Ugh! These kinds of Frankenstein creations have become all the rage and, at least in the case of Elvis Presley, they sell reasonably well. I can't imagine anyone wanting to listen to a Beach Boys release like this but I'm continually proven wrong. 

Back in the 70's Billy Joel spent a tour or two opening up for the Boys (as did Springsteen.) When Carl passed he some very kind things to say about him (to the tune of, whenever Carl Wilson was around, he always made sure you were treated first class, opening act or not) and dedicated "Only The Good Die Young" to him in concert at his first show after Carl's death.

Yes, which leads me to believe that Billy may have had a bad experience with The Beach Boys in the 70's and that's why he slammed them later on, or it was just macho posturing....

One of the more bizarre public meltdowns at an awards show I've ever seen.

At the time I was in the full flush of videotaping anything and everything about The Beach Boys from TV. I still have this stuff on VHS. Mike's speech got coverage from Entertainment Tonight (who also showed Dylan's retort) but shared space with the story of McCartney's no-show which, at the time, was the main story leading up to the HOF show. Mike's wackadoodle speech made Macca's diss a much smaller public spectacle after the fact. VH1 ran some highlights from the night superimposed on top of the beginnings of music videos from the inductees. When they played a Beach Boys video ("California Dreaming'" if I'm not mistaken) they just showed a clip of Brian's speech. They did the same later in the year at the beginning of the Kokomo video (it could've have been lost on them that Brian wasn't on the record). 

Mike's inflammatory speech got more attention in the printed press. In one of the news accounts, Brian is said to have asked a reporter "Do we still have a career?" after Mike's meltdown.

No one talks about it now but I certainly remember there being a lot of noise about how the Beach Boys should not even be mentioned in the same breath as The Beatles and Bob Dylan leading up to the ceremony. Remember at this time Pet Sounds wasn't available on CD yet and the cult of Brian Wilson was just start beginning to seep into youth consciousness (and it was mainly focused on cassettes of "Smile" bootlegs). While I had been a Beach Boys fan as early as the Endless Summer compilation (I was 5), I didn't become a full-on Brian Wilson fanatic until July of 1988 and back then I felt like an outsider or part of some underground club (kids today have it easy!). It was certainly a year of ups and downs that's for sure.

   

I agree and remember this stuff too, only it was Carl who made the comment. 

But maybe you remember, there was more to it in terms of the actual event. Again, stuff that doesn't get remembered or reported as much as the speech, the McCartney no-show, etc.

This was the event, which was still new at the time and only the third ceremony overall, when musical director Paul Shaffer actually tried to organize the jam session at the end of the night so it wasn't a free-for-all. Credit to Shaffer, he saw the potential of having all that talent under one roof, and tried to corral them into something tangible to make some music with each other, and pair up artists who would not have performed together as formally. The first jams were very loose and impromptu affairs...for this one, something bigger had to be done. Paul was going around to the musicians asking them what they would want to do musically.

So Shaffer was going around to the artists in the room trying to get them to play some of their familiar songs, one unplanned example was he asked John Fogerty to play "Long Tall Sally" with Little Richard, but Richard had left...so Fogerty said well, if Richard isn't there I'll just do one of my own tunes...and he did a great Born On The Bayou with Nile Rodgers on guitar, and Nile was thrilled because he had been playing that song since it came out! And episodes like that went throughout the process...who would do what song, etc.

Billy Joel was asked to do something by the Beatles, he said he'd do it if he could play Hammond B3 organ...Shaffer said sure thing, and Billy ended up doing a great version of I Saw Her Standing There on B3 with the other musicians. And Mick Jagger with George Harrison doing backing vocals. Ringo initially turned down the offer but was drumming on stage anyway.

Julian Lennon did Stand By Me in tribute to his dad. Elton John (who inducted the Beach Boys) tore through some 50's rockers like Hound Dog, Les Paul played some lead guitar, Jeff Beck was there, etc. It was one of the better all-star jams despite some shaky songs due to the unrehearsed nature of the show.

Since Dylan was being inducted, Shaffer wanted to end with Like A Rolling Stone. Springsteen was up there too by this point, and it was a stage full of great musicians.

