Grammy Press Release - 2/8/12

[roll plymouth rock]

This is what the Grammys are like, folks. Has nothing to do with the band's decisions -- BOB DYLAN had to appear with younger acts to perform live at the show last year. Wrap your head around that. An undeniable icon like Dylan was still forced to perform as part of a larger group.

I had imagined the group wearing suits and tastefully performing a tasteful version of 'Good Vibrations' to prime-time America.

Heh.

Dylan's acts were billed as a "Tribute to folk" or something like that.....it wasn't too bad of a version of Maggie's Farm. I get that its their format to do this multiband thing. I just figured the whole Beach Boys reuniting thing might get them their own spot. Picking up where Stars & Stripes left off I guess...

[LetHimRun]

("that other band" with a song that has 64,000,000+ views on youtube which got to #3 on the Billboard top 100 with a #8 top 200 debut album)

Never heard of them. I don't care for Youtube-stats but if they are good, then I mght check them out.

I like much of Maroon 5's stuff. I hate "Move like Jagger". But something like "Won't go home without you" has a certain Beach Boy-vibe to it imo.
I hope that this is the only collaboration kind of thing for the 50h ann. celebration. I could live with that.

Maybe the bands will do an opening medley. Foster the people play a song, then Maroon 5 and then the Beach Boys come on or something to that effect. Of course our boys have to be the headliner so to speak.




EDIT:
Just youtubed Foster The People and I have heard "Pump...." before. Kinda liked it's "old" sound but I thought the singing was not harmonious enough.

I just think FTP will be a good compliment being as their leader and song writer is a Beach Boy fanboy.

I, like you, don't care for youtube stats either, just thought it was mentionable that it had 64M hits. #3 Billboard top 100 song and #8 Billboard top 200 album means something, though, especially for the debut of an indie band.

This is their best three song stretch on the album for me, give it a listen (or not ):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbEVzpdOlVg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOIfNyBmZ0g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DHXXZP2L7w

I'd like to, but youtube won't let me watch it here in Germany. I'll keep my ears open though for Foster the people.

Oh, sorry, I'll give you the names of the songs: Waste, I Would Do Anything for You, and Houdini. The album is Torches.

In the end, though, I wish it was just the BBs themselves.

[Wirestone]

This is what the Grammys are like, folks. Has nothing to do with the band's decisions -- BOB DYLAN had to appear with younger acts to perform live at the show last year. Wrap your head around that. An undeniable icon like Dylan was still forced to perform as part of a larger group.

I had imagined the group wearing suits and tastefully performing a tasteful version of 'Good Vibrations' to prime-time America.

Heh.

Dylan's acts were billed as a "Tribute to folk" or something like that.....it wasn't too bad of a version of Maggie's Farm. I get that its their format to do this multiband thing. I just figured the whole Beach Boys reuniting thing might get them their own spot. Picking up where Stars & Stripes left off I guess...

Well, as stated by many people here, I don't think most people ever thought the Beach Boys broke up. Especially given that Mike and Bruce have been playing hard and consistently over the past 14 years. So the notion of a "reunion" doesn't carry as much weight -- it's still cool, but it's more along the lines of "Brian Wilson and this strange elf rejoin the Beach Boys."

I somewhat doubt it will be like Stars and Stripes. I'd bet you get lead vocals from the Boys.

[jardine (no relation]

 "old over-the-hill acts"...like Maroon 5?

except for unanticipated moments, the grammies have tended to be, well, "below par," shall we say. the dylan pairing was ok. But to say that he was "forced" to do this might be a bit overstated, however. the real issue for me is: Maroon 5??? fleet foxes maybe, or some other oddity, but, well, maybe i haven't "studied" maroon 5's oeuvre well enough. . .

[lee]

This is disappointing. I can't stand Maroon 5. Their lead singer has a voice that I can't stand.

[pixletwin]

This is disappointing. I can't stand Maroon 5. Their lead singer has a voice that I can't stand.

Isn't he the guy from that dumb game show?

