When/How/Why The Beach Boys were dismissed and dubbed "unhip"?

[Jeff]

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.

I think you make a lot of good points.  And to add to that, it wasn't just the '65 look, but the '65 lyrics.  Sure, Today was a huge step forward, but Summer Days was a step back at a very crucial time.  California Girls was a deserved hit, but the lyrics cemented the Beach Boys' sun 'n fun image at a time when other groups were quickly embracing the counter culture.

If you look at the top 50 Billboard hits for 1965, the Stones had Satisfaction, the Beatles had Help! and Ticket to Ride, the Byrds had Mr. Tambourine Man, Dylan had Like a Rolling Stone ... and the Beach Boys had Help Me, Rhonda and California Girls.   Things were even worse if you listened to album cuts like Salt Lake City and And Your Dream Comes True.

That put the Beach Boys on the wrong end of the cultural divide, along with "simple" good-time groups like Herman's Hermits.  In retrospect, it was a huge mistake for the Beach Boys.

[Justin]

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.

Totally agree.  I'm not fond of comparing bands and doing the who's better than than who thing but one thing is for sure, during this period, the BBs were certainly writing much more sophisticated/complicated compositions than The Beatles.  I'm not saying that they were better because of it (both bands are incredible and do not deserve to be put up against each other for us to pick just one)--but it's just a pure fact that BB songs were more dense (chord changes, structures, vocal arrangements) than Paul and John's creations.  

[Justin]

I think you make a lot of good points.  And to add to that, it wasn't just the '65 look, but the '65 lyrics.  Sure, Today was a huge step forward, but Summer Days was a step back at a very crucial time.  California Girls was a deserved hit, but the lyrics cemented the Beach Boys' sun 'n fun image at a time when other groups were quickly embracing the counter culture.

If you look at the top 50 Billboard hits for 1965, the Stones had Satisfaction, the Beatles had Help! and Ticket to Ride, the Byrds had Mr. Tambourine Man, Dylan had Like a Rolling Stone ... and the Beach Boys had Help Me, Rhonda and California Girls.   Things were even worse if you listened to album cuts like Salt Lake City and And Your Dream Comes True.

That put the Beach Boys on the wrong end of the cultural divide, along with "simple" good-time groups like Herman's Hermits.  In retrospect, it was a huge mistake for the Beach Boys.

Interesting point about "California Girls."  Although, musically speaking "California Girls" was a huge step forward for Brian.  Sure no one was looking at the sheet music when it came on the radio--but it was still a turning point in Brian's writing.

[OneEar/OneEye]

It's always seemed that the attempt to alter the image and mature and/or become "hip", began much earlier.   Then Brian's retirement from the road and the Today album presented bold steps in that direction, but still they continued with the dorky clothing and presenting themselves (or being at the mercy of the record company pushing them as) a surf band.   And as nice as they are, Summer Days and Party! were completely counter to where they/Brian had been trying to take the band/music (image wise).  Of all the major bands of the era they appear to be the most at odds, in conflict, and engaged in a total tug of war, with the image they wished to present.  

[mammy blue]

It's always seemed that the attempt to alter the image and mature and/or become "hip", began much earlier.   Then Brian's retirement from the road and the Today album presented bold steps in that direction, but still they continued with the dorky clothing and presenting themselves (or being at the mercy of the record company pushing them as) a surf band.   And as nice as they are, Summer Days and Party! were completely counter to where they/Brian had been trying to take the band/music (image wise).  Of all the major bands of the era they appear to be the most at odds, in conflict, and engaged in a total tug of war, with the image they wished to present.  

And unlike the Beatles, not everyone within the band was on the same page, either. Mike has been very honest about his misgivings at the time regarding the group's new direction, but he wasn't the only one... VDP had a quote in the early 70s about resistance within the group towards Smile coming not just from Mike but also "from the least known members"... I think Al (and maybe Bruce) were not as vocal as Mike then or now regarding where they fell in the group dynamic of the time, but I'd suspect that one or both of them as well were probably more concerned than enthusiastic toward the songs written with VDP. You've got to hand it to Mike, at least he's still owning up to his point of view, rather than trying to retroactively make himself seem more supportive of Smile at the time than he was. And as the sessions rolled on with no end in sight, it seems that even Carl began to have doubts. Within the group, only Dennis remained steadfast to the very end in his support of Smile, and even after Brian disowned it, didn't Dennis essentially jumpstart the whole "Smile industry" by leaking some of the tracks to friends for the first time in the late 70s?

