gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 08:55:58 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: When/How/Why The Beach Boys were dismissed and dubbed "unhip"?  (Read 13149 times)
oldsurferdude
Guest
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2012, 07:43:28 AM »

A partial explanation could involve timing which like most things is key and music is no exception. Look at the icons-Sinatra, Presley, The Beatles. All came along at a time when their style struck a certain nerve with the general public. The Beach Boys certainly did the same but had two significant hurdles that stood between them and being hip. Songs about the West Coast lifestyle could not go on indefinitely because there were those of us who were growing beyond that phase-looking for new things. Additionally, Brian peaked extremely early in his career with Pet Sounds, and Good Vibrations and he had stopped touring-the fans wanted to see the whole group-especially Brian who wrote the songs and had the great voice. I remember seeing them in Johnstown, Pa. in the Spring of 67 and being completely bummed that he wasn't there. Just his absence alone pissed off alot of people at the time. It could possibly be compared to having, say, John Lennon,while continuing to write, dropping out of  touring.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2012, 09:19:55 AM by oldsurferdude » Logged
Alex
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2660



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2012, 07:46:52 AM »

In reference to what the BBs were competing against in the 70s, i.e. Who, Stones, Zep, I think Sell Out was the last good Who record until Who By Numbers, the Stones lost it after Satanic Majesties and Brian Jones` death, and Page`s best work was with the Yardbirds. Yet the public just wanted the British Blues/Hard Rock Formula/Continuation of the Cream sound. LZ get annointed as "gods", yet the BBs best material langered in semi-obscurity for decades...I`m glad there`s a lot of hipster love for the Boys.
Logged

"I thought Brian was a perfect gentleman, apart from buttering his head and trying to put it between two slices of bread"  -Tom Petty, after eating with Brian.

https://givemesomeboots1.blogspot.com/
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2012, 07:47:31 AM »

Http:www.youtube.com/watch?v=uehyh57k2_E&feature=youtube_gdata_player

If this does not work, it is YouTube - Live Paris, December, 1970 - Part 1 (of 2)

The record company used "dated" (outdated) photos for various releases, pretty inept, in my opinion.

The striped shirts we're gone in 1967, by which time, most had longer sideburns, and mustaches or beards, London's Carnaby St. styles were exploding in 1968. Dennis a "dork?"  

Capitol was part of the problem; from the outset. Too bad they wanted it both ways.  Brother Records creation was somewhat a response to that issue.

Logged
LostArt
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 914



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2012, 08:33:12 AM »

Http:www.youtube.com/watch?v=uehyh57k2_E&feature=youtube_gdata_player

If this does not work, it is YouTube - Live Paris, December, 1970 - Part 1 (of 2)

The record company used "dated" (outdated) photos for various releases, pretty inept, in my opinion.

The striped shirts we're gone in 1967, by which time, most had longer sideburns, and mustaches or beards, London's Carnaby St. styles were exploding in 1968. Dennis a "dork?"  

Capitol was part of the problem; from the outset. Too bad they wanted it both ways.  Brother Records creation was somewhat a response to that issue.

By 1970 it was too late.  They'd already lost their popularity.  The striped shirts should have been gone way before '67.  I don't think any of them had facial hair (except Mike) until 1969.  And yeah, Dennis was, perhaps, the exception to the 'dork' thing.  If it was Capitol choosing those record sleeve photos, then they are partially to blame (they certainly were to blame for putting out Then I Kissed Her after the Beatles put out Strawberry Fields Forever).  For many folks, those 45 rpm record sleeves were the only photos the general public had of these guys, especially after they started losing popularity in '67.  
« Last Edit: January 05, 2012, 08:42:40 AM by LostArt » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2012, 09:00:11 AM »

Http:www.youtube.com/watch?v=uehyh57k2_E&feature=youtube_gdata_player

If this does not work, it is YouTube - Live Paris, December, 1970 - Part 1 (of 2)

The record company used "dated" (outdated) photos for various releases, pretty inept, in my opinion.

The striped shirts we're gone in 1967, by which time, most had longer sideburns, and mustaches or beards, London's Carnaby St. styles were exploding in 1968. Dennis a "dork?"  

Capitol was part of the problem; from the outset. Too bad they wanted it both ways.  Brother Records creation was somewhat a response to that issue.

