it was also one of the biggest pop culture icons of the 70's.

But I don't think original songs that were new from these old artists had as much staying power or appeal to the audiences as reliving those oldies but goodies. Look at Frankie Valli - His sound was a major part of that nostalgia trip of the 70's, only he went disco and had a run of a few "comeback" hits that sounded nothing like the 50's or 60's.

I think the audiences wanted their nostalgia authentic, and there just were not too many acts pumping out authentic new "nostalgia" style songs, with of course some exceptions. But seriously, look at Sha Na Na, the Beach Boys...people wanted to hear the oldies and covers if they were on the nostalgia trip. And if someone like Frankie Valli had a hit, it was contemporary or disco, far removed from their oldies sound.  Look at Elton John, he went total 50's rock parody and nostalgia on "Crocodile Rock", yet managed to stay contemporary and score a hit record still played on classic rock stations and oldies stations. If the Beach Boys could have managed a song that was as catchy as that, or as contemporary and catchy as the Valli disco revival tunes, they would have fit in perfectly and sold more records.

In that mindset, the choices on "15 Big Ones" do make sense, do up some oldies and covers and work in some new material too. But it just wasn't there overall, or at least wasn't where it could have been. I do think "Rock And Roll Music" is a damn fine cover with a solid lead from Mike and a pulsating backing groove, but I also think the hokey backing vocals "rock, rock, rockin and a rollin" or whatever they sang weighed it down too much. The song didn't need those vocals.

But I think they knew what audiences wanted from the nostalgia wave, and tried to deliver for those specific reasons.

It's OK would have benefited from a sit up and take notice intro, something like the intro to Surfin USA.  I've heard the intro on the version on MIC, which sounds like something you'd expect to hear on a video game, which was a dud of an intro.  The background vocals could have had a fuller sound, but it was a great summer pop song in 1976. 

I have a lot to say about this era but as to "It's O.K."; I think it's an a terrific single and should have been the 1st single released. Ride the momentum of Endless Summer by leading with the best ORIGINAL song. (I will contend "Had to Phone Ya" can be considered a better song, but in terms of A-side, "It's O.K." would win out.) I don't care that it's a lazy write for Brian; it showcases that the Beach Boys could still kick ass in terms of making summer pop music. The first single from them during their comeback should have been an original song. Also, the original "Rock and Roll Music" is not good; the mix on MIC is far superior, which makes it actually kick ass.

This moment itself is a critical juncture for The Beach Boys and I think, it is the ultimate decline for the group as a whole. The return of stardom (and money) is really the true selling out of The Beach Boys. It's a far sad chapter in that it's all based on Brian having to come out into the world and be expected to make records that sounded like 1964. I'm not certain on the details, but if I recall, Brian starts seeing Landy after Marilyn's starts having Landy counsel her at their home. That's October of 1975. I can imagine this point probably the absolute lowest of Brian's mental health. The idea that this magic huckster will cure Brian instantly of all his ailments was ridiculous and a sad part in that no one in the BB circle said, "Hey, wait a minute, this guy seems fishy" You figured after dealing with so many people in the business that they would have had a guard out. Brian's not even a willing patient, openly telling journalists he's only seeing Landy because he didn't want to be sent to a psychiatric hospital. In addition, Brian sometimes appears to be on cocaine during interviews or asking the writer for cocaine. So it's pretty clear that Brian had a ways to go to deal with his mental health issues. Instead, Steve Love wants to cash in and comes up with the Brian's Back campaign. Brian was not clearly back as pretty everyone will admit.

If The Beach Boys wanted to have a comeback album, I think the album should have been called "It's O.K." Kinda tongue-in-check for a comeback album, but the single itself is very radio friendly and the closest the band was going to come to emulate their old hitmaking selves. The entire campaign should have been "It's O.K." and it should have downplayed Brian's Back. The tracks we get on 15 Big Ones are infuriating because, for me at least, I skip over a vast majority of them. The album has its' moments, even the lesser tracks because Brian is experimenting more with Moog Bass and the sounds that would show up on Love You (which I love).
 
