The Smiley Smile Message Board

Aside from the cheerleaders, the group fighting, and Carl's general lack of interest after Dennis died, I have one more theory on what helped to destroy the Beach Boys. This seems to not get talked about much. Starting in the 1980's, members of the backing band were allowed to sing complete songs, over "original" BB members. I know that Billy sang Sail On Sailor in the 1970's, but people like Adrian Baker were allowed to tour and sing lead on "Don't Worry Baby" on a nightly basis. It should be noted that while this went on, Carl was still actively touring. I'm thinking of the Japan TV broadcast from 1991, specifically. Why was Adrian Baker allowed to destroy "Don't Worry Baby", when Carl could have easily done it much better? I think that this may have increased Carl's lack of caring anymore, as far as The Beach Boys were concerned.

Al's and Carl's voices were changing by then and they could no longer handle the upper ranges as much. Wouldn't It Be Nice passed from Al to Carl to Matt Jardine as well. Al stopped singing lead/falsetto on Surfer Girl and his falsetto part on God Only Knows in the late 80's. Carl was being doubled on the high notes on Good Vibrations and had been splitting Dont Worry Baby but gave it up completely by  90. Although Carl's voice is weird, it was definitely changing by the mid -late 80's but then he seemed to sound better in the early 90's. Al just kind of lost range little by little, but his mid range voice is still spectacular today. I think it was an effort to help the overall sound and not strain their voices. I wished and wish still that Mike would give up some leads he can't handle as well. I can see what you mean though, when you pay to see your favorite group and singers, you want to see them sing the songs though instead of a back up band. It kills some of the excitement  a little.

Since we're on this topic, here's a video I came across last night.  Its from earlier this year, a Brian and Al performance of Sloop John B.  Its rather touching to hear the intro to the song, sung by the original two guys who sang it on the studio recording:


http://youtube.com/watch?v=RFeaKK1o1Qs

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of what might have been going through Carl's head as he watched Adrian Baker sing "Don't Worry Baby". I know that Carl's voice changed a little from the 80's to the 90's, but I just think that he shouldn't have given up so easily. If Carl couldn't sing DWB in it's original faster tempo, they could have done it in the tempo that they did for the In Concert album from 1973. It would have given him a little more time to transition from normal voice to falsetto. I just think that "giving the songs away" to people like Billy, Adrian Baker, Bobby Figuroa, and Matt Jardine was kind of a cop out. I can understand having to rely on people like Matt for some insanely high notes like the "Jai Guru Dev" ending to "All This Is That", but not for complete songs.

Jay I have to agree with you. It was not interesting to hear non Beach Boys do leads. At the show now I understand because it isn't our Beach Boys, but when Carl was there it shouldn't have been going on so frequently.

Even being a BB fan who still hasn't accepted Blondie singing the lead on "Sail On Sailor", I don't think backing musicians singing leads in concert was much of a detriment to the band's popularity.

First, only a diehard (which is about 1%) would really care - or even notice. Only about 1 out of a 100 in the audience would feel cheated by it; as long as they got their fill of the surf and turf classics, they were happy.

Second, I've been to concerts with all of those backing musicians you mentioned, and I have to say, including Adrian Baker, they did a pretty good job on those leads. I recall Mike Love acknowledging them and they would receive a nice round of applause.

I always felt the practice was done to give the Carl and Al a break (and maybe to change things up), although, keeping in mind the average Beach Boys' concert lasted less than two hours, you wonder why they would need one.

Even though I knew it wasn't going to change, I always had more problems when Brian was present, and they had to give away HIS parts to others. Again, I knew why, but it was frustrating when he wouldn't sing, say, the last verse to Sloop John B. Carl would take over, singing "poor cook he caught the fits. Threw away all my grits". I'd say to myself, come on Brian, can't you handle a simple line like that.

It's interesting to think about this in a day and age where people are starting to argue that Brian should let his band members sing lead on some songs.

I would like to see them do a couple of Wondermints songs.

Why not?  These guys have given a big chunk of their career backing up Brian Wilson.  I don't think it would be horning in on Brian at this point but a natural progression for the Brian Wilson Band.

My biggest disappointment in seeing the Beach Boys was the night I went to see them and Carl Wilson wasn't there.

It caught me off guard.  Like going to see the Beatles with John or Paul missing.