By 1970 it was too late.  They'd already lost their popularity.  The striped shirts should have been gone way before '67.  And yeah, Dennis was, perhaps, the exception to the 'dork' thing.  If it was Capitol choosing those record sleeve photos, then they are partially to blame (they certainly were to blame for putting out Then I Kissed Her after the Beatles put out Strawberry Fields Forever).

Lost Art - I can sort of see your point.  I know "jack" about record distribution.  I have seen foreign releases of Smiley with the striped shirts.  And the foreign distributor might have some cogent reasoning.  It may be that the identity for marketing purposes might be enhanced with the "uniform" of the striped shirts.  If you can't speak English, you look for the shirts. For the USA, that is just plain sloppy and inexcusable. 

It is harsh to say they lost popularity.  I like to think of that time as one of retreat and regrouping, and re-focus on live work, which, eventually paid off.  Lots of colleg tours. Billy Hinsche's movie "1974 - On The Road with the Beach Boys" tells thatbstory. 

A "band" is more or less a "team."  Brian's absence created a void, but it also provided an opportunity for the other band members to step up to the plate, and be creative in their own right.  All of them did their own thing.  At least they worked on individual stuff, and music for the band use.  How many bands from that era just threw in the towel?

Logged
Jon Stebbins
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2635


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2012, 09:46:52 AM »

It started happening pretty early...look at the performance of Don't Worry Baby from the '64 Dick Clark TV show...that happened to be an all Beatles episode BTW...yeesh. One thing that stood out to me, even back in '65, was the cover of the GREAT LP Beach Boys Today...the Beach Boys look like Hollywood frat boys, all collegiate and clean cut, even Dennis got shoved into a stupid sweater. Matching sweaters? WTF were they thinking? Compare that cover with its competition in record store bins at the time...Beatles, Stones, Byrds...the Beach Boys were perceived as geeks, sorry, great album...dorky cover. It hurt. On All Summer Long they looked hip...by '65 they were losing it...got it back for Pet Sounds (kind of) but much of the world had moved on. People forget that the pre-Beatles Beach Boys were viewed as kind of edgy, punkish...Pendletons, bare feet, some long hair...by the time they got to the matching college-boy sweaters there was no visual edge. Well, Dennis gave them a little.

Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2012, 09:55:47 AM »

It started happening pretty early...look at the performance of Don't Worry Baby from the '64 Dick Clark TV show...that happened to be an all Beatles episode BTW...yeesh. One thing that stood out to me, even back in '65, was the cover of the GREAT LP Beach Boys Today...the Beach Boys look like Hollywood frat boys, all collegiate and clean cut, even Dennis got shoved into a stupid sweater. Matching sweaters? WTF were they thinking? Compare that cover with its competition in record store bins at the time...Beatles, Stones, Byrds...the Beach Boys were perceived as geeks, sorry, great album...dorky cover. It hurt. On All Summer Long they looked hip...by '65 they were losing it...got it back for Pet Sounds (kind of) but much of the world had moved on. People forget that the pre-Beatles Beach Boys were viewed as kind of edgy, punkish...Pendletons, bare feet, some long hair...by the time they got to the matching college-boy sweaters there was no visual edge. Well, Dennis gave them a little.

Jon - You are correct about the Leave it to Beaver sweaters! Did Murry or the studio pick the clothes?

They did look adorable on the Christmas album...

On Pet Sounds, Carl's Bench Warmer 3/4 coat was exactly what every one else was wearing!


Logged
Justin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2244



View Profile
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2012, 10:34:22 AM »

The difference, I think, is that after January 1967, so-called hip rock musicians and rock audiences began to take themselves very seriously. Rock was, now, a serious thing. Hendrix was serious. A man burning his guitar on stage was serious business - something that might scare children and turn off old people (you know, over 30...). The Doors were serious. Jefferson Airplane (despite what now seem like hilariously dated lyrics) were serious. Pepper was the Beatles going straight-faced (wasn't McCartney who quoted Dylan as saying something like, "Oh, I get it. You don't want to be cute any more."). This was anticipated, particularly, I think, by Dylan who put the idea in people's heads that if rock and roll was going to really be good, it had to aspire to important, serious matters. Children probably shouldn't like it - if they did, it would be immature, etc. And while The Beach Boys were certainly moving in the "right" direction, they had a HUGE mountain to overcome with their "fun in the sun" image. To many, they represented fun, not, say, spiritual or intellectual enlightenment or advancement. That doesn't mean, of course, that they couldn't have still produced hits with such themes - they could have attracted the same crowd that, say, liked The Cowsills or The Archies in the late 60s. But that wouldn't have made them hip either.

