gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
499256 Posts in 16908 Topics by 3063 Members - Latest Member: BILLONEEG March 03, 2015, 12:14:34 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 12:05:31 PM 
Started by Eric Aniversario - Last post by Mikie
Lee, Dave did quit the band in late 1963.

I had the opportunity to meet and hang out with David Marks for quite awhile, about 15 years ago.  He told me he actually stayed on into 1965.  I was surprised by that, of course.

"Stayed" might be open to interpretation. A paid non-member of the band or as a session musician? Doubt it. His last Beach Boys show was December 20, 1963. He has said he played on "the first four or five albums". To me that means he played on Beach Boys album tracks from "Surfin' Safari" through "Shut Down II". I even read that he might have played on a track or two on the "All Summer Long" album. Yeah, he visited Beach Boys recording sessions at Western in 1964 and maybe even 1965, but in '65 I think he was keeping busy making records and touring with the Marksmen. Jon and/or Carrie of course will correct me if I'm off in the facts.....

 2 
 on: Today at 12:03:09 PM 
Started by Eric Aniversario - Last post by HeyJude
I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.


One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014. 


If anything, perhaps Mike thought that he could use the “give it a rest for a year to build up demand" thing as an excuse, to buy time and hopefully get Brian to cave to Mike's demands in the meantime. It was really just a made-up excuse though. C'mon. There's no way you can tell me a guy like Mike Love ever actually wants to give anything a rest touring-wise. If he wrote songs with Brian in a room and got to remain the center of attention in C50, he'd not have wanted to give it a rest.

Mike can claim that, and it might make logical sense to some people reading his side of the story, and get some people behind him, but ultimately it fails as an excuse. It's not consistent with any of Mike's touring actions, ever.

While we as hardcore fans, as well as promoters, know the difference between Mike’s “Beach Boys” and the C50 “Beach Boys”, I think his “give it a rest” argument lost a lot of credibility when the concurrent discussion also involved that he was *immediately* going back out on the road as “The Beach Boys.”

I mean, wouldn’t it build up *even more* demand if you literally take the BB name off the market for even just one season?

These are obviously rhetorical questions that are even more meaningless in light of that fact that, in my opinion, factors such as “market demand” had little or nothing to do with the reunion’s demise.

 3 
 on: Today at 11:59:11 AM 
Started by Eric Aniversario - Last post by CenturyDeprived
I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.


One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014. 


If anything, perhaps Mike thought that he could use the “give it a rest for a year to build up demand" thing as an excuse, to buy time and hopefully get Brian to cave to Mike's demands in the meantime. It was really just a made-up excuse though. C'mon. There's no way you can tell me a guy like Mike Love ever actually wants to give anything a rest touring-wise. If he wrote songs with Brian in a room and got to remain the center of attention in C50, he'd not have wanted to give it a rest.

Mike can claim that, and it might make logical sense to some people reading his side of the story, and get some people behind him, but ultimately it fails as an excuse. It's not consistent with any of Mike's touring actions, ever.

 4 
 on: Today at 11:54:47 AM 
Started by Eric Aniversario - Last post by HeyJude
it wouldn't make a lot of sense to do a rock'n'roll covers album on the heels of a #3 release of original material.

nor would it make sense to break up the reunion and revert back to playing Sea World and state fairs with John Stamos instead of the actual Beach Boys. so there you go.

The only reason I could think of that a rock'n'roll covers album on the heels of a #3 release of original material would be because it would have been a very passive project, relatively free of emotional roadblocks that would come with dealing with a bandmember whose demands meant that Brian wouldn't have been able to properly express himself creatively.  Mike's demands would have been a much smaller thorn in Brian's side if it was just covers that were gonna be done.

After all, isn't that likely why a project like 15 Big Ones exists, and why after being berated for Adult Child, Brian reverted to doing a bunch of covers in the late 70s/early 80s?

I'd say we came out ahead with NPP existing.

I think we’re losing the plot here, though. Apart from David Beard’s interpretation of the Mike Love essay he prompted, I don’t see *any* indication that “oldies covers” album was something being considered once the actual reunion started. I don’t even read Mike’s new interview as suggesting that.

The couple of times Mike has mentioned the “covers” album, I think he’s simply saying “here’s another example of how something changed.”