[filledeplage]

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.

I think you make a lot of good points.  And to add to that, it wasn't just the '65 look, but the '65 lyrics.  Sure, Today was a huge step forward, but Summer Days was a step back at a very crucial time.  California Girls was a deserved hit, but the lyrics cemented the Beach Boys' sun 'n fun image at a time when other groups were quickly embracing the counter culture.

If you look at the top 50 Billboard hits for 1965, the Stones had Satisfaction, the Beatles had Help! and Ticket to Ride, the Byrds had Mr. Tambourine Man, Dylan had Like a Rolling Stone ... and the Beach Boys had Help Me, Rhonda and California Girls.   Things were even worse if you listened to album cuts like Salt Lake City and And Your Dream Comes True.

That put the Beach Boys on the wrong end of the cultural divide, along with "simple" good-time groups like Herman's Hermits.  In retrospect, it was a huge mistake for the Beach Boys.  

Excellent to look at the Billboard top 50! Here's where, I think some of the dynamic, starts to split into a 2nd generation.  Those kids who started as BB fans, in 1961, were likely nearly 18 going to work or college, or Vietnam as the draft was just being ramped up at that time. The newbies were around 12-13 and were buying singles, watching Ed Sullivan, to see all the bands, even Herman's Hermits.  I'm not convinced that Summer Days, is not a little more mature album, catering to older teens and early 20 somethings who were maybe looking at literal meaning for, "And Your Dream Comes True."

Within a year, say between the fall of '65 to the fall of '66, there was a war, on TV! Things changed so fast. And those folk singers had an anti-war forum.  Funny, in the movie, Good Morning, Vietnam, the DJ was, playing the Boys in the soundtrack.  

It is really difficult time to analyze and figure out why one band springs up, overnight, and one, established band, loses some of its audience at home, but goes abroad, to wild success as the Boys did.  At a point, I've read that they were more popular in Britain than the Beatles, whose "Give Peace a Chance" refrain became an anti war chant in the States.

Mostly, I think of the Beatles as a meteor, who blazed amazingly while they were together and delivered their musical message, and the Boys, as more of a North Star, who had constancy on some level for a really long time. Some days you can't see that star with the fog or rain, but, when things clear, and it's still there, alright.  A dorky analysis?  Maybe. But, having been a part of that scene as a high school and college student, it was real, and not what I read in a book.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I think you make a lot of good points.  And to add to that, it wasn't just the '65 look, but the '65 lyrics.  Sure, Today was a huge step forward, but Summer Days was a step back at a very crucial time.  California Girls was a deserved hit, but the lyrics cemented the Beach Boys' sun 'n fun image at a time when other groups were quickly embracing the counter culture.

If you look at the top 50 Billboard hits for 1965, the Stones had Satisfaction, the Beatles had Help! and Ticket to Ride, the Byrds had Mr. Tambourine Man, Dylan had Like a Rolling Stone ... and the Beach Boys had Help Me, Rhonda and California Girls.   Things were even worse if you listened to album cuts like Salt Lake City and And Your Dream Comes True.

That put the Beach Boys on the wrong end of the cultural divide, along with "simple" good-time groups like Herman's Hermits.  In retrospect, it was a huge mistake for the Beach Boys.