Carl was off doing his solo project.  On the other hand, a 300 plus pound Brian in stretch pants was there looking much like he did on SNL.

I believe Jay was talking about the sidemen taking leads as a problem within the band, not in reference to what fans thought. I disagree, though--I'm sure that if any of the BBs wanted to take and were capable of taking a song that Baker or anyone else sang, he'd have been allowed to do it. Remember who's on the board of directors and who's a temporary, contract employee.

As for the fans' perspective, though, I doubt it mattered to much of anyone who isn't of the sort to post at places like this. For casual fans, the songs are the stars, and they'd be almost as happy to hear them in karaoke bars, on American Idol, by pro cover bands or by the likes of Billy Hinsche, Adrian Baker or anyone else. The Beach Boys weren't nearly the sort of personality/star-driven band to casual fans the way the Beatles were. Virtually anyone can name John, Paul, George and Ringo. Many people could identify them on sight. But if you showed pictures of the Beach Boys circa 1980 intermingled with random people to casual fans, I'd guess the only one people would recognize is Mike Love.

To conclude this typically lutherian long-winded post a bit more succinctly: I doubt it mattered much to anyone, inside or outside of the band.

Dennis would be recognized as a Beach Boy to many, even if they didn't know which one.

I always had the impression that the band respected and treated the side men well.  They were always recognizing and mentioning, for example, even on record, Mike Meros or Ed Carter.    I saw Billy do Wipe Out once and the Crowd went wild.  Carl and Mike enjoyed the applause as much as Billy, it seemed.  (my memory says Billy, pretty sure thats who it was).  The band had fill ins and session players almost from the get-go, starting with Glen Campbell.
Not to mention the Al, then Dave, then Al switcheroo.

I heard that the Beach Boys died in a car wreck in November of 1966. They were all replaced by imposters and left hints in their following albums. If you look at the cover of Friends, hold it up side down to a mirror, then bang your head against a wall while stoned, you will find a message saying the Beach Boys are dead.

I've lost it.

[quote author=Luther link=topic=5121.msg82440#msg82440 date=1203711010

To conclude this typically lutherian long-winded post a bit more succinctly: I doubt it mattered much to anyone, inside or outside of the band.
[/quote] That's exactly the point that I'm trying to make in this thread. It's the fact that The Beach Boys themselves didn't care enough, that bugs me. When I watch the 1991 Japanese broadcast, it bugs me to see Carl just standing there smiling, not seeming to care that HE is the one who should be singing Don't Worry Baby. It's not about members of the BB's backing band singing lead. It's the fact that Carl, Al, Bruce and Mike didn't care enough to stop it from happening. I think THAT hurt the group more, as a whole.

Don't Worry Baby is Brian's song. Adrian singing it is just as legitimate as Carl, if not more so, because with Adrian singing lead Carl sings his original background part.

I think it is just because all bands have seasons.

There is truth in that, I guess what get's me frusterated is something like the fall 1993 tour that shows that they COULD still be a great band. It's just very rare that they were all that engaged by then.

Speaking of that not counting the 1993 shows what does everyone think of as the last great tour?

Would it be 12-73 which were the last shows with Dennis in great voice, Blondie still present, and more newer songs then old?

Maybe Ricky's last tour in November 1974?

Would it be the 75 Chicago team up?

Perhaps it would be the summer of the 1976 which was the last time Dennis played consistently sober.

Maybe you can even stretch to the intiall shows in 1982 where Carl came back.



I vote for

Ehhh...you're vote got cut out!

What ever year...you had to be there...and I was

A side note.. I saw them in 73 on a bill with Linda Ronstant..and Loggins and Messina..and when they were introduced.. they said Carl Wilson and Al Jardine were playing

I agree whole-heartedly. It didn't matter that Adrian sang a lead because that band wasn't anything more than a collection of feel-good oldies that those audience members could hear and sing along to. Their time of being vital and creative was long gone. Do you go to a Count Basie Band concert today (yes, they still exist) and complain who takes the long-since deceased Basie's would-be piano solos?  No, if you go, it's because that music has established itself within you to the point that you think it would be a good concert experience. Most of the Beach Boys may have been alive in the 80s, but it didn't matter to the casual fan anyway. Foskett, Baker, Wilson or Jardine--all the same, just so long as it was a chance to wear ugly Hawaiian shirts and sing along to songs they knew. The almost pure nostalgia of MIU on--or certainly KTSA on--ends one aspect of the band and begins another. There was nothing left to kill of the band by the instance you're (Jay) referring to. That's why it didn't matter. It might be unseemly to kick a corpse, but the corpse won't feel it.