Here's where the initial point of this post comes in...

Mick Jagger was there to induct The Beatles, and was in and out of the jam session, with not much to do as a frontman. So they're playing through Dylan's tune, and Jeff Beck on guitar started riffing on Satisfaction, unplanned. The band kicks in, and Jagger simply took over. He and Springsteen were sharing vocals and stage moves, and Jagger was basically putting on his stage show and owning it as he's done since the 60's.

And THERE was the irony of Mike's speech, or one of several...

He called Jagger "chickenshit" earlier, challenging him to get up on stage and do what presumably Mike and the BB's did in Mike's mind, and here was Jagger not only doing just that, but tearing the place up with his performance.

Meanwhile the Beach Boys earlier in the night had tried to jam on "Barbara Ann", and the results were...well, maybe someone can find or post a video of that jam from that night, but it's pretty much fact that Jagger ended up blowing them off the stage, as did Billy Joel, Fogerty, and a number of others.


Again, what isn't written about or remembered as much is that after Mike threw down the gauntlet and called out Jagger personally, Jagger took up the challenge and blew the BB's off that stage that same night. Was it in good fun, good spirits? Perhaps, but Jagger actually showed what he could do after being called 'chickenshit' while the BB's "Barbara Ann" from the same night is barely remembered or discussed.

Ah, right, it was Carl.

Funny thing about Billy Joel and the perception of The Beach Boys in 1988. He made some derogatory comments about The Beach Boys around that time, unfavorably comparing them to The Four Seasons; the idea being that The Beach Boys were vanilla and that he and the other manly men from the East Coast preferred something with more guts to it like the music of The Four Seasons. I'd love to be able to find this quote. I think it was in an interview given between 1986-1988. It was symptomatic of how the group was perceived at that time. As a friend of mine oh so delicately put it "The Beach Boys are The Beatles for idiots" (he later recanted when I played him SMiLE stuff but never really got on board with Brian-fandom).
Anyway, it always struck me as sad, being a fan of both Billy and The Beach Boys, that a guy who knew so much about music could be so wrong. Years later when Mike was pitching this concert/album idea of guest stars joining the group on stage in Hawaii to celebrate their 35th anniversary he specifically mentioned Billy Joel. I remember thinking "yeah, that ain't gonna happen". Fast forward more years later and there's Billy crooning away on "Don't Worry Baby" at the All-Star Tribute to Brian Wilson and I'm thinking "Well, I guess he got over his Frankie Valli fixation or someone played him 'Pet Sounds'".

While I was never a Howard Stern listener, I'm sure he had a wild time with the clips from the HOF, but I really don't recall anyone trying to spin it as a punk rock/anti-authority speech at that time. It was seen more like a perfect example of why The Beach Boys were bubblegum and had no business being on stage with the greats.

Obviously, that perception changed dramatically. 

One of the more bizarre public meltdowns at an awards show I've ever seen.

At the time I was in the full flush of videotaping anything and everything about The Beach Boys from TV. I still have this stuff on VHS. Mike's speech got coverage from Entertainment Tonight (who also showed Dylan's retort) but shared space with the story of McCartney's no-show which, at the time, was the main story leading up to the HOF show. Mike's wackadoodle speech made Macca's diss a much smaller public spectacle after the fact. VH1 ran some highlights from the night superimposed on top of the beginnings of music videos from the inductees. When they played a Beach Boys video ("California Dreaming'" if I'm not mistaken) they just showed a clip of Brian's speech. They did the same later in the year at the beginning of the Kokomo video (it could've have been lost on them that Brian wasn't on the record). 

Mike's inflammatory speech got more attention in the printed press. In one of the news accounts, Brian is said to have asked a reporter "Do we still have a career?" after Mike's meltdown.

No one talks about it now but I certainly remember there being a lot of noise about how the Beach Boys should not even be mentioned in the same breath as The Beatles and Bob Dylan leading up to the ceremony. Remember at this time Pet Sounds wasn't available on CD yet and the cult of Brian Wilson was just start beginning to seep into youth consciousness (and it was mainly focused on cassettes of "Smile" bootlegs). While I had been a Beach Boys fan as early as the Endless Summer compilation (I was 5), I didn't become a full-on Brian Wilson fanatic until July of 1988 and back then I felt like an outsider or part of some underground club (kids today have it easy!). It was certainly a year of ups and downs that's for sure.