But the band was not going to get much out of Brian during this time period. That's why the originals are not really that original and fairly old. If Brian had to do studio time under therapy for Landy, he was just going to play his favorite songs on synthesizer. He was going to amuse himself. Brian has always loved the oldies sound and Mike always longed for the old days, so naturally he probably was on board with the songs on 15 Big Ones. Carl and Dennis obviously wanted a more original album, but they submitted nothing of their own. This lack of original songs from the Wilson brothers leaves room for covers that amused Brian and terrible songs, like "Everyone's In Love With You." (I like most of Mike's Beach Boys songs, too, but this one where I depart)

The Beach Boys could have had a comeback album without the Brian's Back campaign. Brian could have been involved minimally, but more than previous years. The idea of him touring was another horrible decision in the Beach Boys history. Brian didn't want to be there and again, it seems like he is forced to do tour just how he was forced into the studio. It's all "therapy" even though the pressures on Brian were immense and Brian just didn't want to deal with the spotlight again. He just burned himself out and I think the industry itself really took a toll on him. Brian snapping around 1978 was unfortunately going to happen because his mental health issues had not yet been solved. Add in the pressure of a huge new contract with CBS and touring and writing and therapy and drugs and divorce and the band almost breaking up and alcohol - I can sadly see why Brian relapsed. Then in 1982, the Beach Boys inner circle again forces Brian into seeing Landy. I do feel like Brian had a lot of resentment towards the Beach Boys during all of this. I think that's one reason why the music he wrote during this time is so unrefined. Brian didn't care what the product was; he was just amusing himself regardless of its' hit potential. No wonder why Mike told Brian to stop fucking around after hearing Adult/Child on the heels of Love You. M.I.U. is another attempt to try to help Brian. Let's take Brian away from the temptations of LA to the middle-of-nowhere Iowa and then Cousin Brian can start making the hits again! (In fairness, I really like about half of M.I.U.) Brian could still make great melodies regardless the production. I do wonder how much of his weird songs are out of spite to the guys. An attitude of, "Yeah, you want me to write again so you can avoid bankruptcy? Fine, here's Hey Little Tomboy and you're taking the lead, Mike!" Or maybe the guys and Brian didn't care either. Maybe it was just, let's get more BB on the market while we make money touring. But I do wonder how passive aggressive Brian was during these years. I've read about Brian being a very manipulative person in his own way and I am sure he was trying to manipulate the situation of Brian's Back in some capacity. I think Landy exploited Brian's resentment and then tried to turn it into pure hatred toward his family in the late 1980s so he could fully own Brian.

Anyway, I like It's O.K. and it should have been in the Top 10.

"It's OK" is fascinating because of how it dropped off the face of the Earth as either a "minor hit" or even well-known catalog track for the band.

The song was dropped from the setlist within a year or two. It briefly resurfaced as a show-opener in 1982 and I don't think it went over particularly well. After that, it was only decades later when Mike dug the song out for his shows. On both his shows and the C50 reunion tour where it was performed, it has never seemed to garner much attention from the audience. I just don't think it stuck with the band's audience or general audience.

I also think, whether because of the music itself or other stuff attached to that song/era, some band members aren't big fans of the song. I recall the band members doing interviews track-by-track for the "Warmth of the Sun" compilation back in 2007, and when Al was asked about "It's OK", I recall he literally had a "no comment" response. At the very least, he had nothing to say about the song. I doubt Al or Brian (who has never done the song at his shows) were instigators in doing the song on C50.

I don't know if there's a scenario where "It's OK" would have been a "hit" as such. I think the theory put across some time back in one of these threads that, had they had "Peggy Sue" ready and releasable as a second single in 1976, that *probably* would have been the best bet for better singles chart action, whether we all like that song or not.

Actually, it was in the setlist for four years initially: they played it when I saw them for the first time in '79.

I wonder how it would’ve done had it been completed the year it was started (74)

Billy , I think it would've done very well coming on the heels of Endless Summer. You had other songs around this time like "Beach Baby", Crockodile Rock, that BJ Thomas tune, rock n roll something or other.