Right on!!

That's one of the greatest lines I've ever read.  :-D

1980. They still cared for their music and didn't include surf and car medleys. Played some new songs and some rare too.

Custer..would say so

Maybe I'm ignorant or getting sentimental again, but I don't think the band was EVER "killed" or dead. Yes, they had their rough spots, but then they would recover and show some spark.

They were good in 1975-76, bad in 1977-78. Recovered in 1979-80, were disasterous (when Carl left) in 1981-82. They cleaned up their act when Carl returned, then coasted.
There were some highlights in the late 80's and early 90's.

I viewed the additions of Foskett, Baker, M. Jardine, etc. as necessary because they needed someone to sing Brian's part, so they could sing their original parts. It was as simple as that. I don't think it was copping out.

Off the top of my head, I can think of moments when they sounded quite good. The 1976 NBC-TV special (I'm seeing Dennis pounding on "Sloop John B"), the 1979 Midnight Special, of course 1980's Knebworth (that concert rocked), the above referred Japan concert wasn't that bad, and we have those early 90's acoustic sets.

Were there times when they simply showed up and put in their time? Absolutely. But I believe that was more obvious because of their lack of a stage "show". Groups like Kiss and others could have an off night, but the theatrics would pull them through and you'd never know it. When Mike (and others?) tried to infuse something into the show, he was criticized for it.

You might not have always liked the Beach Boys' "band", but I don't think they were ever killed. :police:

I'm just reading the book "Frank Zappa: The Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play," by Ben Watson. (I know, only 15 years after it was published...I'm quick on these things; and don't worry, I'll get to the relevant point shortly.) He has a line in the book--about the break-up of the Mothers of Invention in 1969 that goes along the lines of what I was thinking earlier about the Beach Boys' non-break-up. That line is:

"Those who proclaim Zappa 'finished' after that are asking for something no professional musician can deliver: the long-term perpetuation of a historical moment." Watson says Zappa moved on, for better or worse, "Rather than circulating a fraudulent husk in the usual manner..." (Watson, p.67)

Bring the cheerleaders to the stage, boys, it's time for their big number!

I think that a band calling it quits can be similar to an athlete retiring. There are some that are still and their prime and decide to call it quits. The fans are upset because he could've given several more quality seasons. Then there are those who quit at the right time.

But there are also those who refuse to quit. They were once superstars, but now they are simply has been roll players on the team. The fans think he should've given it up long ago.

Still the fans can increase and turn out for concerts and buy albums by the hundreds of thousands each new year all to get a taste of that long past season.

Sorry I think the last great tour was in 1975.

I guess that's what I'm saying. It's just annoying to see the band being "lazy" and using their backing band more often, when they could have still been a very good band if they had only tried hard enough. Think about their studio work too. Still A Mystery is a great song, but  group infighting made them eventually take the "easy way out" by doing the Stars and Stripes album as their new "product".

Good topic.
The discussion about the voices. Must have been very difficult handing on those parts in concert to others because group members no longer had the range, however all the albums released during this time (aside from Stars and Stripes) had moments where those 40-50 year old voices just sounded right. Poor songs/ production for sure but some of those leads made bad tunes better.
One of my rediscovered favorites is 'I'm So Lonely' from 1985. The shared  Brian/ Carl lead (rough with the smooth) makes good listening IMO.

That's an interesting analogy. I don't know who said it first but I have heard some athletes say "well I would rather people say to me 'Why did you retire?' as opposed to 'Why didn't you retire?'"

And I think that is true. If the Beach Boys had just split up after Holland in 1973 or something and gone their own ways maybe they would be taken more seriously? As it stands now, we are left with things like Here Comes The Night disco version, TM Song/most of 15 Big Ones, the M.I.U. album and of course most of the band's latter-day output such as Kokomo, the Summer In Paradise album etc.. And of course there are some people who like that stuff but seriously it's NOWHERE near the Beach Boys we all knew and loved in the 60's-early 70's. And I'm not saying it was all bad stuff around that time, there were still a few great moments but nothing in terms of consistency.

mikeyj that's my thoughts exactly. The Beatles did the right thing by breaking up when they did, and the Beach Boys would have just as clean of a reputation creatively if they had known when to quit too.