   

Speaking of which...new episode about Murry Wilson up today...

https://sailon.podbean.com

[FABCAST is new and real.It's mature.It's not history being read back to you in podcast/radio show form.It's none of the usual aspects of Beatles fandom -- cartoons, wish lists, trivia contests, name that tune, dudes wanting to be comedians or on ESPN.It's another level from how The Beatles has ever been discussed.It's about two things -- what happened and what it MEANS.What it means.The big picture.Adults talking about The Beatles intelligently.Brunch is NOT served.This is Beatles talk after you've learned to swim.Real Talk. Real Love. Real Beatles.]

Y'know, we actually don't mind getting lost in the shuffle.  The "shuffle" is pretty dire. Unlike pretty much all the others, we stop and THINK about what we're putting out into the universe before adhering to a schedule of regurgitating old facts.

As we posted a while back. . .

FABCAST is new and real.

It's mature.

It's not history being read back to you in podcast/radio show form.
It's none of the usual aspects of Beatles fandom -- cartoons, wish lists, trivia contests, name that tune, dudes wanting to be comedians or on ESPN.

It's another level from how The Beatles has ever been discussed.
It's about two things -- what happened and what it MEANS.

What it means.
The big picture.

Adults talking about The Beatles intelligently.
Brunch is NOT served.

This is Beatles talk after you've learned to swim.

Real Talk. Real Love. Real Beatles.

I'm well aware of your mission statement and have listened to every one of your podcasts. I listen to EVERY Beatles-related podcast (not as difficult as it sounds if one has a long commute every day).

You guys (including Dave before he left) set out to tell us what you wouldn't be (and yes, there IS too much joking around on a certain other podcast) but I'm still waiting for you to deliver and give us something different on a consistent basis (perhaps not weekly, but still...). 
 Right now, I think the show is not too dissimilar from a few others out there. In my opinion, the closest you came to REALLY fulfilling that mission was in the Lewisohn podcast. I've heard him interviewed hundreds of times but I've never heard him speak so candidly about working with Paul. I think more of that insider discussion will distinguish your show from the others and frankly...it would be most welcome. I've probably relistened to that particular show at least 10 times!

No love for Howie Edelson's Fabcast?

Yeah, they have some good episodes (the Mark Lewisohn episode was one of the best interviews I've ever heard) but they only put a new show out every few months so I think they get lost in the shuffle. I hope they can have a steady schedule at some point.

And don't forget the Pray For Surf podcast too and (the first one) The Unofficial Beach Boys Fan Podcast which is sadly published very infrequently. Beach Boys fans have gone from1 podcast devoted to the group to 3 more great ones.

I agree about Something About The Beatles. It's the gold standard for Beatles podcasts. Robert Rodriguez takes a scholarly approach to the group's history but manages to have that fan enthusiasm too. Things We Said Today and Fab 4 Free 4 All are my other go-to Beatles podcasts.

Now if only someone would be up for a Cliff Richard & The Shadows-cast.

The main outside influence making SC and even SIP weird and compromised was the whole Landy situation. It's why Brian was barely integrated into the band in 1988/89, and the immediate aftermath of Brian being extricated from Landy was presumably why he wasn't anywhere to be seen on SIP.

But if we're going to start erasing stuff that Landy directly or indirect impacted, then pretty much everything Brian was a part of from 1983 to 1992 would have to be erased. So no BW '88 album, and so on.

And if we're going to start erasing stuff just because *you* think it sucks, then a ton of their entire catalog is on the table.

It ain't just me.

Here's a review of SIP from Blender http://blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=2260:

“Kokomo,” perhaps most kindly described as a Beach Boys– influenced song with the Beach Boys singing on it, was a surprise number 1 hit — hence this lame instant album: a collaboration with obese rap trio the Fat Boys, soundtrack contributions and three ’60s hits to pad it out.