Justin - You pose an important question.  At that 1967 or so juncture, there were older fans, say late 20's who were the beginning of what is known as the post WWII baby boom, who were in the first wave of rock and roll.  They identified with the early work, and were Chubby Checker fans, doo-wop, etc.  Next came the second wave of boomers, in the early teens, who weren't Elvis people, but, Beatles, Stones, Beach Boys, etc. whom I followed.  A couple of dynamics were going on...and at lightning speed.  One was the emergence of psychedelic music and accompanying pop art, a war (Vietnam) race issues, women's rights,etc., and a look to music to be a voice for some of these problems. 

There was a mixed (and false perception, in my opinion) that the Boys should stay in the car and surf box, because it was a safe place for the fans, and, that they shouldn't be allowed to grow...and change with the times.  Of course, that is ridiculous.  Singers who changed their formats to renew themselves were often looked at as hypocrites.  Then, there is the dynamic of the industry, who seemed to want to stifle their growth.  But, the genie was already out of the bottle.  People tend to rebel against repression, and grow anyway. Artists are no different; especially artists and musicians who become the voice of society. 

My kids are always looking for what they call "fresh beats" - new music...and in a matter of months, new bands like Jefferson Airplane, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, etc., caught the attention of young people.  And a second layer emerged, with The Monkees, The Cowsills (yes, as in John Cowsill!) and Sonny and Cher. This layer came with TV shows.

Blaming the Smile dynamic, I think is misplaced.  Americans had no idea how hugely popular the Boys were in Europe, who did not have the same social issues and war as we had, here.  Real Boys' fans were patiently impatient,  but, accepted the newer music, look and growth and continued seeing them, live.  Surfs Up was important, as well as Holland, Wild Honey, and 20/20.

The odd place to hear BB music was on fm, which was, and has displaced am radio, for music lovers, for the most part. The fm stations were playing Pet Sounds and Smiley in boutiques in Harvard Square!  It was such an unlikely place because it was that intellectual hippie-type subculture, who had castigated the Boys as trite, and irrelevant.  Someone had finally opened the oyster and found Pet Sounds which was awesome, but not a commercial success at the time.  This opened the door for critical appreciation of Smiley and a welcome for Surfs Up and Holland. 

One of my professors, (for something unrelated) post grad (way post grad) explained to me in this analogy, that sometimes the "back door" (fm stations) became the "front door" for artistic and critical acceptance of the Boys' music.  All of a sudden, these former fans woke up after the Vietnam War ended and saw that the Beach Boys were right there, the whole time.  Even though they still sang the girly-surf-car songs, they had constructed a catalog that was mind blowing.

Hope this helps fill in the blanks... Wink


They were not "unhip" due to anything other than the fact that their post Smile records no longer had the Genius of Brian Wilson at the helm. I would say that by 20/20 the Beach Boys as co-producers were getting pretty good at it but by then it was too late.

Mike Love was always "hip". He was sporting a beard and wearing stripped pants as soon as anybody else. They became unpopular because they released really inferior records post Pet Sounds. Inferior because Brian stopped being the writer/arranger/prodcer he was. They stopped making great records and a lot of people stopped caring as a result.

Not showing up at some pop festival in California did not make some guy in Oklahoma think "well I guess I'm done with those Beach Boys" .....However, hearing bits of Smiley, Wild Honey, or Friends would have and likely did. Especially Smiley.... Good Vibrations is a huge monster hit and then the fans and music buying public get Smiley Smile.


Great points, folks.   It was hard for me to realize that much of the public then were doing the same things people--myself included--still do today: resist change.   It always puts me off when a band or artist goes in a different direction.  The Beach Boys were definitely guilty of throwing people for a loop with their stylistic changes.

I forgot to mention in my original post that another drawback that I felt aided to their fall was the overall quality of their later albums.  Sure there were some absolute gems on each albums--but most of them were imbalanced and were COMPLETELY different from what fans were used to.  They had turned into a different band and no one noticed and/or cared.  But talk about timing.  I mean, right as the BB were shifting their sound and musical outlook, all these things around them were changing so drastically as you guys mention: Vietnam, riots and assassinations.  I guess it's no surprise how and why rock and roll turned angry and "serious" at this point and why The Beach Boys had fallen off most people's radars.