I wonder if there never was an Endless Summer, or a comercial revival of their oldies in the mid 70s, if they would've stayed together. It seems that after recording Holland in 72, they lost creative focus. This was nearly 2 years before Endless Summer!

If so, I think that Brian would've still made a come back in 1976, but as a solo artist. Perhaps Dennis would've finished POB sooner and completed one or two more albums. Carl may have produced other bands and done a few solo albums. Al Jardine may have attempted a solo career as a folk artist. Mike would get involved in oldie reunion type shows.

Who knows? We may have still gotten some of the music of Love You, LA Light, etc but in different settings.

I like this script much better then reality!

You guys are forgetting that as artistically damaging Endless Summer and Kokomo were, they're what kept the Beach Boys in the public conciousness. The Beatles stopped recording in 1970 or so, but they were still super-popular up until that point. If the Beach Boys had stopped recording in 1972, they would've had far less fans in 2008, even casual fans.

Imagine all those incredible concerts missed....1974, 75, 76,80 ,93. I guarantee the band would have reunited many times for reunion tours too! Don't think they would just say separated like the Beatles. There is no doubt in my mind that none of them would have been very successful solo and so they would have reunited to sing the oldies on more than 1 occassion!

It would be hard to convince a Beach Boy in his early thirties or late twenties to suddenly adjust to middle class life, just because the band's legacy would be tarnished by the records that came after Holland.

They'd probably tell us to take a hike.  :-D

I guess that's what I'm saying. It's just annoying to see the band being "lazy" and using their backing band more often, when they could have still been a very good band if they had only tried hard enough. Think about their studio work too. Still A Mystery is a great song, but  group infighting made them eventually take the "easy way out" by doing the Stars and Stripes album as their new "product".
[/quote]

I don't think it's fair to say they did use their backup band any more than they had in the 20-25 years previous, with the exception of the aforementioned leads. They'd almost always relied very heavily on non-band musicians to perform the music from the late 60s onward.

And I don't think it's a matter of laziness. They were under no obligation to anyone to work their asses off and be a great band anymore, and even if they had worked their asses off with some united musical goal in front of them, odds are it would not have been as commercially successful as what they were doing: touring the oldies. Nobody had cared for years. All they were doing was continuing to make their livelihood on music that people clearly preferred to hear.

Playing music is unusual in that it serves two functions: a creative outlet, but also a livelihood. The font of the former fades, but the latter remains a necessity. So their hearts weren't in it every day or night? (So what? You should've seen me at work today!)

So their hearts weren't in it every day or night? (So what? You should've seen me at work today!)

 :lol

Will remember that line. Good one.

I think death killed the group.

death.....and lawyers....

Carly

Entirely natural changes over time. Death, sure, but fashions changing, minds changing, people growing up and apart, musical tastes wandering or diminishing, money, different goals. It's all complicated, but when taken together it's all very simple: time happened, and that killed the band.

Losing Blondie and Ricky, and losing Jack Reiley as their manager, along with the hiring of Steve Love seemed to me to have tipped the scales in Mike Love's favor. Love basically controlled the set lists from 75/76 on, and that pretty much tarnished their reputation among the "serious" music fans.

They were just giving the people what they wanted. Not you or me, but "the people". It is as simple as that.

And it was the "people" who pur "Kokomo" at #1 and Sunflower at #151.

...and that's why it's called Popular Music. :)

Yep...more often than not, the "people" wouldn't know good music if it hit them upside the head.

Exactly. To me it's a matter of balance. Sure you should throw in ten "hits" to please the crowd, but the rest should be about what you are at that time. Dylan's managed this for years and he still draws. The Box Set or orchestrated shows prove that Mike can do this too-with success. It's a matter of caring and by the 80's the Beach Boys on the whole simply didn't.

I think if you take a close look at the set lists in the 1970's, you would be surprised at how many of their "current" album tracks that they performed. With the exception of MIU, I think they peformed a good 4-5 songs from their current album at that time.

There is one major difference between Bob Dylan and The Beach Boys performing songs that reflect "what you are at that time". Dylan's songs were of very high quality and The Beach Boys' songs weren't. And I think they both knew that.

Your point about the boxed set...This goes back to giving the people what they want. If a survey was done for the purpose of seeing which sides of the boxed set were played the most, you would probably see a very high percentage for Sides 1 and 2, with a sharp decline for Sides 3, 4, and 5. And they knew that too.