From AMG https://www.allmusic.com/album/still-cruisin-mw0000200452:

The Beach Boys' success with soundtracks, notably their number one 1988 hit with "Kokomo" from Cocktail (but also the title track "Still Cruisin'" from Lethal Weapon 2), provided the rationale for this hodgepodge of oldies and one-off singles. Their new savior, producer Terry Melcher, helps them sound like a professional '60s cover band. Meanwhile, except for one lone contribution, a solid "In My Car," Brian Wilson had quietly disappeared to a solo career.

This is about the only place outside of MikeLove.com where people will actually defend this stuff.  The rest of the world (at least those who are aware of the existence of these albums) recognize that they have no artistic merit, and are just money grabs.  Apparently folks around here used to recognize that as well.  It's unfortunate if that's changed.

Huh? What are you talking about? Of course it's not a unique opinion that those albums suck. So what? What are you trying to say? Saying they shouldn't be erased from history isn't "defending" the quality of the albums.

Read through my post history before you "introduce" me to the fact that critics hate SIP. Read through my post history to find out what I think of those albums.

I'm trying to say that they are not really Beach Boys albums, and should not be treated as such.

If Bill Gates bought the rights to the Beach Boys name, and promptly started releasing "Beach Boys" albums consisting of tracks performed entirely by monkeys, you could argue that those albums also would represent "history," and should not be "erased."  But you'd be wrong, and you're wrong in this case.

But neither case with the BBs involved an outside party buying the BB name and releasing an album. Your analogy is completely inaccurate.

However suck those albums are, however vapid or short-sighted the decisions were to release those albums, it was *THE* Beach Boys deciding to release them and not blocking their release.

If Mike had released a "Beach Boys" album in 1999 against the wishes of Brian and Al, then it would be closer to something analogous.

I feel like I'm being trolled even having to explain why even the crappiest BB album shouldn't be LITERALLY ERASED FROM EXISTENCE. It's asinine and literally not even possible. Which I also feel ridiculous even having to say.

I'm used to Mike & Bruce being in the doghouse but evidently the new (old) trend is to dismiss Carl Wilson as a performing "monkey" (Jeff's analogy) and claim that Al Jardine has absolutely no artistic credibility whatsoever.

Yes, we're being trolled.

Interesting to see the somersaults some will use to try to legitimize this crap.  I see several attempts to mischaracterize my comments, but the Carl=monkeys one is so far out there that I had to laugh at it.

In any case, although I should know better than to waste more time on this, I'll try again.  For both albums, Dennis was dead, and Brian had moved onto a solo career.  If you think that a legitimate "Beach Boys" exists with just the others ... well, I can't help you.  And it wasn't really even all of the others.  Wiki says that Bruce was "the only band member actually to play on" Summer in Paradise.  Still Cruisin' was, in a sense, "better," but given that three of the songs were reruns from more than 20 years earlier, and another was the Fat Boys, it's far from a real album.

Here's the other thing -- these "albums" have not, as the OP lamented, been re-released.  There's a reason for that.  Don't try to act as though I'm the crazy one (or simply a troll) when it's a very small number of you who are fighting reality.

Jeff, that is EXACTLY the analogy you used. Talk about someone making somersaults trying to make excuses for what they wrote. LOL Nice attempt at a spin. Try harder.

In the interest of fairness, it would seem that for you once Dennis dies it is no longer The Beach Boys. I get that. I suppose everyone has their own idea of what constitutes "The Beach Boys". For me The Beach Boys can never truly exist without Carl Wilson, as his vocal contribution is so enormous that it anchors their blend; but with TWGMTR featuring 5 members who can claim that title it's tough to argue that it's not a Beach Boys album.

We get it. You don't like those records. That's irrelevant. Your opinion doesn't matter. Critics can't wish albums out of existence. Life isn't "I Dream Of Jeannie".  They exist as Beach Boys albums, hobbled dogs of albums though they are. The only one arguing against reality is you.



And I hate to tell you, that crummy version of "Wipe Out" with the Fat Boys you keep bringing up? You DO realize that Brian is ALL over that recording, don't you? I mean, his is the predominant voice you hear in the vocal stack. He's even on record saying he thought it was cool. Hey, I disagree with him. I think it sucks but I'm not crazy enough to tell Brian Wilson that you know better and that it's not a legit Beach Boys relearse. Are you?