I don't know if I quite agree with this. I think songs like "California Girls" and "Help Me, Rhonda" became difficult for the group's image a little later on (beginning in 1967, I'd say). What is important to recognize though is that while "Day Tripper", "Satisfaction", "Like a Rolling Stone" and "Mr. Tambourine Man" were huge hits, different, and helped shape the sound to come, they were also very rare. They stood out precisely because they were doing things that few other artists were thinking about. Other huge songs from 1965 included "I Fought the Law", "Wooly Bully", "I Can't Help Myself", "Hang on Sloopy", etc. "California Girls" and "Help Me, Rhonda" fit in very nicely with those. And more over, as I suggested in my first post in this thread, this was before there was really any kind of sharp divide between the hip music and the not hip music - the "serious" and the "not serious". Sure, one probably still existed but not to the same extent as later when music magazines were actively shaping what was cool to listen to and what wasn't. While I don't think people may have said in 65 that the Beach Boys weren't making the kind of music that The Beatles, Dylan, or The Byrds were making, I don't think that would have led to many to reject them for being uncool.

[NHC]

those damn white suits! 

They had one of those, actually a blue one, in the BB display at the Guam Hard Rock Cafe when it first opened in 1998.  Looked pretty cheap, like something you'd get at a 70's discount store.  Must have been Al's, because, good grief, was it small. Can't believe they wore that junk on stage.

[drbeachboy]

I think you make a lot of good points.  And to add to that, it wasn't just the '65 look, but the '65 lyrics.  Sure, Today was a huge step forward, but Summer Days was a step back at a very crucial time.  California Girls was a deserved hit, but the lyrics cemented the Beach Boys' sun 'n fun image at a time when other groups were quickly embracing the counter culture.

If you look at the top 50 Billboard hits for 1965, the Stones had Satisfaction, the Beatles had Help! and Ticket to Ride, the Byrds had Mr. Tambourine Man, Dylan had Like a Rolling Stone ... and the Beach Boys had Help Me, Rhonda and California Girls.   Things were even worse if you listened to album cuts like Salt Lake City and And Your Dream Comes True.

That put the Beach Boys on the wrong end of the cultural divide, along with "simple" good-time groups like Herman's Hermits.  In retrospect, it was a huge mistake for the Beach Boys.

I don't know if I quite agree with this. I think songs like "California Girls" and "Help Me, Rhonda" became difficult for the group's image a little later on (beginning in 1967, I'd say). What is important to recognize though is that while "Day Tripper", "Satisfaction", "Like a Rolling Stone" and "Mr. Tambourine Man" were huge hits, different, and helped shape the sound to come, they were also very rare. They stood out precisely because they were doing things that few other artists were thinking about. Other huge songs from 1965 included "I Fought the Law", "Wooly Bully", "I Can't Help Myself", "Hang on Sloopy", etc. "California Girls" and "Help Me, Rhonda" fit in very nicely with those. And more over, as I suggested in my first post in this thread, this was before there was really any kind of sharp divide between the hip music and the not hip music - the "serious" and the "not serious". Sure, one probably still existed but not to the same extent as later when music magazines were actively shaping what was cool to listen to and what wasn't. While I don't think people may have said in 65 that the Beach Boys weren't making the kind of music that The Beatles, Dylan, or The Byrds were making, I don't think that would have led to many to reject them for being uncool.

Nice post. I was young, but did grow up in that era, and you are pretty correct in your assessment.

[SMiLE Brian]

those damn white suits! 

They had one of those, actually a blue one, in the BB display at the Guam Hard Rock Cafe when it first opened in 1998.  Looked pretty cheap, like something you'd get at a 70's discount store.  Must have been Al's, because, good grief, was it small. Can't believe they wore that junk on stage.

The striped shirts had their time of being cool, the white suits were lame from day one.

[Zach95]

I'll agree that California Girls may not be on the lyrical level with Satisfaction, Like A Rolling Stone, Day Tripper, etc...but Help Me Rhonda seems like a viable hit during that time that doesn't really reflect Herman's Hermits or other bubblegum pop.  Of course I never lived through this era, but on a lyrical level Help Me Rhonda isn't quite far from Day Tripper (barring the drug "references" in Day Tripper and what not).  Just my two cents.

[Jeff]

I think you make a lot of good points.  And to add to that, it wasn't just the '65 look, but the '65 lyrics.  Sure, Today was a huge step forward, but Summer Days was a step back at a very crucial time.  California Girls was a deserved hit, but the lyrics cemented the Beach Boys' sun 'n fun image at a time when other groups were quickly embracing the counter culture.