And, again, the group did NOT give up, at least live. Maybe they were creatively bankrupt in the studio, but as a live act, they were doing just fine thank you. Just ask the millions and millions of people who saw them and walked away happy. I'd give anything today to see a live Beach Boys concert from any of those years from 1976-1997.

I think the moment Litttle Decue Coup was added back in 1974 was the moment the decline started, but I know the setlists pretty well and through 1980 I see an effort being made. Sure you can argue that the new stuff was few and far between after that, but they had a rich catalog that could have been utilized better.

When I brought Dylan up I didn't just mean his current work. He gives his old songs new life, changing the beat, phrasing, even the words to reflect where he is at on any given tour. It can be hit and miss but sometimes the results are amazing. For instance I like those updated lyrics and melodies on the Le'id In Hawaii project.

They may have knew which were most popular, but that's not the point. The point is that a blend of popular and obscure is the best route to take. That tour proved it. Afterall if they had kept playing a wide range of songs, a lot of the other tunes would have caught on over time with those who often went to see them.

Sure they were sucessful as a live band, but that doesn't mean they weren't coasting. Now that's he's gone of coure it would be great to see Carl, but there was a huge difference between what the group did over those years quality wise. A 1976 show would blow away a 1996 show anyday.

I still think those years with he cheerleaders, guesting on Full House, with Bruce in short shorts hurt their legacy. They didn't have to, but they went down the wrong path.

Of course, as you know, those above things you refer to have nothing to do with the vitality of the live band/shows and everything with the image they were trying to portray off-stage (except for the cheerleaders which I consider harmless).

What I do find interesting which is related to this topic is....when Carl passed away, the praise he received as the "leader of the band" was unanimous. There wasn't one iota of criticism, still isn't. It was always mentioned how he (and these are my words) "whipped the band into shape and paid attention to every detail". Yet, now, the live band is being criticized consistently - in the time frame when Carl really asserted himself as that leader - for, basically coasting. I wonder what Carl would think about that?

He was coasting, too. They all were.

And just because Carl went along with things doesn't mean he necessarily agreed.  It was just easier to keep quiet and keep racking in the cash.

I asked Marilyn about this when Carl was alive. She said there's a point where you want to keep the peace. Carl did that through the years to the point where the was no break up. Yet I find no evidence that he tried all that hard after Dennis' death to make the Beach Boys vital and exciting. Professional perhaps, but not creative. From how open he was in 1981-83 about how he felt the band was letting him down before he quit, I don't think he would disagree with me from a creative standpoint. He hired professionals and got them to play with skill, but the real vitality was missing. He did maybe continue for the money, but I do think he equally was their because he loved making people happy. That the Beach Boys continued to do. Having said that, it doesn't mean they were using the full extent of their creativity.

you're missing the note...Brian Wilson wrote those songs that we all love...not Carl.. not Mike etc..they were  just trying to hang on

Speaking only for myself, Brian may have written much of many of the Beach Boys songs I love, but Mike co-wrote quite a few, as did Al, Carl and Dennis. And Ricky. And Blondie. (With all due respect, not Bruce. I dislike most of his songs, to say nothing of his sickly-sweet production.) I can't get behind the "Brian's the genius and everyone else just got lucky to land behind him to ride the wave," David Leaf-style stuff.

Could it be that having their own efforts being ignored made them lose their confidence in their own talents?

Could be....but I think they knew when Brian was finished..they were f....d

to me the group killed themselves. don't need to look at someone or something else to blame. they just blew it just about all the time. every time they had momentum they make a silly decision to kill that momentum. business decisions/album decisions/live show decisions..they made very poor choices.

i just think they deserved the biggest part of the blame. they did themselves in...... time after time after time.....

I may be looking at this in a much too simplistic manner, but I think they should've kept Blondie and Ricky in the band and kept going in the direction they took on CATP and Holland. I blame Endless Summer and Murray's death as what kicked off their downhill plunge.