Striped shirts.  Old fashioned haircuts.  Seriously.  The music was really cool and mostly hip (Christ, I hate that word), but the image that the Beach Boys presented was not keeping up with the times.  And the times, they were a-changin'.  The Beach Boys were primarily a singles band in the '60s.  Go to Wikipedia and look up, say, Help Me Rhonda, and look at the pic of the record sleeve.  Now just scroll forward through the singles and look at the sleeves from each single up until, say Break Away in '69.  Striped shirts on Sloop John B in '66.  Striped shirts on Darlin' in '67.  Hell, even on Good Vibrations they look like a bunch of dorks (for late '66).  Check out the sleeve for Then I Kissed Her, which Capitol put out while waiting for Brain to get his sh*t together in '67.  Look at Do It Again ferchristsakes.  Are you kidding?  For comparison, look at the Beatles singles from the same time period.  That'll tell you a lot about why the Beach Boys lost cred with the young folks growing up in the mid to late '60s.   

It started happening pretty early...look at the performance of Don't Worry Baby from the '64 Dick Clark TV show...that happened to be an all Beatles episode BTW...yeesh. One thing that stood out to me, even back in '65, was the cover of the GREAT LP Beach Boys Today...the Beach Boys look like Hollywood frat boys, all collegiate and clean cut, even Dennis got shoved into a stupid sweater. Matching sweaters? WTF were they thinking? Compare that cover with its competition in record store bins at the time...Beatles, Stones, Byrds...the Beach Boys were perceived as geeks, sorry, great album...dorky cover. It hurt. On All Summer Long they looked hip...by '65 they were losing it...got it back for Pet Sounds (kind of) but much of the world had moved on. People forget that the pre-Beatles Beach Boys were viewed as kind of edgy, punkish...Pendletons, bare feet, some long hair...by the time they got to the matching college-boy sweaters there was no visual edge. Well, Dennis gave them a little.



Thank you both  for bringing this up.  I had no idea that the stripe shirts marketing had continued so late in the game like that.  Sweet Moses---that explains a lot!   I guess it was tough for fans to "trust" The Beach Boys again when everyone was so used to the fun in the sun/surfing image.  I guess no amount of good reviews or word of mouth on these albums could have swayed the mass public, eh? 

Jon, just picked up your "FAQ" book two nights ago...excellent read!

Logged
Smilin Ed H
Guest
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2012, 10:47:03 AM »

I thought you were talking 80s Beach Boys when the sh*t really hit the fan.
Logged
Justin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2244



View Profile
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2012, 10:47:50 AM »

I thought you were talking 80s Beach Boys when the sh*t really hit the fan.

Well that's an excellent point.  Would we consider that the final nail in the coffin?
Logged
Justin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2244



View Profile
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2012, 10:57:06 AM »

So we really don't think that the abandoned SMiLE project had any impact on their fall?  Wasn't there substantial buzz and hype about their follow up to the much acclaimed, Pet Sounds?  Carl summed it up nicely..."Smiley Smile was a bunt instead of a grand slam."  Didn't this "bunt" as it were...signal the beginning of the "end" for the band?
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2012, 11:12:33 AM »

So we really don't think that the abandoned SMiLE project had any impact on their fall?  Wasn't there substantial buzz and hype about their follow up to the much acclaimed, Pet Sounds?  Carl summed it up nicely..."Smiley Smile was a bunt instead of a grand slam."  Didn't this "bunt" as it were...signal the beginning of the "end" for the band?

Justin - I'm not sure that "fall" is the correct term.  50 years is an extraordinary time span.  If you think of it as the shoreline on many different times, you get storms, and big waves, and some days with a little wind and smaller waves and days when the water is like glass without a lot of movement.  Careers are sort of like that.  Peaks and valleys. 

I wonder how Carl might feel about the release of the Smile Sesssions...and Brian's performing it live.  I bet he would be pretty proud of his bro! It might be that the "wait" and anticipation, while the world got their head's together about the quality of the music, turned out to be for the best, after all. 

You are in the enviable position of discovery of this wonderful catalog. What an adventure! I love your icon!  So cool! 