Both "It's OK" and "KTMA" are both solid, highly underrated "fun" songs from the group.  They even snagged Joe Walsh to do the slide guitar on the latter song which is a pleasant surprise. 

I quite like the "Gotta go through it" hook for the record. 

"KTMA"

keeping the mantra alive

"Keepin' the Summer Alive" (the song) would never have been a hit so long as Bruce Johnston was producing it. The released track is limp, muted, and totally lacking in any sort of rock dynamic.

Bruce was a guy to get to produce "Full Sail", not a rock song, and certainly not a potential *hit* on rock radio.

A more dynamic producer for the song could have helped (perhaps a Roy Thomas Baker sort of situation, think the 1979-ish era of The Cars), but even then the song was always going to sound like a re-write of "Takin' Care of Business."

I think the KTSA track sounded much better in concert (the Washington DC 1980 version is by leaps and bounds the most listenable version of the song), but even then it's not a crowning achievement for the band. In the live context, it was a nice bit for the band to stretch a bit and for Carl to do a grittier lead.

I bow to nobody in my weird fascination and enjoyment of KTSA (and early 80s in general) BBs, but nothing on KTSA was a "hit" in relation to what was going on at the top of the singles charts or radio airplay.

The band literally accidentally stumbled into a minor hit with "Come Go With Me" in 1981, and say what you want about the rest of the production on MIU or Al's production work in general, but "Come Go With Me" at least sounds sharp and slick and as commercial as an early 80s (albeit with a track actually from the mid-late 70s) Beach Boys was going to sound.

You gotta wonder, was the poor choice of Bruce producing KTSA more about no better/bigger producers being interested? Or did the band not pursue those avenues? Was Bruce cheaper? What was on Guercio's mind by that time? Did he care?

Several things come to mind with regards to why they might have chosen Bruce to produce:

-He had recently won the Grammy and the other members might have been a little bit in awe of him, thinking he at that point had the magic touch

-perhaps it was thought that he could play the role of mediator to some degree, because he was already familiar with the personalities and basically got along with everyone pretty decently

-and yes it may just have been a cost saving measure. Since he was back in the band and making money from being on the road and playing live shows, I'm wondering did he actually get a separate producer's fee? Or was it all just without a fee, Since he was able to get back into raking in road money when he was back in the band?

And it  also makes me wonder, did Al get producer fees from MIU?

Great points about Bruce as producer - would love to know what you think about the band's move to Terry Melcher in the mid 80s?

The typical deal is that producers get "points", meaning a percentage of some calculation of the revenue. I don't know how much Bruce might have been paid up front, but he'd probably get points on the stuff. Same with Al. That's the usual deal anyway.

Bruce was certainly a good mediator (at the time), that was his biggest plus for running the sessions; that he was both an insider and and an outsider/mediator.

But from a commercial point of view, doing the type of music that the band did on those albums, I can't imagine anybody who knew anything about what was popular or might be a hit was thinking "You know who we need? Bruce Johnston!"

We all know the famous story of Bruce coming in for the "LA" sessions in Florida, this was essentially a move to save the project. The Beach Boys seemed a bit aimless by the time of KTSA, so despite "LA" tanking on the charts, I guess it was easy for them to say "okay, we tried Brian *again* for some early KTSA sessions, that didn't work *again*, so yeah, fine, let Bruce sort it out."

Bruce Johnston at that time was a good pick to get product finished and out the door.

Bruce was not a good pick if the band wanted either a critical or commercial success.

The band using Terry Melcher was more or less as lazy and uninspired as using Bruce.

The one partial exception is that, as Howie mentioned in a previous Melcher thread, the guys kept using Melcher because Melcher was scoring them deals for getting songs into movies. That's lucrative even when the song and/or film bomb.

Now, Bruce and Terry *knew* the guys and were able to work with them and get them to function. That's something.

But the question is, were the guys in the band sitting there saying "We know we're effed up and dysfunctional, so let's call mostly producers who know us and can work around our dysfunction."

The band never called up Steve Levine again. Did they try? BB '85 wasn't a huge hit, but it was more successful that the previous three or four albums.