Alright first of all, a lotta people like to rag on the MIU Album, and I know it's all a matter of opinion but it really is a pretty decent album considering that it was recorded in a climate of a lotta hostility. They did great covers of Come Go with Me and Peggy Sue, Kona Coast is a great re-worked version of Hawaii, Pitter Patter is fucking awesome and Sweet Sunday Kinda Love is a beautiful song. The reason I bring up this album here is because the points I just made about those particular songs shows that the Beach Boys were still producing great music through 1977. Yeah that album came out in '78 but it was actually recorded a year prior to its release.
So yeah they had a lotta  their backing musicians sing leads on songs, and yeah it's because sh*t got to a point to where someone that sung the song originally couldn't anymore cuz of whatever reason but I don't see why that would even matter. I also see a lotta responses on here from people saying "what if the Beach Boys broke up after the Holland album etc." well what the f*** do you think would have happened? Doesn't it even matter? The fact is that they didn't, they kept putting out albums and they kept making great music. There's so much that the Beach Boys did in a such a short period of time to create that spirit of music that will exist eternally. Even if Americans in the late 60s were fucking stupid and cared more about hippie bullshit than the Beach Boys, people in the UK were buying 'em like crazy, so there were still heavily appreciated during that time just not in the US, but everyone was so f***ed up on LSD at the time that they wanted excessive hogwash to expand their trip rather than well articulated rock n' roll. Why do you think the Beatles were still big? It's not cuz their were making great music, it's cuz they were making bogus hippie garbage and people ate it up. The last great Beatles album was Rubber Soul and everyone fucking knows it! The Beatles were over in '69, that's when they did their last recordings as a group, and it's when they played their last concert as well. And it's a goshdarn good thing they broke up, they should have years earlier. I also noticed a lotta people like to talk sh*t about Mike Love and that's a given; Mike Love is an egotistical wort on the face of the Beach Boys existence but was also very important at the same time, he had the voice, he was the MC, and he did contribute a lotta lyrics that shouldn't be overlooked. I despise Mike Love for the fact that he along with Bruce think it's perfectly find to refer to themselves as the Beach Boys when it's just them with a backing band, and he litigates with Al over the use of the name when Al was calling it "Family & Friends" and he still litigates with Brian when Brian is the reason that Mike is where he is altogether.  Dennis and Carl are resting in peace but the Beach Boys are not fucking dead at all! The spirit they evoked will aways live on. And let me add that all this rambling is coming from a 22-year old that has been a Beach Boys fanatic since first grade.

 :lol

 

 They were on their death bed when certain members could not stand to be in the same room or on the same stage together. That could put it back to the early 60s.
The Beach Boys were a lot like the characters in the movie 'Galaxy Quest' IMO. Trapped in a well paying gig.
If I had received a good pay-check and 'benefits' from my mid-teens, who would, or could, give it up?

"Why do you think the Beatles were still big? It's not cuz their were making great music, it's cuz they were making bogus hippie garbage and people ate it up. The last great Beatles album was Rubber Soul and everyone fodaing knows it!"

That's gotta be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written in my life.

The Beatles remained big because that "bogus hippie garbage" (which was neither bogus nor garbage)) still retained much of the musical values of classic pop tunesmithship. And their band was united as a creative force up until the White Album. The BB starting with SMiLE weren't.  That started the cycle of triumph followed by crappy decisions that would plague the group for the res of their career.

Rob "Sgt. Pepper IS a great album" McCabe

I have a question about band decisions, but I'm not sure where to put it. I guess in this topic is ok. My question is: right before Carl died, did he make any decisions to resign "leadership" to Mike? I'm just curios what he would think of all the legal sh*t between Al and Mike. Carl spent most of his life fighting for peace in the band, but it seems that the sh*t hit the fan the day that he died.

I think another thing why carl started to loose interest is because they played no new songs live they played the same thing over and over again. Rather than focusing or playing their current album the surf and beach image they never got rid of and most ppl think of the beach boys as that.

"Everyone" knows it huh? And Revolver is crap now is it? But MIU is decent? No further questions, your honour.
Get a clue.

Geez, take it easy on young grasshopper.

I really doubt Carl had a problem with the setlists; I believe his problem was with practicing enough the setlists they had.

Revolver has it's moments, and the following albums do as well. I'm just saying that the Beatles got to a point where their music was excessive and didn't have the freshness that it once had. The Beach Boys on the other hand in the late 60s kept making great albums whether they were commercially successful or not. I mean think about it, in 1968 the Beatles put out the 'White Album' which some consider a masterpiece, the Beach Boys put out 'Friends', great album but a flop, in 1969 the Beatles put out 'Abbey Road', the Beach Boys did '20/20'; Even though the Beach Boys grew their hair like (like everyone did) they never gave into the excessiveness of the era. And it would have been a terrible thing if the Beach Boys broke up at that time because the world wouldn't have seen the possibilities of what they produced. 