On YouTube, there are segments of The Real Beach Boy.  I think you might enjoy it.  I saw a chunk of it the other night.   Pretty fine work. 
Logged
anazgnos
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 384



View Profile
« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2012, 12:00:17 PM »

It's a really interesting question.  The shockwaves of Sgt. Peppers can't be underestimated.  Rolling Stone and then Creem had a lot to do with the whole "rock must take itself seriously" critical viewpoint.  There are loads of albums from ostensibly unhip bands trying desperately to come to grips with the psychedelic/post-Peppers era and make "serious" statements, running the gamut from brilliant to dire.  The Four Seasons' Genuine Imitation Life Gazette...The Tokens' (they of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight") Intercourse...even "Crimson and Clover" to an extent.

The thing that's really interesting about the Beach Boys is that Brian seemed to understand that they had to keep abreast of the Beatles to stay relevant while the group did not, but Brian then lost interest in playing that game just as the group seemed to realize the consequences of not doing so.  Their drop from mainstream/countercultural good graces really does seem to be out of all proportion, though.  I think the failure of Smile does actually have a lot to do with it in the end, because they failed to deliver on the pre-release hype.  If the album had come out, even if it wasn't a hit or a game changer in any other respect, I think it at least would have softened the blow to their critical standing going forward.  As I recall, Jann Wenner in particular regarded the whole "Brian Wilson = genius" thing as empty hype, and it could have been precisely the non-delivery of Smile that played into that.
Logged
Justin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2244



View Profile
« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2012, 12:04:09 PM »

You're right filledeplage....fall may have been too harsh of a word. especially since I am completely clear on their long term impact and their overall legacy in music.  But there was definitely a negative shift in the Beach Boys career and as you say each group/artist has their ups and downs.  Let's take the Rolling Stones--a group that I absolutely love: many figure Exile On Mainstreet to be their best work and have basically dismissed everything that has come after.  Some Girls sometimes creeps in there as their last true great album to some but Exile has taken the entire spotlight.  But I feel that although people may have stopped listening to the Stones regardless if their cutoff were Exile or Some Girls...there never was such a cold shoulder towards the Stones that the Beach Boys seemed to have experienced.  Then again, the Stones never released a "Kokomo" or made appearances on "Full House."  As someone brought up earlier, I think the 80's really did them in.  

I suppose in the end, I'm jealous that The Beatles' legacy is far more respected than The Beach Boys especially when The Beach Boys did just as much change and tweaking to their sound as The Beatles did.  But alas, The Beatles had an impeccable catalog: cohesive, consistent and packed with strong songs and hardly any filler.   As much as I adore the Beach Boys' post Pet Sounds output, much of it is in fact uneven and inconsistent.  The biggest problem of course being: it is missing Brian Wilson.  Sure, The Beatles had a smaller catalog than The Beach Boys but I wish it didn't stop them from being recognized for still creating sophisticated music.   I look at my friends (in their late 20's/early 30's) and none of them are even aware that there was anything of value after Pet Sounds.  Heck, to some of them, they would group Pet Sounds along with the surfing music (embarassing, I know).   Why is it easier for Joe Public to embrace The Beatles' artistic shift over The Beach Boys'?

And thanks for the kind words about the avatar...got that last summer and it's currently hanging up on my wall next to my signed BWPS and Pet Sounds! Cool
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2012, 12:18:00 PM »

This may sound somewhat sacreligious but it is possible too that The Beach Boys had a particularly young audience in the early 60s and by 1967, that audience had grown up a bit and therefore believed that they had to move on to music that was understood as more grown up. At the same time though, The Beach Boys were making more sophisticated music so a new young audience couldn't appreciate them either - 1966-1967 was very much the great time for The Monkees and they had their own sales collapse a few years later once THAT fan base grew up.

This, by the way, is an attempt to explain their sales decrease rather than their unhipness, which is something quite different.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2012, 12:22:57 PM by rockandroll » Logged
Justin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2244



View Profile
« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2012, 12:31:12 PM »

It's a really interesting question.  The shockwaves of Sgt. Peppers can't be underestimated.  Rolling Stone and then Creem had a lot to do with the whole "rock must take itself seriously" critical viewpoint.  There are loads of albums from ostensibly unhip bands trying desperately to come to grips with the psychedelic/post-Peppers era and make "serious" statements, running the gamut from brilliant to dire.  The Four Seasons' Genuine Imitation Life Gazette...The Tokens' (they of "The Lion Sleeps Tonight") Intercourse...even "Crimson and Clover" to an extent.

