| 680753 Posts in
27615 Topics by 4068
Members
- Latest Member: Dae Lims
| April 20, 2024, 05:12:45 AM |
| |
95
|
Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: How were the Beach Boys recieved in the late 60s/70s?
|
on: August 23, 2014, 01:11:43 PM
|
1. The Beach Boys were whistleblowers who exposed a hidden business practice that Capitol Records was taking advantage of to the tune of potentially millions of dollars which they were not paying to the artists who should have gotten a portion of that money. This was brought out in the 1967 lawsuit that led to both a $250,000 settlement for the band *and* the setup of Brother Records, which on paper would have given the band somewhat of an autonomy to make their own decisions while still remaining in Capitol's marketing and distribution chain.
But consider the implications of that: The Beach Boys got the money, they got Brother Records, but they also cost Capitol money, they exposed a not-so-honest business practice which was only discovered through a deep financial audit, and what we don't hear is how many other artists may have followed up on the same thing regarding their own books...to the tune of saying "The Beach Boys got ripped off, hey...did they do that to us too?". I know Allen Klein for one used a very similar tactic to win clients for himself by having a team of lawyers and accountants go over an artist's books and find money that he could win back for that artist, and it was usually something like the breakage/returns case that the Beach Boys won after suing Capitol. And Capitol had also not paid Brian Wilson certain producers' royalties and credits which he was due.
Capitol I'm sure wasn't too happy with this whole scene, and it could add an element to why certain marketing and business decisions were less than they could or should have been regarding the band post-lawsuit in 67, at least in the US. There may have been a price to be paid for blowing the whistle on a major label. Just a thought.
Interesting theory. The one thing I would caution about is that even though the lawsuit cost Capitol Records money, the fact that The Beach Boys' records stopped selling as well as they did earlier in the decade also cut back on the company's profits. It would take a lot of spite on the part of Capitol to sabotage one of their own band's careers (which is not to say that that isn't what happened). On the other hand, it's possible that the lawsuit irreparably damaged their relationship so that the band and Capitol weren't able to coordinate an updating of the band's image as well as they might have had they been on better terms.
|
|
|
99
|
Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Endless Summer Quarterly feedback
|
on: August 22, 2014, 03:54:38 PM
|
Word - The Beach Boys owe an equal amount of their early success to Gary Usher and Roger Christian.
And there's nothing wrong with putting Mike Love's achievements in perspective.... is there?
Oh come on, they were just riding Brian's coat tails, just like that no-talent lyric writer Mike Love. Compare: We're always first to hit the lot And wave to the man in blue now (Doo run de run de doo run de run de) It's still so early in the morning The grass is all covered with dew now (Doo run de run de doo run de run)to the Sloop John B backing track. Writing the SJB backing track takes a very smart dude, writing bland lyrics does not. Mike makes himself the most important Beach Boy by shoving Brian aside even though Brian clearly wants to be a Beach Boy again. All because Mike can not handle not being the pivotal figure, due to his disturbed personality. This is essential: the only way Mike can achieve this is by excluding, eliminating, removing, his competition. Those lyrics don't really reflect on Mike's lyric-writing abilities, though, as they were written by Roger Christian.
|
|
|
100
|
Smiley Smile Stuff / General On Topic Discussions / Re: Can someone explain how R&R Music was a Top 10 hit for 6 weeks?
|
on: August 21, 2014, 07:50:50 PM
|
I personally think the reason why R&R Music has lasted for so long in the Beach Boys setlist is because it works as a kind of nod to Chuck Berry. They used to cover Johnny B. Goode but then had a hit with another one, so they use that. The song too has a good deal of cultural capital. It has been recorded by two other giants: Chuck Berry and The Beatles. There's a good chance that an audience who goes to see the live show would have heard it from one of these three sources.
That's probably true. I like both the Chuck Berry and Beatles versions of the song, and I liked it when I heard the Beach Boys play it during the C50 tour. It's a great song that is ruined in album version by production and one of Mike's lesser lead vocals on a rocker, but those problems are easily remedied when it comes to playing it live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|