I don't know? Maybe like I suggested before... that they would be more highly praised in terms of their artistic achievements. That was my whole point when I said "if they Beach Boys broke up after Holland"... if they hadn't released stuff like M.I.U. Album through till SIP as well as 15 Big Ones, then perhaps they would be more well respected. Surely you can see that MOST of the songs on these albums did nothing but tarnish the Beach Boys good reputation? Okay, sure you like M.I.U. Album and I don't think it's all bad either. It has nice moments as well as some awful ones but the reason you and I most likely give it a chance is that we are FANS of the Beach Boys. Honestly, most people would NOT like stuff like She's Got Rhythm or Pitter Patter or whatever. Honestly, considering most people wouldn't even 'get' the B-side of Today! which is some of the best pop songs you'll ever hear, I doubt people would buy into the crap on 15 Big Ones, M.I.U. etc.. Like I say I'm not saying they still weren't a good band and still had some decent ideas, but they just weren't as creative as they once were and also weren't as commercial as they once were.

Actually with the exception of 20/20 all of the albums the Beach Boys did between 67-71 were very much group efforts and that includes Brian. Steve Desper had writen extensively on this, and Brian also told me it was a great era for them as far as working together as a unit.

From what I've heard, their seemed to be a last tight nitched effort for Holland as well. Although, Dennis and Brian were not entirely into it, they were still included. Carl and the Passions has a lot of good songs, but, like 20/20, they don't come together in the album well.

LALA, I guess you could say, gave one more album that seemed to fit together well and included everyone's creative efforts. Although, it was not an accurate potrayal of the band at the time.

I actually agree with most every thing you said, except one thing... they sure as hell did fall victim to the era's excessiveness. Two Words. Charles. Manson.

Carl and the Passions was kind of a series of solo works where Brian did his songs, Dennis did his, the Flame did theirs, and Mike and Al did theirs. Bruce wasn't involved much, and Carl kind of oversaw the whole thing. The difference on it is that there was little interaction. I mean Brian helped write He Come Down, but things like that where rare. Perhaps it's the Beach Boys white album. Why did it happen like this? Well Desper was gone, the group was changing it's lineup, Brian was more into Spring and begining to abuse cocaine, Dennis had hurt his hand etc.

Holland was more of a group thing save for Brian and Dennis. Though the work he did was good, Brian was starting to put on weight and miss more and more sessions,. He had said in 1976 that he had a second breakdown there and his drug use was on the rise. Dennis for his part felt Brian was not being treated well. Dennis seemed not to like being there period to the point where Carl had to sing his songs.

L.A. Light is kind of a return to democracy, but Brian was in such bad shape that he did next to nothing for it.  The others seemed to work fairly hard on it except it was back to a Carl and The Passions situation where it was more like solo work. Dennis did help with Lady Lynda, and there were other exceptions but it was hardly the strong interaction between everyone that had been commonplace a decade earlier.

In a way 15 Big Ones was the last group album. Not in the songwriting department, but kind of like the pre Pet Sounds albums where everyone worked together on the tracks. The sessions were very tense which is probably why they never worked quite as close again.

I've heard this before on this board, that somehow the Beatles were bogus druggie hippie trend-hoppers, as opposed to the genuine Beach Boys and their solid middle-class ways. It would certainly be true if the BB were Bruce, Bruce, Bruce and Bruce. Other than Bruce, everything I've read would indicate that the Beach Boys were all into rock'n'roll and the lifestyle of a rock'n'roller. Kind of like the Beatles, in other words.

You can maybe just about compare the BB to the Doors in this way, but with the Beatles, I just don't get this point at all, I just don't see them as being pretentious. Brian and people like Ringo apparently hung out at the same parties sometimes according to the "autobiography". So who were the poseurs?

Lack of freshness - well, "Leaving This Town" isn't really like "Catch a Wave" is it... ?

Know what killed The Beach Boys? Time. How many bands from the early 60s can you name that are still going strong with all the original members?

It certainly takes some balls to be this blunt, but ya gotta give this kid some props! :lol

I agree with a lot that he said too...