All indications are that the “covers” album idea was thrown around well before the record deal and recording of TWGMTR. I have a vague recollection that one interview mentioned that those “covers” album discussions (which certainly sounded like nothing more than batting ideas around) took place as much as a year or two before the actual reunion took place. That idea clearly was dropped, and Brian and Joe got a deal with Capitol for a BB album based on Brian/Joe songs. Mike signed on for that at some point obviously. He later indicated in interviews that he would have preferred for either that BB album and/or a future BB album to feature he and Brian writing songs alone. Then, Brian wanted to do another album. That never happened. Mike’s own comments seemed highly indicative then of *why* that album didn’t happen the way Brian had hoped/wanted.

It would probably save everybody a lot of ink and typing and debating if we could just get a statement along the lines of “I don’t want to do another Beach Boys album where Brian and Joe write most of the songs with little or no input from me.” That sentiment would be disagreeable to some fans, but at least it would be clear and unambiguous.

 5 
 on: Today at 11:54:09 AM 
Started by guitarfool2002 - Last post by Emdeeh
As I understand it, the Jameson Neighborhood Fund is the organization raising funds for Sweet Relief.

Wish I could be there, but it's too short notice for me to work logistics out.

 6 
 on: Today at 11:48:13 AM 
Started by Eric Aniversario - Last post by HeyJude
I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.



Maybe it’s just me, but that’s not on the same page at all. “Talk” versus “Discussion”; Clearly we have different ideas of what those two words constitute. Mike may have some other definition. Either way, the NPP press release says nothing other than Brian wanted to do another album. So I’m still unclear why Mike is criticizing that press release.

Given all the other evidence at our disposal, I’m not prepared to say that Mike’s recent interview conveys anything other than Mike seems to now be completely perplexed all of a sudden at the mere idea of another album being considered.

I think *previous* comments from Mike indicate varying levels of interest or willingness to do another album and tour, but your wording suggests those things never took place simply because nothing was ever set in stone. So basically, we’re back to the specious argument that “they didn’t do another tour because they didn’t do another tour.” The question is, why didn’t they work towards setting anything in stone? That gets us back to who was willing and able to do another album and tour in the immediate aftermath of C50. *That* seems crystal clear based on comments from all parties involved. Brian and Al (and presumably Dave) were ready and willing. They couldn’t set anything in stone until *all* parties had a willingness to continue. Booking non-reunion shows before the reunion tour is even done doesn’t show that willingness or intent.

Remember as well, part of the at least on-the-surface disagreement about more reunion activity seemed to stem from timing. One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014. 

 7 
 on: Today at 11:40:41 AM 
Started by guitarfool2002 - Last post by bgas
Be an interesting show! 
Ages: All Ages

Doors Open: 7:00PM

Price: $55.00 - $350.00

Onsale: Thu, Mar 5, 2015 - 10:00AM PST

The main floor is all standing( no seats) $55 
Sounds like there are Balcony seats for $97.50 and VIP balcony for $350( that includes the meet & greet, I guess? )

Can't figure who benefits from the tickets; site says both Jameson Neighborhood Fund and Sweet Relief ( but SR web site has no info)
But doesn't matter since it's all for charity

 8 
 on: Today at 11:37:20 AM 
Started by ESQ Editor - Last post by Steve Latshaw
I'm looking forward to this issue with great anticipation.  Will there be interviews with James Guercio and Bruce Johnston, as they were the architects of the album (along with Carl)?

 9 
 on: Today at 11:36:29 AM 
Started by Eric Aniversario - Last post by CenturyDeprived
it wouldn't make a lot of sense to do a rock'n'roll covers album on the heels of a #3 release of original material.

nor would it make sense to break up the reunion and revert back to playing Sea World and state fairs with John Stamos instead of the actual Beach Boys. so there you go.

The only reason I could think of that a rock'n'roll covers album on the heels of a #3 release of original material would be because it would have been a very passive project, relatively free of emotional roadblocks that would come with dealing with a bandmember whose demands meant that Brian wouldn't have been able to properly express himself creatively.  Mike's demands would have been a much smaller thorn in Brian's side if it was just covers that were gonna be done.

After all, isn't that likely why a project like 15 Big Ones exists, and why after being berated for Adult Child, Brian reverted to doing a bunch of covers in the late 70s/early 80s?

I'd say we came out ahead with NPP existing.

 10 
 on: Today at 11:36:08 AM 
Started by Eric Aniversario - Last post by Cam Mott
I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
gfx gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!