The thing that's really interesting about the Beach Boys is that Brian seemed to understand that they had to keep abreast of the Beatles to stay relevant while the group did not, but Brian then lost interest in playing that game just as the group seemed to realize the consequences of not doing so.  Their drop from mainstream/countercultural good graces really does seem to be out of all proportion, though.  I think the failure of Smile does actually have a lot to do with it in the end, because they failed to deliver on the pre-release hype.  If the album had come out, even if it wasn't a hit or a game changer in any other respect, I think it at least would have softened the blow to their critical standing going forward.  As I recall, Jann Wenner in particular regarded the whole "Brian Wilson = genius" thing as empty hype, and it could have been precisely the non-delivery of Smile that played into that.

Great points...you mention a bit that I wanted to explore as well: other unhip bands trying to keep up with the changing times that were also ignored/fell by the wayside regardless of how well-recieved their music was to critics.  Any other groups you can mention that were pumping out some good music but went unnoticed?  

Good to see that you also think the abandonment of SMiLE was a factor for their "setbacks."  I absolutely feel this was a huge issue that certainly did not make anything better.  Here was this album everyone was waiting for---right after "Pet Sounds", right after the glorious "Good Vibrations" and instead of the masterpeice...fans got scraps.  No doubt, a move like that would make a lot of people turn their backs on a group.  The problem is, most groups are given a second chance to redeem themselves.  I don't think The Beach Boys were ever given the chance to do so.
Logged
mammy blue
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: January 05, 2012, 12:34:27 PM »

Hey Justin, I know what you're saying, but the Beach Boys' critical reputation has been on the upswing for a while now... really since the 1993 Boxset came out and the release of "I Just Wasn't Made for These Times" doc a year or so later. As I'm told (my own fandom didn't start until 1995), in the late 1980s it was pretty bleak, but among the heavy music fans and critics, they've been well respected for a while now. You can definitely tell just by reading all the off the charts ecstatic reviews for the Smile set, coming from people who don't usually effuse with such abandon.

Regarding the post Pet Sounds albums, you remind me of how I felt when I first became a fan, feeling like the post Smile material was all one big letdown, but when you dig deeper (and maybe you already have) you'll realize that's just not the case. For one thing, Smiley Smile, Friends and Love You are HEAVY HEAVY Brian albums, it's just that his production approach is different, and less commercial, but it really grows on you. Then you find all the great album cuts, gems by the other guys like "All This is That" and albums like "Sunflower" and "Pacific Ocean Blue" that are not strictly Brian albums but still wonderful music. Really you can't go wrong exploring everything up through Holland and In Concert, and then add the 1977 albums, Love You and Pacific Ocean Blue, to that list. The rest is more flawed but the GV Box provides a great survey if you haven't explored that already.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2012, 12:42:13 PM by mammy blue » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2012, 12:39:11 PM »

Great points, folks.   It was hard for me to realize that much of the public then were doing the same things people--myself included--still do today: resist change.  

I'm not sure if it's quite this simple. The Beatles changed substantially from album to album and the fans followed them. In fact, I would say, for the most part, that change is crucial in order to be relevant and to sell records. But some changes are more acceptable than others.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2012, 12:51:00 PM by rockandroll » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: January 05, 2012, 12:47:48 PM »

You're right filledeplage....fall may have been too harsh of a word. especially since I am completely clear on their long term impact and their overall legacy in music.  But there was definitely a negative shift in the Beach Boys career and as you say each group/artist has their ups and downs.  Let's take the Rolling Stones--a group that I absolutely love: many figure Exile On Mainstreet to be their best work and have basically dismissed everything that has come after.  Some Girls sometimes creeps in there as their last true great album to some but Exile has taken the entire spotlight.  But I feel that although people may have stopped listening to the Stones regardless if their cutoff were Exile or Some Girls...there never was such a cold shoulder towards the Stones that the Beach Boys seemed to have experienced.  Then again, the Stones never released a "Kokomo" or made appearances on "Full House."  As someone brought up earlier, I think the 80's really did them in.  

I suppose in the end, I'm jealous that The Beatles' legacy is far more respected than The Beach Boys especially when The Beach Boys did just as much change and tweaking to their sound as The Beatles did.  But alas, The Beatles had an impeccable catalog: cohesive, consistent and packed with strong songs and hardly any filler.   As much as I adore the Beach Boys' post Pet Sounds output, much of it is in fact uneven and inconsistent.  The biggest problem of course being: it is missing Brian Wilson.  Sure, The Beatles had a smaller catalog than The Beach Boys but I wish it didn't stop them from being recognized for still creating sophisticated music.   I look at my friends (in their late 20's/early 30's) and none of them are even aware that there was anything of value after Pet Sounds.  Heck, to some of them, they would group Pet Sounds along with the surfing music (embarassing, I know).   Why is it easier for Joe Public to embrace The Beatles' artistic shift over The Beach Boys'?

