Van Morrison is the one I just don't get.  Don't even like Astral Weeks.

The original line of thought was more about how various books, documentaries, interviews, etc. have created differing viewpoints as to what happened to Brian Wilson.

Different viewpoints but mainly one broad conclusion in practically every BW/BBbook I've ever read and that is that whichever way you slice it Brian was more sinned against than sinning.

I distinctly remember reading in a John Lennon Interview ................"I like rock and roll , I don't like much else"

Wasn't that the Jann Wenner 'Lennon Remembers' interview from 1970?  I think he said a lot of wild and sweeping stuff there that should be taken with a pinch of salt.

This thread's kind of all over the place (great reportage on that Beasties gig, Sir Rob),

Hmmm...I know I am a bit sorry about that. 

Glad you enjoyed my reminiscence though! 

I'd say The Beach Boys are better from a vocal point of view and probably just because they carry the weight of history as being who they are.  I think it's probable that you could get a bunch of musicians together to perform Beatles' songs and say 'they're a better band' than The Beatles.  And from a purely technical point of view there's every chance that could be true.  I think it's partly from this purely technical point of view that Brian is looking at it.  However, it's also true to say that session musicians played on Beach Boys records to an extent that was not true in The Beatles' case - they largely using other musicians for horns, strings etc rather than core group member instruments such as guitar, bass and drums (although I concede The Beach Boys played on more tracks than some might imagine).  Perhaps Brian looks at the musicians he has now and thinks that here is a self contained group that would have been capable of doing everything he wanted and in that sense they are superior to The Beach Boys.  I think he also sees their enthusiasm for Smile and laments the attitudes he came up against in the past.  He has even said something like "With this band I could have taken Smile on the road back in the sixties". 

That sounds like a completely different band than the Beastie Boys I saw. I saw them in '98 and they stopped the show two or three times to ask the crowd to take a few steps back because it was too crowded up front and they were affraid of people getting hurt.

Well, there you go!  The change from License To Ill to the sort of 'art rap' begun on Paul's Boutique was quite sudden wasn't it?  They left Liverpool changed men! 

I think they saw the monster they'd created on the UK tour of 1987 and the Liverpool gig in particular.

What happened there?

I did touch on this earlier.  It's funny to re-call the storm of controversy the Beastie Boys caused in UK during their tour of 1987 particularly as since then they've really retreated from mass public consciousness, despite the fact that their career has continued and they are still a popular group in hip music circles.  It wasn't quite up there with The Sex Pistols as a moral panic but it was that sort of thing.  There was a lot of sensationalistic tabloid and media coverage including, most notoriously, an accusation that the group had verbally abused a group of disabled people, an accusation which stuck despite the group's denials.  Anyway, by the time the Beasties reached Liverpool Royal Court (I have a feeling it was one of the last dates on the tour, maybe even the last but I'm not sure) they had become more a subject of public curiosity than a musical entertainment.  I'm pretty sure there was a lot of people there who had just turned up to see who these notorious Beastie Boys were and cause trouble (because that's what the group were all about, right?!)  I remember there was another 'white rap' support act on first who were roundly booed and abused by the hostile audience as bottles and other objects flew at the stage.  And this only increased when the headliners themselves made their appearance.  Things were being thrown at the group and I do remember them throwing things back.  Then after about ten minutes they just walked off stage.  I remember standing around waiting for them to come back on but it didn't happen.  Acts of vandalism were happening such as light fittings being ripped out and a chant of "You'll never take the Pool!" (referring to Liverpool).  Next thing there was a panicked stampede to the back of the auditorium which I was caught up in and I'm not entirely sure but my impression is that some kind of pepper spray or tear gas had been used by some security body, but whether it was the group's or the theatre's I'm not certain.  It seems a strange thing to happen, something that one would have thought would have been prosecuted, but I don't remember anything happening in that way.  Anyway, in the aftermath of all this Adam Horowitz (AdRock) was charged with criminal assault because he allegedly threw an object back into the audience which struck a young woman on the head and caused some kind of injury.  He was allowed out of the country but returned at a later date to stand trial, one in which he was found 'not guilty'.  The then owner of the theatre said he would never again book a rap act to appear at his venue, whether that is something that has been kept to down the years I'm not entirely sure.

As for the first album and it's "sexist" attitude, I wonder just how serious it really was.  Seems kinda toungue in cheek to me. 

It was. But unfortionately most people didn't seem to understand that. After the Beastie Boys saw the monster they created they distanced themselves from it.

I think they saw the monster they'd created on the UK tour of 1987 and the Liverpool gig in particular.

Awww, c'mon, that first album was fun! 

Fun, maybe. Good, no. Not nearly as good as what came after.

What Paul's Boutique?  I bought that and thought it dreadful.  I lost interest thereafter.

Paul's Boutique wasn't their first album -- Licensed to Ill was -- but it (P.B.) is their best. Easily. It's fodaing brilliant, one of the best hip hop albums ever. (Sorry, that little rant has nothing to do with Sean Lennon, whose music sucks. There. Now it does.)