The band never had (or never allowed) some relatively altruistic outside producer to come in who wasn't trying to make extra bucks by co-writing or facilitating soundtrack deals. They never got a Rick Rubin-Johnny Cash thing, or even a Jeff Lynne-Roy Orbison thing going on. A few times they *sort of* had that potential situation brewing with Andy Paley and Don Was, but they didn't take to that. The deal with Sean O'Hagan (who may have produced something interesting, or total garbage, I have no idea) never got past the stage of offending O'Hagan.

The next time anything remotely of this nature occured was Joe Thomas getting the C50 project, including the album, done and released. Thomas's production sensibilities are open for debate, but what he absolutely *did* accomplish was getting s**t done, and getting a very good tour and pretty good album done. A Joe Thomas-type over the years, or moving forward after 2012, would have been great, and they could have brought other co-writers and producers in so that Thomas's hand wasn't so heavy on the recordings.

Maybe in 1979, somebody in the band during the tense times of trying to make a new record blurted out that a BJ could help matters, and like a game of operator, the original intent got misunderstood? :lol

Yes, all interesting points. Thanks for that post!


First, I think Bruce was called back because he was always around, even during his solo career. I think he said that he was on every BBs album except for "In Concert" after his departure. Add to that that he was a member of the band for years before that and knew how the guys ticked, I think it makes him the logical first choice for an "outside"-producer. IIRC it was Brian who called hime when he (Brian) realized that he wasn't gonna work any more on L. A. (Light Album). Plus the record company probably was also ok with it since Bruce just wrote a monster hit and got a Grammy. The question obviously would be why they didn't produce it on their own or let Carl take over. But that probably has to do with the bad feeling inside the group.

I remember recently someone posted an interview with Steve Levine and he recalled a moment when Brian was late for a session, driving up in the parking spot while he - Levine - was sitting there completely frustrated at what hat happened. Steve was telling Brian about it who the said "Yeah, they did that to me all the time" (or something similar). At that point Levine realized how hard it must've been for Brian, because the Beach Boys were hard to work with for someone who didn't know them. I guess that could be a reason for their choices or non-choices regarding to producers. I guess you could sum it up this way: The outside world wanted Brian to produce the Beach Boys, the inside world wouldn't want to have to produce the Beach Boys. If that makes any sense.
Bruce and Terry had a long history with the guys and had their own reputation, so I guess they just were able to deal with the Boys to a certain degree, whicht other people couldn't. Did Levine ever say if he wanted to do another BBs album after BB85? In fact, was there any outside producer saying how great it was working with the Boys and that he couldn't wait to do it again?

Another big point regarding Bruce was that he was already working for CBS as a staff producer, and now that the Boys were signed to a CBS-affiliated label, that might have been a suggestion made by the label. They invited him down to Florida simply to sing on the album, but once there, it might have been the idea of someone at CBS, or possibly Guercio, to let him co-produce. As mentioned above, he was a recent Grammy winner (albeit for songwriting, not producing), so he had some commercial clout at the time. But the biggest reason was that he was an insider AND outsider at the same time - someone who knew them intimately, personality-wise and ability-wise, AND could still be objective. Regarding producer points - well, Desper later said that he made more money from KTSA than Bruce, since he was paid a salary, while Bruce was paid on points...

I don't think Steve Levine would've wanted to work with them again, based on his later comments, even if they'd asked him. The next obvious choice was Melcher, as he had just co-written their biggest hit in some time (the moderately-successful "Getcha Back"), and had also already recently worked with the band as producer (on the "California Dreamin'" cover, recorded in '82). When the reworked "CD" became a moderate hit in '86 - and since Terry, like Bruce, knew the band intimately and was respected by all of them - it was natural for them to keep him on as their go-to producer.

One more point - it was said at the time that Bruce had a two-album producer deal, so that's why he took the reigns for KTSA even though L.A. wasn't a hit. Again, it was probably the label who initiated that deal, with the band's support, of course. After KTSA bombed, the hope among the fanbase, of course, was that Brian would resume the producer role. But the band, especially Carl, were intent on having a "marketable" product - they had already let Brian run the show for a couple of albums, and the results were disastrous in their eyes, so that's why they decided to bring in an outside producer, with Levine eventually getting the nod due to Bruce's recommendation and his recent chart success with Culture Club.