If you look at the top 50 Billboard hits for 1965, the Stones had Satisfaction, the Beatles had Help! and Ticket to Ride, the Byrds had Mr. Tambourine Man, Dylan had Like a Rolling Stone ... and the Beach Boys had Help Me, Rhonda and California Girls.   Things were even worse if you listened to album cuts like Salt Lake City and And Your Dream Comes True.

That put the Beach Boys on the wrong end of the cultural divide, along with "simple" good-time groups like Herman's Hermits.  In retrospect, it was a huge mistake for the Beach Boys.

I don't know if I quite agree with this. I think songs like "California Girls" and "Help Me, Rhonda" became difficult for the group's image a little later on (beginning in 1967, I'd say). What is important to recognize though is that while "Day Tripper", "Satisfaction", "Like a Rolling Stone" and "Mr. Tambourine Man" were huge hits, different, and helped shape the sound to come, they were also very rare. They stood out precisely because they were doing things that few other artists were thinking about. Other huge songs from 1965 included "I Fought the Law", "Wooly Bully", "I Can't Help Myself", "Hang on Sloopy", etc. "California Girls" and "Help Me, Rhonda" fit in very nicely with those. And more over, as I suggested in my first post in this thread, this was before there was really any kind of sharp divide between the hip music and the not hip music - the "serious" and the "not serious". Sure, one probably still existed but not to the same extent as later when music magazines were actively shaping what was cool to listen to and what wasn't. While I don't think people may have said in 65 that the Beach Boys weren't making the kind of music that The Beatles, Dylan, or The Byrds were making, I don't think that would have led to many to reject them for being uncool.

Nice post. I was young, but did grow up in that era, and you are pretty correct in your assessment.

I actually don't really disagree either.  One of the things that I was trying to get at (but probably didn't) was that people remember who the early adapters were and who lagged behind.  In '65, a number of other groups were still "behind," at least in comparison to what was standard a year or two later.  But many of them faded away as a result, while the Beatles, Stones, etc. managed to stay on top for a while.  I expect that was due in part to people remembering that they had led the charge, while the Beach Boys did not.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

One of the things that I was trying to get at (but probably didn't) was that people remember who the early adapters were and who lagged behind.  In '65, a number of other groups were still "behind," at least in comparison to what was standard a year or two later.  But many of them faded away as a result, while the Beatles, Stones, etc. managed to stay on top for a while.  

The Stones though ran into some trouble for a bit. Jon Landau in Rolling Stone was very critical of Their Satanic Majesties Request. Until Beggars Banquet, the Stones place in the hip category of popular music was a bit tenuous. I think branding is important to this point. Like I said, in the age of serious music, the Beach Boys had a serious obstacle - namely their brand image (fun in the sun, surf and drive and dance) and not even Good Vibrations could help them. The Stones too went against their brand with Satanic - it turned away from their edgy rock and roll and embraced flower power and it didn't quite work for them for some because this just wasn't the Stones, in the same way that say Pet Sounds, for some, just wasn't The Beach Boys (so said Keith Moon).

[Cam Mott]

Because they were unhip. Which makes them hip. So........

[drbeachboy]

As far as what they were releasing as singles, The Beach Boys hit their peak with Good Vibrations. It is not like they completely fell off the map afterwards. Like many bands before and after, they had a steady decline, with a few hits through the late 60's. I figure they hit that gray area where they were not bubblegum, not hard rock, not soul, but we're more in the straight pop category. By late 69 and into the new decade when hard rock was starting to become more mainstream, they just didn't fit in and were looked on as irrelevant. Throughout the history of popular music there are thousands of performers who went through that 5 to 7 years of solid popularity and then just slowly faded away. It seems to be nature of the beast.

[DonnyL]

Until Jack Rieley came along, I think the group were not ready to give in to the 'hip' angle ... it's as if their public image was still being presented as a straightforward pop band from '67-'70 ... like their management/record labels felt it best to keep them groomed for the Carpenters/Monkees/Partridge Family scene.  Even Warner releasing 'Add Some Music' as the lead single was perpetuating this.  They were probably apprehensive to claim 'hip' for fear of losing their bread and butter audience.  Striped shirts in '67, matching white suits in '68 ...