The main outside influence making SC and even SIP weird and compromised was the whole Landy situation. It's why Brian was barely integrated into the band in 1988/89, and the immediate aftermath of Brian being extricated from Landy was presumably why he wasn't anywhere to be seen on SIP.

But if we're going to start erasing stuff that Landy directly or indirect impacted, then pretty much everything Brian was a part of from 1983 to 1992 would have to be erased. So no BW '88 album, and so on.

And if we're going to start erasing stuff just because *you* think it sucks, then a ton of their entire catalog is on the table.

It ain't just me.

Here's a review of SIP from Blender http://blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=2260:

“Kokomo,” perhaps most kindly described as a Beach Boys– influenced song with the Beach Boys singing on it, was a surprise number 1 hit — hence this lame instant album: a collaboration with obese rap trio the Fat Boys, soundtrack contributions and three ’60s hits to pad it out.

From AMG https://www.allmusic.com/album/still-cruisin-mw0000200452:

The Beach Boys' success with soundtracks, notably their number one 1988 hit with "Kokomo" from Cocktail (but also the title track "Still Cruisin'" from Lethal Weapon 2), provided the rationale for this hodgepodge of oldies and one-off singles. Their new savior, producer Terry Melcher, helps them sound like a professional '60s cover band. Meanwhile, except for one lone contribution, a solid "In My Car," Brian Wilson had quietly disappeared to a solo career.

This is about the only place outside of MikeLove.com where people will actually defend this stuff.  The rest of the world (at least those who are aware of the existence of these albums) recognize that they have no artistic merit, and are just money grabs.  Apparently folks around here used to recognize that as well.  It's unfortunate if that's changed.

Huh? What are you talking about? Of course it's not a unique opinion that those albums suck. So what? What are you trying to say? Saying they shouldn't be erased from history isn't "defending" the quality of the albums.

Read through my post history before you "introduce" me to the fact that critics hate SIP. Read through my post history to find out what I think of those albums.

I'm trying to say that they are not really Beach Boys albums, and should not be treated as such.

If Bill Gates bought the rights to the Beach Boys name, and promptly started releasing "Beach Boys" albums consisting of tracks performed entirely by monkeys, you could argue that those albums also would represent "history," and should not be "erased."  But you'd be wrong, and you're wrong in this case.

But neither case with the BBs involved an outside party buying the BB name and releasing an album. Your analogy is completely inaccurate.

However suck those albums are, however vapid or short-sighted the decisions were to release those albums, it was *THE* Beach Boys deciding to release them and not blocking their release.

If Mike had released a "Beach Boys" album in 1999 against the wishes of Brian and Al, then it would be closer to something analogous.

I feel like I'm being trolled even having to explain why even the crappiest BB album shouldn't be LITERALLY ERASED FROM EXISTENCE. It's asinine and literally not even possible. Which I also feel ridiculous even having to say.

I'm used to Mike & Bruce being in the doghouse but evidently the new (old) trend is to dismiss Carl Wilson as a performing "monkey" (Jeff's analogy) and claim that Al Jardine has absolutely no artistic credibility whatsoever.

Yes, we're being trolled.

Wait. I see both of your points. I think SC and SiP ARE Beach Boys albums - they’ve all had sporadic participation so it’s hard to draw the line; look at Love You and MIU especially. If LY and MIU are Beach Boys albums then SC and SiP have to be to you. 

But - how could you not consider Hot Space a Queen album? All members are there and contributed almost equally for the first time in their career. Hot Space is one of my favorite Queen albums. I feel it’s picking up momentum in the last ten years amongst fans and musicians. It’s certainly their most divided album critically in their canon.

I think the point he was making (tongue in cheek) was that using Jeff's criteria "Hot Space" can't be a true Queen album because it's generally regarded as a low point and he doesn't like it. That makes no sense obviously.
Debating whether or not SC and SIP are any good is one thing. We KNOW they're not good...but like it or not those are Beach Boys albums and as such should be available to complete the picture.