<<so that's why they decided to bring in an outside producer, with Levine eventually getting the nod due to Bruce's recommendation and his recent chart success with Culture Club.>>
It should be noted that in 1982-83, CBS was floating the idea of multiple guest producers each doing a track on the next Beach Boys album.  Various producers were approached.  I heard at the time that Lindsey Buckingham was one of those who agreed, but only if he got to produce the entire album.  I believe Levine was on the short list, and eventually ended up with the whole gig.

But wasn't it Carl who actually ended up producing or "cleaning up" the final mixes and songs on those mid-to-late 70's albums where Brian was supposed to be running the show? I'm thinking the argument could have been made that since Carl was the one finishing off those albums (call it 'fixing' or production or post-production) after Brian did what he did for them, it was Carl's work that made the final results of those albums not as marketable. Maybe fans wanted to hear a pure Brian Wilson production warts and all at that time, and they didn't get that.

I'd also add that if the band either hoped or expected Brian Wilson from 1978-1981 to produce and write like "the good old days", they were delusional. And I have to think at some point the idea of new Beach Boys music and albums was sidelined in favor of the solo material fans got instead. Carl bailed for a time, Mike had his solo projects, Brian was in a very bad place, Dennis was into his own things...I think the only ones left were Al and Bruce as far as producing anything new. But marketable? That's not what fans got anyway, for the most part, at least until Levine and Melcher got involved and you started to hear new BB's tracks on the radio (and MTV).

I was wondering about this tonight on my walk when listening to some tracks from Love You. How much did Carl contribute in the final production of Love You and 15 Big Ones. I think it might have been trying to sweeten up the rough side of Brian's return. I am a fan of Brian's material during this time, but I also recognize why it wasn't popular. I find it hard how Holland pre-Sail On, Sailor was rejected but 15 Big Ones and Love You were accepted. I don't know if it was screw what the product actually is, as long as we can market a Brian Wilson production while the time is hot. I think Carl and Dennis went along with it because they loved Brian. Al was just there because Al was always there. I don't know what Mike felt during this time. 15 Big Ones seems like an album Mike would like; both he and Brian playing oldies again. I give credit to It's OK because it sounds the best like a classic Beach Boys song, classic as in All Summer Long grown up. It hides Brian's rough voice, it's quick, short, commercial, and features a good counter play of their voices. Brian's voice shouldn't be that prominent because it was so rough and sometimes it's weird to hear gruff Brian sing songs like Chapel of Love. I really wonder what was Brian's thought process during this time. He basically was being force to make music during this time and how much of what he contributed as incomplete or bizarre; as a possible passive aggressive way of manipulation. You're putting me back out here against my will so I'm just going to write, record whatever, and call it a day. Brian has given praise for Love You as his favorite Beach Boys album. Contemporary interviews indicate that Brian was really proud of these songs. So then why does Carl came in and contribute so much? Was it a last ditch effort to fix the raw Brian no one was expecting? I have no idea what Carl thought of Love You. Did he ever talk about that time/those songs? Mike referred to it in his autobiography something in the vain of that thing Brian did. Did the guys have a naive belief that putting Brian into a studio would generate big hits? A lot I don't know.
?

As much as I love Love You and have a deep affection for parts of 15 Big Ones, they were NOT commercial records by 1976-77 standards (aside from the two singles on Big Ones), and only really marketable as curiosity "come-back" albums - no matter what Carl did to them. If you listen to tracks like "Chapel Of Love", "That Same Song", "Back Home", "In The Still Of The Night", "Mona", "Solar System", "I Wanna Pick You Up", "Let's Put Our Hearts Together", "Love Is A Woman"...it's clear that the vocal performances and arrangements were NOT going to be appreciated, understood, or enjoyed by the great unwashed masses. No matter what Carl did to make them more presentable in the mix, the only way they would've had a chance at mass appeal would have been to be completely re-recorded in a style that fit in with what was getting played on the radio in those days.