[metal flake paint]

"I don't think The Beach Boys are supposed to be hip. I think they're supposed to move you emotionally whether you like it or not."

Daryl Dragon, 1999

[drbeachboy]

I can't totally speak about how they were perceived outside the U.S., but they had no bread and butter audience to speak of by the end of 1970. They were virtually in a no-mans land in their own country. I think what Rieley did was to try to align them toward the Progressive movement that was taking hold in the early 70's. He succeeded somewhat in that he brought them to the attention of the college crowd, but they never quite got back to where they were in 1966. By the time that they did regain their popularity, it wasn't due to what they were recording, but the nostalgia wave that swept the country at the end of the Vietnam War and began their 37 year Endless Summer.

[Zach95]

I believe what had more of an impact on their public reputation, more than all this talk about their music, their output artistically and their appearance, was the band's multiple labels.  The Beatles ran their own show, their was no ridiculous label determining whether the original Sunflower lineup was appropriate or distributing Add Some Music as a lead single.  The Beach Boys had to deal with crap like that, labels that tried to alter their public perception and ultimately ruin their reputation. 

[Autotune]

They ceased to be hip the day Good Vibrations left the #1 spot. That was it.

And the reason they were not hip anymore are not to be found in the music. It was not for artistic reasons. It was due to bad PR almost right from the start. And only because of that.

[drbeachboy]

Reprise was Ok with how they marketed the band. In hindsight, their insistence on adding better singles material to the albums did help make those albums better. Even In Concert became a better live album due the pressure from Reprise. Now Capitol, they were completely off the mark in how they marketed the band from 66 through 69. They made more money on the first two Best Of's than they did on their last 4 studio albums of that period.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Also, The Beach Boys were doomed (or blessed) from day one to stand apart from the uber-hip San Francisco/Great Britain/Dylan crowd in that they really WERE suntanned, golden haired/prematurely balding Southern California beach kids. Even Brian. They wrote songs about their lives and their emotions and their desires. They created an entire myth about California which they more or less accurately represented. There was no attempt at intellectualism, nor was such a thing necessary with them. Sure they were dorks but the Grateful Dead were even bigger dorks in reality, but those guys wrote about THEIR world which revolved around Bluegrass, drugs, old blues/country tunes: all which resonated with the hip kids and they looked/dressed accordingly (at least in the early days).

[DonnyL]

Also, The Beach Boys were doomed (or blessed) from day one to stand apart from the uber-hip San Francisco/Great Britain/Dylan crowd in that they really WERE suntanned, golden haired/prematurely balding Southern California beach kids. Even Brian. They wrote songs about their lives and their emotions and their desires. They created an entire myth about California which they more or less accurately represented. There was no attempt at intellectualism, nor was such a thing necessary with them. Sure they were dorks but the Grateful Dead were even bigger dorks in reality, but those guys wrote about THEIR world which revolved around Bluegrass, drugs, old blues/country tunes: all which resonated with the hip kids and they looked/dressed accordingly (at least in the early days).

I agree with you in terms of public perception, but in reality, most group members were quite 'hip' as individuals.

[Ron]

The reason the Beach Boys were dismissed and dubbed as unhip is because at THEIR CORE, they're unhip.  They've always been unhip.  They're an entire band of dorks.  Dennis was the coolest one of all of them, but even he was unable to overcome the general dorkiness of a bunch of guys from Hawthorne.  I would imagine the people who grow up in the suburbs of Hawthorne today are still uncool. 

Now saying somebody's unhip or a dork doesn't mean that it's the end of the world, it's just who they are.  If they were ever cool, it was because they were being misunderstood, lol. 

They regained some of their coolness when they were a bad-ass rock band in the 70's.  In the 70's, they really rocked it in their live shows.  They reverted back to their true form in the early 80's, and have remained their uncool, dorky selves ever since.

Also, the Smile album was dorky.  It's great, yes. Dorky, though. 

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Hey, I grew up in the suburbs of Hawthorne!!!!! .........

..... and I spend about 80% of each day on this board ...... So,  guess I'm just proving your point