And thanks for the kind words about the avatar...got that last summer and it's currently hanging up on my wall next to my signed BWPS and Pet Sounds! Cool

Justin - The two bands are like apples and oranges. What must have been tough for Brian and the Boys is walking by all this hype at Capitol, in their own backyard, for the Beatles who did the American distribution.  Looking back, with a differently critical eye, I can see (20/20) - hindsight (pun intended!) that Brian must have felt the need to compete with the Beatles.  

If you haven't heard "A Friend like You" - it is on Brian's Gettin In Over My Head and written by Paul McCartney and Brian Wilson, you might try finding it online.  Later on in his career, Brian realized that the Beatles really admired the work of the Beach Boys.  They recorded it together.  Very cool! This album was no hit, either but, has some pretty cool stuff.  Brian worried for nothing.

Not many young people get Pet Sounds or even have an interest.  One of my kids does, and one of my nephews does.  The rest like the Golden Oldies.  That is fine.  They have their own music, and they should. They think it is cool that I get to see John Stamos!  It is really flattering to admire the work of an earlier time.  

Nothing wrong with the 80's.  By that time, some of their work started being featured in movie soundtracks.  It is used to add texture to film.  Even now.  Success is measured strangely and is a relative measure.  It is dependent on whose pen is flowing.  And, who is paying for the opinion.  And, if they have a bias for another band. I listened to  and took a lot of crap for being a fan in the late 60's and 70's and suspect that I am in good company with posters on this board.  Now, I've learned that all these cool "hip" bands loved the Beach Boys and Brian's work. I don't remember them talking publicly about it. I sure could have used the "backup" back then.

Stick with your instincts, Justin, and you will never go wrong!  And good for you to have those treasures on display! It's all good!   Love

Logged
mammy blue
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: January 05, 2012, 12:52:33 PM »

BTW, Justin, just  to comment on your Beatles comparison, the Beatles were my favorite group for over 20 years before they were replaced by the Beach Boys. One of my previous hang ups about the Beach Boys was the lack of consistency... as you say, they've put out some seriously bad albums in their career. The Beatles had remarkable quality control and a short, hugely successful career but one day I just decided that when it came down to it, quality was more important for me than consistency. To put it plainly, I still adore the Beatles, but their best work (for me) just doesn't approach the Beach Boys at their best in terms of complexity or impact. Sgt Pepper is fun to listen to, but Smile blows my mind. McCartney wrote so many wonderful songs that I can't keep track, but none of them quite approach God Only Knows or The Warmth of the Sun for me (in fact I think the closest Paul came to topping Brian wasn't even with the Beatles, it was the Ram album!!!). Anyway, just my 2 cents. Yes, there are plenty of duds in the catalog, but you won't find diamonds like these anywhere else.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2012, 12:56:32 PM by mammy blue » Logged
Justin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2244



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: January 05, 2012, 12:57:25 PM »

Hey Justin, I know what you're saying, but the Beach Boys' critical reputation has been on the upswing for a while now... really since the 1993 Boxset came out and the release of "I Just Wasn't Made for These Times" doc a year or so later. As I'm told (my own fandom didn't start until 1995), in the late 1980s it was pretty bleak, but among the heavy music fans and critics, they've been well respected for a while now. You can definitely tell just by reading all the off the charts ecstatic reviews for the Smile set, coming from people who don't usually effuse with such abandon.

Regarding the post Pet Sounds albums, you remind me of how I felt when I first became a fan, feeling like the post Smile material was all one big letdown, but when you dig deeper (and maybe you already have) you'll realize that's just not the case. For one thing, Smiley Smile, Friends and Love You are HEAVY HEAVY Brian albums, it's just that his production approach is different, and less commercial, but it really grows on you. Then you find all the great album cuts, gems by the other guys like "All This is That" and albums like "Sunflower" and "Pacific Ocean Blue" that are not strictly Brian albums but still wonderful music. Really you can't go wrong exploring everything up through Holland and In Concert, and then add the 1977 albums, Love You and Pacific Ocean Blue, to that list. The rest is more flawed but the GV Box provides a great survey if you haven't explored that already.