Again, I'm quite fond of both, but that's 'cause I (like most of us here) "get it" - but Joe Average Record Buyer back then definitely did not, and would not. I think Mike and Al and the band's management were banking on the "Produced by Brian Wilson" tag being enough to ensure big hit albums, and Carl and Dennis were supportive enough of their big brother to let him go for it - but after the dismal sales and/or reviews (mostly dismal reviews for Big Ones, mostly dismal sales for Love You, but certainly some of both for both), both factions of the band  - and their new label - said "Enough is enough", and decided from that point on to only make albums with more "mainstream" appeal. Let's face it, these guys came up in the business having big hit records, and to a very large extent, that's how they (including Brian) measure success. Having a series of "bombs" tends to humble you, and especially with a new label to please, they couldn't afford to release product that they knew wouldn't stand a realistic chance of success.

We are all lucky that JWGuercio was so supportive of Carl and Dennis in those late 70s / early 80s years.

The band could have easily been scrap-heaped at that juncture, with no-one willing to support them unless and until they actually produced something commercial, which they never really did in that era.

Truth.

C-man hits it on the head. This was also another time that the BB's blew it big time with the general public. After the two-part article on Brian in Crawdaddy the expectations were high and once again they just blew it. I to have great affection for those two albums but they were not for the general public.

I also agree that c-man described it well, but I want to talk a little more about “That Same Song.” I know it’s been discussed previously on the board about Brian subconsciously sabotaging the record, or Stephen Moffitt’s engineering ruining the record, but this was one definitely could be better. I haven’t seen the full 1976 TV special, but I have seen the band and choir performing “That Same Song” and that clearly crushes the album version.

Several ironies and points to consider too. That tour where they were playing the "Love You" material mixed in with the 60's hits was a massive success, in fact isn't it one of their most successful tours on the books in the band's history? So the fans may have been "tolerating" the material, yet I don't think the new songs were getting booed or heckled at those shows. And I think part of the draw was that Brian was actually on stage with them, even though his participation varied show to show. But as they say in the business, the numbers don't lie - The band made a fortune touring behind that uncommercial album.

That leads to another point. As much as the hardcore fans know and appreciate what he did, I think Carl's strength was more in keeping the live show running and the band tight - respecting the music and ensuring it was presented in top form - rather than as a studio producer. If we're talking strictly commercial, were any of Carl's studio productions successful, or did any of them sell in any large numbers? That's what I was getting at in my previous comments, I think pointing at Brian's state at the time and his work is one thing, but Carl went in and touched up, finished in some cases, and "produced" a lot of that material. So maybe if it had been left alone and unfiltered, the curiosity factor may have driven sales no matter how bizarre some of it was. It's just hypothetical, of course.

As far as commercial viability, consider 1976 and 1977. It's not like the band didn't have a publicity blitz working in their favor. I don't think they'd see that level of widespread media attention for well over another decade. Look who came calling - Rolling Stone with a cover story, network television with full specials, Saturday Night Live with a solo spot for Brian, radio specials...all of those in the mid 70's were huge profile-boosting outlets. SNL especially, I've heard that Billy Joel chose to skip his high school reunion when SNL offered him a slot to perform because labels were literally battling each other to get their artists on that show during the Belushi era once they saw sales spike the week after an artist appeared.

But the albums and singles just didn't have the same juice as the live shows.

And the irony is that when the Boys consciously tried to present "commercial" albums in the late 70's and 80's, they bombed worse than the weird sh*t! I'm reminded of the famous Walter Yetnikoff quote after hearing a preview of the band's first offering for their new label, along the lines of "we've just been f***ed". So when the band did overtly try to go commercial, it laid a bigger egg.

Ironic too that something like "Good Vibrations" would come off as non-commercial even among some in the band yet it became an iconic #1 record. Same with Barbara Ann, again reminded of a Capitol exec telling Brian it won't work after getting a preview, and Brian walking out the door holding the record above his head and saying "this will be our next single" as he walked out the door - Brian was right. Another iconic hit that was thought to be uncommercial.

It's all what-if's and Monday-morning quarterbacking 44 years later, but points worth considering.