The "..Classics Selected By Brian Wilson" CD does an excellent job. Sometimes when these collections stop at a certain point in the group's history, it's doing them a favor. 

Couldn't disagree more with the premise of this thread.  Yes, a few guys calling themselves the Beach Boys put out a couple of albums in the late 80s and early 90s.  But they are at best Beach Boys tribute albums.  Not even that really.  And it certainly does not help the band to be associated with such drek.  Why wish for that?

Wow! This was certainly the popular attitude among hardcore Beach Boys fans back when there albums were first released so it's a little nostalgic for me to see someone write this is 2018.....but no, they should've been re released some time ago and any Beach Boy album with Carl Wilson on it is never going to be a total loss.

I've enjoyed the episodes thus far and look forward to more.  It's great to finally have a Beach Boys podcast out there!  

Not to nitpick, but there are several fan podcasts and podcast-ish productions out there, but most of them are really subpar or not widely accessible.  There's a gawd-awful video podcast that some lady shoots in her living room. Pray for Surf(?) is pretty good, but I couldn't find it on iTunes the last time I checked. Ghosty's show is great, but YouTube isn't exactly the best delivery method for that type of content.  Not sure about this podbean thing for Sail On (I think it's a crappy app), but I can get it on Apple's Podcast app, so I'm good.  Sail On is the first good BB fan podcast that's also accessible. And I love it.

Thanks for that. Yeah, mine was a radio show so it was mainly aimed at listeners in the NY/NJ/CT area but I put the interviews up on YT for those that may have missed them.

David Beard also has his "Good Vibrations: A Beach Boys Program" podcast up on iTunes which is weekly interviews with Brian, Mike, Dean Torrence, Billy Hinsche, et al.  

"Sail On" is certainly an excellent show. Reminds me of the top Beatles discussion podcasts like "Something About The Beatles", "Things We Said Today" and "Fab 4 Free 4 All".

A music video too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj-c9oNwqxI

No, not a new member. A Hip Hop artist who calls himself "Beach Boy". His tracks started showing up on Amazon searches for The Beach Boys last week and when you click on his name, it links you to albums by The Beach Boys. Very confusing.

https://www.amazon.com/Moonlight-Explicit-Beach-Boy/dp/B077MQBQ2N/ref=sr_1_2?s=dmusic&ie=UTF8&qid=1512433771&sr=1-2-mp3-albums-bar-strip-0&keywords=beach+boy+hip+hop

The Beach Boys are my favorite group but The Beatles are right next to them and were better in many respects. It's easier to list things that The Beatles did better than The Beach Boys to be honest, but...

As wonderful, groundbreaking and beloved as their songs are (and they were far more consistent in their songwriting than Brian ever was because they had several brilliant minds involved), I always feel that there's a bit TOO much craftsmanship in their music, whereas Brian at his best is achingly honest with no filter at all. Even the songs that are generally held up as example as of The Beatles writing and recording deeply personal music ("Julia" and "Let It Be" for example) seem somehow removed from any genuine emotion by virtue of the way they were composed, performed and produced. Brian on the other hand could have french horns and a theremin and a lyricist writing it all and STILL cause "I Just Wasn't Made For These Times" to sound like a man who's utterly alone in the darkness. The Beatles could never match that.

However, I do think The Beatles pass them in nearly every other category except their harmony vocals ("Because" is impressive for them but not for The Beach Boys).    

And just for the record, I'm not equating Noel Gallagher with Richard Wagner lest anyone try to play that card.

Good, I love Wagner!

He is a tricky one though. Best not to view him through a modern lens.

And finally enough, I actually like Oasis! (well...at least the first three records) and I consider Noel the "smart one". I'd expect Liam to still behave like a child at this late stage in the game but I expect better of Noel.

Virginia Woolf, George Bernard Shaw, and Evelyn Waugh are a rogue's gallery?

Would you seriously call this despicable?

No, and that's not what I wrote.

As I said, I don't applaud or think it's wonderful that Woolf, Shaw and Waugh mouthed off like that either (and I sure as hell wouldn't put Noel in their class as an artist!).