I don't agree at all, but I'm willing to leave it at that. I'm not actually a massive fan of Abbey Road - too much McCartney and McCartney-sounding Harrison to me. That could be construed as stale, but Revolver is fresh as a daisy. Only Good Day Sunshine (and to a lesser extent Doctor Robert) are even vaguely bum tracksto my ears. If they'd replaced them with Paperback Writer and Rain...wow!

Abbey Road is ok but I don't like it as much as what went before. It's too cute for it's own good and has much more of a 70's soft rock vibe to it. Lennon's stuff on it is nice, and Oh Darlin isn't bad. I like George's songs on Let It Be better.

"For You Blue" and "I Me Mine" over "Something" and "Here Comes the Sun"?  I expect you'll catch as much flack over this opinion as I do when I try to convince people MIU is a great album!   :lol

Here Comes The Sun and Something are a little middle of the road for my taste. Nice melodies but I like something that moves. I think For You Blue is very funky and cool, I Me Mine just is different and catchy. George and the Beatles never did another song quite like it except for perhaps Try Some Buy Some.

While both Abbey Road Harrisongs are technically superior, I'd rather listen to I. Me. Mine.
"70s soft-rock" is a good term for Abbey Road. Except for the Lennon songs, it's pretty MOR.

I dunno, I sorta agree with you guys on all this, but I kinda think of Billy, Ed, Bobby, Carly as a part of the Beach Boys and not just "non beach Boys".... They where with those guys so long that they really were all A BAND and not just the Beach Boys and some other guys.

I think what killed the group is the moment that Brian decided to stay home and not tour. No knock against Brian for that, but it caused a splintering that few bands have ever had to deal with, both in a personal sense and public-image-wise. From then on it was "Brian Wilson and the other guys who did/sang everything he told them to". Add to that the myth that the wrecking crew played on everything and you're looking at a recipe for disaster. Nothing the other BBs ever did was treated fairly unless Brian was the mastermind, and everything Brian did was measured up against Pet Sounds/Good Vibrations anway, so how could they ever win? The Beach Boys really didn't ever deal with any problems other famous bands haven't, but those bands have mostly presented a much more unified front, and a more of an us-against-them image that the BBs had no hope in really putting up..... This is something of a simplification, I admit, but I honestly believe the base idea of what I'm saying.

I get what you're saying, but I almost completely disagree with you.  Brian's decision to quit the road directly led to the most artistic period in their history, really the only period during which they were taken seriously as a creative musical entity.  Keep in mind that the "Brian and his puppets" notion helped make the band more interesting (especially over in the UK).  And during that period, that idea had a lot of truth to it...they weren't exactly Brian's puppets, but Brian was in complete creative control during that time, and the main contributions the boys made were vocal.  Yes, their role is often understated, but it is hard to deny that at least the first few years of Brian's retirement from the road were exremely fruitful for the group artistically, and that Brian should receive 90% of the credit for that.

I just don't see how a decision that led to such a prolific (if not short lived) period of artistic growth can be seen as something that "killed" the group.  If anything killed the group as a creative entity, it was Endless Summer, along with Brian's descent into mental illness and drug addiction.

What killed the group? Tell that to this crowd at the Mike and Bruce show last weekend. :lol



http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Site=LL&Date=20080331&Category=PHOTOS&ArtNo=331005&Ref=PH&Params=Itemnr=4


Seniors Day maybe?

I think the moment people started writing anti Mike things in the late seventies was a big hinderence. Once he got on the defensive it made him a lot harder to work with then before.

I think this is a case of both points being correct. I only mean what I said in the sense that it splintered the group in ways that other bands didn't have to deal with, thus making the normal pressures and BS harder to navigate.... For example, The Who all had problems with Townsend, grumbled and griped (to an extent) about Tommy and other things, but they were still THE WHO!!!! Meaning they were still four guys against the world and presented a strong unified front for their fans and public. I mean, how many arguments do you ever overhear about how worthless any member of the Who is in comparison to Townsend? Ok, Same with the Stones. For all their problems, they're always The Stones! Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman, Ron Wood all get treated fairly and with respect with no one slamming them for this or that, and these guys can't claim a fraction of the creative input that ALL the Beach Boys have shared. Even Mike. So, I stand by my original point but have to throw in lazy rock writers, Jan Wenner, David Leaf, and others for helping create so much of the BBs bulls#@!