Just adding that the various labels the band was on throughout the 70's had conditions on the band and their contracts with these labels that Brian be involved in creating the music, so it wasn't just the band trying to get him visible on the credits to try to get more sales. The labels contractually demanded Brian's presence on what they were handing in as part of their contract, and that speaks volumes.

"I'm reminded of the famous Walter Yetnikoff quote after hearing a preview of the band's first offering for their new label, along the lines of "we've just been f***ed". So when the band did overtly try to go commercial, it laid a bigger egg."
According to Jerry Schilling, Walter said that quote in the summer of 1978 when the Beach Boys flew to New York to meet with CBS.  CBS was upset that they'd received nothing from The Beach Boys since they'd signed the previous year.  Schilling and the band walked in and sat down.  Walter leaned forward and said that famous line. It didn't have anything to do with LA session tapes.  According to Jerry, at that point, Brian came to the rescue of the meeting and said he had some definite ideas for the first CBS album and wanted to go to Criteria in Miami to record.  After the Criteria sessions, a tape was assembled for CBS that included California Feelin', Santa Ana Winds, Baby Blue, Love Surrounds Me, Good Timin', Brian's Back, Calendar Girl, Lookin' Down the Coast, Shortnin' Bread and a demo of I'm Beggin' You Please.  The label found it promising and with CBS Producer Bruce Johnston at the helm, recording continued.

That's according to Jerry, but the impression I got was that Yetnikoff said that infamous line after hearing demos or roughs of what the band had been working on, not because they didn't have anything. I've also heard Yetnikoff added a line about wanting the label's money back!  :lol

Here's what Ed Roach said, and maybe Ed can clarify further since he was there, though I'm sure he has already done that:


So that suggests the comment came after tapes were played.

The CBS contract reportedly included a requirement that Brian write or produce at least 80% of their recorded output - so in the end, they DID get "f**ked"! Warners didn't make such a specific demand, but they obviously wanted as much Brian as they could get - which was relatively little until the last three albums. 

Yes. How much was Brian involved in LA? One co-write - Good Timin'; and his version of Shortenin' Bread. If CBS signed the group in the belief that Brian was truly back, they did indeed get f----d.
KTSA has a bunch of Brian/Mike co-writes, but Brian didn't produce the album, and vocally, there's not much evidence of him being there. The only one of those Wilson/Love songs that really stands out is "Goin' On".

Even Shortenin' Bread doesn't sound like he was really involved, more like it was a recording loosely based on a Brian Wilson idea.

.

That lead guitar is what really destroys that version for me. Whoever thought it was a good idea to add this, it really wasn't.

Curt Becher spoke of how difficult it was to mix that track ("Shortenin' Bread") in an interview with BBFUN, published in 1980. He said there was just so much going on in that song. Not sure if his was the final mix or not, but obviously that one was a bit of a bear. Someone once said, "To mix is a bitch." Guess this track was proof of that!

Two points about Yetnikoff: I'm sure it's been hammered out before but I just can't dig up every reference. So there are two reports from two men who were present for these meetings, Ed Roach and Jerry Schilling. They seem to contradict each other as to when and where that famous Yetnikoff quote "we've just been f***ed" happened. Schilling says it was in New York, implying that he said this because the band had nothing to show, to which Brian spoke up and said he wanted to record at Criteria in Florida. Ed Roach says he was at Criteria when it happened, which contradicts Schilling's timeline.

So which is it and what exactly happened?

Second about Yetnikoff: An interesting point came out in an interview with Bruce from the late 70's. Bruce said Yetnikoff was open to the idea of the Beach Boys going in a more "disco" route anyway, if not encouraging it or hoping they'd do more in that style. So that corresponds with the recent discussions here about the Here Comes The Night disco remake. I mention all that because it does paint at least a partial picture of what the *label* thought would be commercial and had a good chance of selling more records at that time.

Again, as seems to be the case quite often, when the band did try to go that route and truly "go commercial", it bombed.

This may steer the topic slightly, but in regards to what Carl did to Love You is the “alternate versions” of tracks like the night was so young and let’s put our hearts together Brian’s original productions pre Carl or are they just different mixes?

.