You're right mammy...the Beach Boys reputation has improved much in recent years.  But I still think the scale is still uneven--more people write them off as the one-dimensional surfing group from the 60's and that's what irks me.   Mostly everyone recognizes the shift in The Beatles' music and some even pick sides: choosing their earlier work over thier psychadelic side or vice versa.  But it's that recognition that is missing from the general public's awareness with The Beach Boys: people aware that there is a treasure trove of material on the other side of Pet Sounds.  I should mention here that I am a HUGE fan of their later output (Smiley Smile to Love You)...my favorite album being Sunflower and Carl and The Passions - So Tough...so I'm really not putting down this side of the catalog but only reflecting what seemed to have been the general feeling of the time.  It may have been misunderstood/overlooked by people at the time--but not by me!

In this thread I hoped to pin down the events that caused the general public to create their own stereotypes of the band and look away from the band.  The posts in this thread have really helped me get a better grip on the situation!
Logged
Justin
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2244



View Profile
« Reply #46 on: January 05, 2012, 01:02:44 PM »

Great points, folks.   It was hard for me to realize that much of the public then were doing the same things people--myself included--still do today: resist change.  

I'm not sure if it's quite this simple. The Beatles changed substantially from album to album and the fans followed them. In fact, I would say, for the most part, that change is crucial in order to be relevant and to sell records. But some changes are more acceptable than others.

Yes true....their change was gradual.
Logged
Jon Stebbins
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2635


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: January 05, 2012, 01:09:16 PM »



The thing that's really interesting about the Beach Boys is that Brian seemed to understand that they had to keep abreast of the Beatles to stay relevant while the group did not, but Brian then lost interest in playing that game just as the group seemed to realize the consequences of not doing so. 
I'm wondering who told you this? David Leaf maybe? The fact is that Brian was the last Wilson brother who caught on to the Beatles thing. Carl and Dennis were much bigger fans at the outset, especially Carl. The appearance of a 12 string Rickenbacker in the Beach Boys preceded Brian's slowly growing affection for them specifically because Carl loved the Beatles sound. If anything Carl and Dennis were urging their brother to go more in that Beatle-y direction starting in '64...Dennis changed his whole attitude towards the drums because of Ringo...both of them were definitely "keeping abreast". 
Logged
anazgnos
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 384



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: January 05, 2012, 01:21:38 PM »



The thing that's really interesting about the Beach Boys is that Brian seemed to understand that they had to keep abreast of the Beatles to stay relevant while the group did not, but Brian then lost interest in playing that game just as the group seemed to realize the consequences of not doing so. 
I'm wondering who told you this? David Leaf maybe? The fact is that Brian was the last Wilson brother who caught on to the Beatles thing. Carl and Dennis were much bigger fans at the outset, especially Carl. The appearance of a 12 string Rickenbacker in the Beach Boys preceded Brian's slowly growing affection for them specifically because Carl loved the Beatles sound. If anything Carl and Dennis were urging their brother to go more in that Beatle-y direction starting in '64...Dennis changed his whole attitude towards the drums because of Ringo...both of them were definitely "keeping abreast". 

I was referring more to the conventional wisdom of the Beatles/Beach Boys "production race", Brian trying to beat them to the "new sound" and all that.  Maybe a better way of putting it would be - Brian saw the value of doing something radically different in late '66, while the group for the most part did not, or at least didn't understand how he was going about it.  Brian didn't have perfect foresight, but I think his instincts about that, at least, were correct.  I think the group benefited from being seen as equals of the Beatles for that brief window of time, and part of what was making that happen was Brian trying to keep abreast of them on the production end.
Logged
mammy blue
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 252


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: January 05, 2012, 01:32:23 PM »

Right, anazgnos didn't literally mean the group was being influenced by the Beatles' rock style, more the awareness that like the Beatles, the BB needed to continuously evolve and change, albeit in their own unique direction. Hence the rapid transformation that we see just in the years 1965 and 1966.

Of all the BB though, it seems like Carl and Dennis were in full support of taking the band in bold new directions. However, I get the impression that at some point as the Smile project dragged on, Carl started to have reservations, but that may have had more to do with the fact that Brian seemed to be losing the plot and not making progress with it. In the Smile box set book, I believe Danny Hutton (or one of the other friends) flat out states that Dennis was the only BB who offered Brian unequivocal support throughout the project.
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.578 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!