My idea of despicable is someone like Richard Wagner who composed brilliant music and yet had some pretty sorry ideas about race. Just because he was a great artist doesn't give him a free pass. Witness the still-linegering reactions to Mike's HOF speech. Would you put him in the same class as Woolf, Shaw and Waugh? Using your argument, I guess so.  

I expect someone in the public eye to try and have a little class when speaking in a public forum about their peers. Is that so hard to understand?

And just for the record, I'm not equating Noel Gallagher with Richard Wagner lest anyone try to play that card.

I get that people are entitled to their opinion, but that said... it's obvious these guys hold themselves in super high esteem, comparing themselves to The Beatles, etc. Nobody who's not out of their mind on an ego trip would ever do that kind of comparison. That's not an irrelevant thing to consider in this equation.

Nor is it irrelevant to consider that they were a reaction against conservative Thatcher rule in the 1980s which saw a huge demonization of the working class. The Oasis ethos was about being proud and unapologetic of your working class roots; it was a reaction against being told for a decade that your sort of people were less-than-human garbage. When Oasis told people they were "better than" this or "as good" as that, it was a purposeful affront to people who looked upon this culture with contempt.

Moreover, when they were saying these things, they had made one album which was, at the time, the fastest selling debut in UK history and went on to be voted by readers in the #1 music magazine over ten years later as the greatest album of all time. Their second album was one of the biggest selling albums of all time, went on to become the UK's fifth best selling album of all time, and was recently named by the most significant British music awards as the greatest British album since 1980.

They headlines the largest outdoor concerts in UK history. Two and a half million people applied for tickets for their two shows. In the UK, they had eight #1 singles and every album they made went to #1 in the charts.

As good as The Beatles? Of course not. But what they managed to achieve in the 90s was not achieved by many other bands and their cultural importance was vast.

The difference here is that if Noel had maturity and class he would say something like "I've never personally liked Brian Wilson's music but it's obvious that it's had a great effect of many people and they love it, but it's just not for me". That's essentially what you just did in your previous comment about Shakespeare and Tolstoy and yet you're defending a guy with such juvenile sensibilities that he would probably tell you you're an idiot to your face for being here.

If Noel was 19 years old I'd give him a pass, but at his venerable age he should have some level of decorum. It comes with maturity.

I'm not sure if you read the website I linked to but it contains quotes by some of the most sophisticated and important writers in Western history saying things like the following:

"[Ulysses] is a revolting record of a disgusting phase of civilisation" - George Bernard Shaw

"[Ulysses is] the work of a queasy undergraduate scratching his pimples." - Viriginia Woolf

"I am reading Proust for the first time. Very poor stuff. I think he was mentally defective." - Evelyn Waugh

And on and on and on.

I'm sorry that you don't particularly care for the rhetoric and that's fine but the reality is that Noel is simply joining the pantheon of some of the greatest and most sophisticated writers of all time by deploying language the way he is. Personally, I don't think Shaw, Woolf, and Waugh are idiots but they themselves were not above using phrasing like that about their colleagues.

Poor argument. "Hey, these other greats did it too so Noel is joining this illustrious pantheon...!" Ugh.

Well, your quote happens to be exactly true. These other great did do it. They constitute an illustrious pantheon. And Noel does join them in that respect.

It's not necessarily something to be proud of. A lot of "greats" have done truly despicable things. Hardly what I would call an illustrious pantheon. More like a Rogue's Gallery.

I get that people are entitled to their opinion, but that said... it's obvious these guys hold themselves in super high esteem, comparing themselves to The Beatles, etc. Nobody who's not out of their mind on an ego trip would ever do that kind of comparison. That's not an irrelevant thing to consider in this equation.

Nor is it irrelevant to consider that they were a reaction against conservative Thatcher rule in the 1980s which saw a huge demonization of the working class. The Oasis ethos was about being proud and unapologetic of your working class roots; it was a reaction against being told for a decade that your sort of people were less-than-human garbage. When Oasis told people they were "better than" this or "as good" as that, it was a purposeful affront to people who looked upon this culture with contempt.