Oh no, I knew PB was the second album - that's what I meant referring to Shelter's 'what came after' (after License to Ill).

What Paul's Boutique?  I bought that and thought it dreadful.  I lost interest thereafter.

My favorite Beastie Boys album is Ill Communication, followed by Check Your Head. Paul's Boutique is OK too... How can you not like Egg Man and Shake Your Rump?

It's a long long time ago now (vinyl era).  I dunno - I just didn't like the album and I switched off from the group and never came back to them.  You say the first album was dumb and sexist but it seems pretty innocent now in comparison to what's gone down since in rap music - just cartoonish juvenile hi-jinks.  As a twenty something in the moribund 1980s this, and the 'shock horror' media storm they managed to kick up in UK at the time, impressed me.

Awww, c'mon, that first album was fun! 

Fun, maybe. Good, no. Not nearly as good as what came after.

What Paul's Boutique?  I bought that and thought it dreadful.  I lost interest thereafter.

I saw The Beastie Boys once - the concert lasted 10 minutes and then exploded into pandemonium after missiles were hurled between the group and some members of the audience.  Which was a shame - we never got our money back.  And I was enjoying the go-go dancers in cages.

I don't like their early stuff and the attitude they had back then. I'm glad they've grown up and distanced themselves from that incredibly dumb, sexist first album.

Awww, c'mon, that first album was fun! 

I think if anything Sean's been HAMPERED by his celebrity offspring status.

In a way I can see that could be true but only if one assumes that SL would have got to the position of being able to release an album if he came from an ordinary background, all other things being equal.

Just because someone's got 'good taste' doesn't mean they're gonna make good records.  What's the difference between Sean Lennon and most of the rest of us?  He's the son of a rock music legend - his passport to mixing with the right people and making records.

Well, I happen to be a big fan of the Beach Boys, the Beatles and the Beastie Boys, so if the Beastie Boys release an album by the son of one of the Beatles who happens to be an obsessive Beach Boys fan, than I'm interested.

And the CD was just 5 euros. 

Yeah sure, I understand your interest.  I was just commenting on why one shouldn't be too surprised if said album turns out to be crap.

I saw The Beastie Boys once - the concert lasted 10 minutes and then exploded into pandemonium after missiles were hurled between the group and some members of the audience.  Which was a shame - we never got our money back.  And I was enjoying the go-go dancers in cages.

'Wonderful Land' by The Shadows - a wonderfully haunting and evocative piece of pre-Beatles UK guitar pop.  'Atlantis' by the same combo is superb also.  I can almost forgive them Cliff Richard.  Almost...

Has there ever been a legendary pop star's offspring - that is even a tenth as good as their famous parent…

The sons of the great Murray Wilson caused quite a stir back in the 60s...

What, you mean THE legendary Murry Wilson?! 

Sean Lennon has good taste in music.

I got Sean Lennon's first CD before I ever heard any of his music, just because I thought he had an excellent taste in music, because he's John Lennon's son, and because the Beastie Boys released it on their label. Based on that I figured it HAD to be good. Unfortionately it wasn't.

Just because someone's got 'good taste' doesn't mean they're gonna make good records.  What's the difference between Sean Lennon and most of the rest of us?  He's the son of a rock music legend - his passport to mixing with the right people and making records.

Has there ever been a legendary pop star's offspring - that is even a tenth as good as their famous parent - I don't think so.  Rock stars should be sterilised.

Actually, sorry, no they shouldn't - that would have eliminated Jeff Buckley! ( Although, somewhat tellingly, I don't think growing up as Tim Buckley's son carried quite the same pressures and expectations as being John Lennon's).

Maybe someone should set up a PayPal account for donations to Brian...

For reasons of obscenity I can't see PayPal allowing that one!

By the 1970s almost everyone you care to think of from the 1960s (not just BBs) started looking awful.  They even seemed to go physically uglier!

One or two years ago, Melinda posted on the Blueboard that they were thinking about buying a private jet for trips to Hawaii. So I guess he has ENOUGH.

Yes, folks - so don't have nightmares about Brian and where his next private jet's coming from!  I'm sure he's going to muddle through somehow.

I
If Brian called himself "The Beach Boys" he wouldnt' even have that.  He pretty much abandoned the BB's 20 years ago, Mike didn't. 

So selfless of Mike not to abandon the BB name and just tour as Mike Love.

Re-read what I posted, and pay attention to ALL of the words this time. 

Yeah, I've read what you posted again - (I read it all the first time).  And I think my point still stands.

I
If Brian called himself "The Beach Boys" he wouldnt' even have that.  He pretty much abandoned the BB's 20 years ago, Mike didn't. 

So selfless of Mike not to abandon the BB name and just tour as Mike Love.

I know someone who knows Daniel Craig's mum.  She's been saying he's been spending too much time up in his bedroom lately.

How much did that set you back?

Tix are $59.

$59!!!  That's just £31 in UK money.  London tickets - £85 (and that's just the official price - big chunk of them seem to be in the hands of scum charging £240 for first seven rows).

That's cool.  Shame about the picture quality though.