Moreover, when they were saying these things, they had made one album which was, at the time, the fastest selling debut in UK history and went on to be voted by readers in the #1 music magazine over ten years later as the greatest album of all time. Their second album was one of the biggest selling albums of all time, went on to become the UK's fifth best selling album of all time, and was recently named by the most significant British music awards as the greatest British album since 1980.

They headlines the largest outdoor concerts in UK history. Two and a half million people applied for tickets for their two shows. In the UK, they had eight #1 singles and every album they made went to #1 in the charts.

As good as The Beatles? Of course not. But what they managed to achieve in the 90s was not achieved by many other bands and their cultural importance was vast.

The difference here is that if Noel had maturity and class he would say something like "I've never personally liked Brian Wilson's music but it's obvious that it's had a great effect of many people and they love it, but it's just not for me". That's essentially what you just did in your previous comment about Shakespeare and Tolstoy and yet you're defending a guy with such juvenile sensibilities that he would probably tell you you're an idiot to your face for being here.

If Noel was 19 years old I'd give him a pass, but at his venerable age he should have some level of decorum. It comes with maturity.

I'm not sure if you read the website I linked to but it contains quotes by some of the most sophisticated and important writers in Western history saying things like the following:

"[Ulysses] is a revolting record of a disgusting phase of civilisation" - George Bernard Shaw

"[Ulysses is] the work of a queasy undergraduate scratching his pimples." - Viriginia Woolf

"I am reading Proust for the first time. Very poor stuff. I think he was mentally defective." - Evelyn Waugh

And on and on and on.

I'm sorry that you don't particularly care for the rhetoric and that's fine but the reality is that Noel is simply joining the pantheon of some of the greatest and most sophisticated writers of all time by deploying language the way he is. Personally, I don't think Shaw, Woolf, and Waugh are idiots but they themselves were not above using phrasing like that about their colleagues.

Poor argument. "Hey, these other greats did it too so Noel is joining this illustrious pantheon...!" Ugh.







  

I get that people are entitled to their opinion, but that said... it's obvious these guys hold themselves in super high esteem, comparing themselves to The Beatles, etc. Nobody who's not out of their mind on an ego trip would ever do that kind of comparison. That's not an irrelevant thing to consider in this equation.

Nor is it irrelevant to consider that they were a reaction against conservative Thatcher rule in the 1980s which saw a huge demonization of the working class. The Oasis ethos was about being proud and unapologetic of your working class roots; it was a reaction against being told for a decade that your sort of people were less-than-human garbage. When Oasis told people they were "better than" this or "as good" as that, it was a purposeful affront to people who looked upon this culture with contempt.

Moreover, when they were saying these things, they had made one album which was, at the time, the fastest selling debut in UK history and went on to be voted by readers in the #1 music magazine over ten years later as the greatest album of all time. Their second album was one of the biggest selling albums of all time, went on to become the UK's fifth best selling album of all time, and was recently named by the most significant British music awards as the greatest British album since 1980.

They headlines the largest outdoor concerts in UK history. Two and a half million people applied for tickets for their two shows. In the UK, they had eight #1 singles and every album they made went to #1 in the charts.

As good as The Beatles? Of course not. But what they managed to achieve in the 90s was not achieved by many other bands and their cultural importance was vast.

The difference here is that if Noel had maturity and class he would say something like "I've never personally liked Brian Wilson's music but it's obvious that it's had a great effect of many people and they love it, but it's just not for me". That's essentially what you just did in your previous comment about Shakespeare and Tolstoy and yet you're defending a guy with such juvenile sensibilities that he would probably tell you you're an idiot to your face for being here.

If Noel was 19 years old I'd give him a pass, but at his venerable age he should have some level of decorum. It comes with maturity.

I wonder if he's been talking to Steve Jones of the Sex Pistols lately....another Brian basher. 

Noel has repeatedly trashed Brian Wilson for a while now. He's a Beatle fanatic who despises anyone who would dare to say The Beach Boys should be held in the same esteem. It's got nothing to do with critical thinking. He has the mind of a child.



   

Chalk me up as another guy in NJ who would see this...ten times!!! (as I've stated on Facebook and elsewhere).

I've always wanted Al to do something like this and I can only hope many more shows are added.