[Zach95]

I'm going to take a positive spin on this and say this will be great for younger audiences who will experience the Beach Boys, hopefully, in a new way.  It exposes them to a broader audience. Yeah, I despise Maroon 5, I'm alright with Foster the People though.  In all reality however, I guess this was always going to happen, and here we were thinking they would play three songs  

[SamMcK]

For f*cks sake.

[lee]

This is disappointing. I can't stand Maroon 5. Their lead singer has a voice that I can't stand.

Isn't he the guy from that dumb game show?

Yes he is. One of my most hated vocalists.

[Ron]

I'd like for everybody to explain exactly what year they all stopped liking Maroon 5.  You know you all loved them when nobody had heard of them, like Foster The People, but once they moved into, oh, legend status (they're basically looked at like their legends already, because every album sells huge), everybody stopped liking them.

So, let me know when you stopped liking Maroon 5, and when you'll stop liking Foster the People. 

BTW, if Foster the People continues to be a half-assed rock band and never really makes it huge, will it be alright for me to still like them as much as I do now?

I'm trying to understand the whole "I HATE THEM" timeline, I don't know when it's cool to stop liking a band.  I realize there's a direct correlation between record sales, and uncoolness, but I'm not in touch with it.  For instance the Boys biggest single was Kokomo, and that's the song their 'fans' (ahem) hate the most. 

Somebody break it down for me: I'm not naturally inclined to hate bands I used to like. 

[KokoNO]

Tons of people disliked Maroon 5 from the start. Just because a few million buy their records, it doesn't mean there aren't millions that know of and vehemently hate them from the first time they've heard one of their singles. Count me in that category.

Foster The People isn't an awful band and "Pumped Up Kicks" is a solid single. I honestly doubt they have anymore interesting songs under the belt to remain much of a presence on the mainstream music radar.

[Ron]

Ah, see, but that's not how I remember it, Kokomo.  When Maroon 5 came out, every motherfucker I knew thought they were great.  Now everyone of you guys is like "Oh, i don't like them, that's chick music".  I think you're just pissed that you know he can pull off singing "I Get Around' and you can't.
 
Foster the People are really cool.  I agree.  They're almost as cool as Maroon 5. 

Of course, since by definition you're too cool to enjoy anything that's mainstream, you'll soon turn on Foster the People too. 

[drbeachboy]

I'd like for everybody to explain exactly what year they all stopped liking Maroon 5.  You know you all loved them when nobody had heard of them, like Foster The People, but once they moved into, oh, legend status (they're basically looked at like their legends already, because every album sells huge), everybody stopped liking them.

So, let me know when you stopped liking Maroon 5, and when you'll stop liking Foster the People.  

BTW, if Foster the People continues to be a half-assed rock band and never really makes it huge, will it be alright for me to still like them as much as I do now?

I'm trying to understand the whole "I HATE THEM" timeline, I don't know when it's cool to stop liking a band.  I realize there's a direct correlation between record sales, and uncoolness, but I'm not in touch with it.  For instance the Boys biggest single was Kokomo, and that's the song their 'fans' (ahem) hate the most.  

Somebody break it down for me: I'm not naturally inclined to hate bands I used to like.  

It is a strange phenomenon, isn't it? But so, so true.

[pixletwin]

To be honest, I couldn't even name one tune by them.

[Ron]

I'd like for everybody to explain exactly what year they all stopped liking Maroon 5.  You know you all loved them when nobody had heard of them, like Foster The People, but once they moved into, oh, legend status (they're basically looked at like their legends already, because every album sells huge), everybody stopped liking them.

So, let me know when you stopped liking Maroon 5, and when you'll stop liking Foster the People.  

BTW, if Foster the People continues to be a half-assed rock band and never really makes it huge, will it be alright for me to still like them as much as I do now?

I'm trying to understand the whole "I HATE THEM" timeline, I don't know when it's cool to stop liking a band.  I realize there's a direct correlation between record sales, and uncoolness, but I'm not in touch with it.  For instance the Boys biggest single was Kokomo, and that's the song their 'fans' (ahem) hate the most.  

Somebody break it down for me: I'm not naturally inclined to hate bands I used to like.  

It is a strange phenomenon, isn't it? But so, so true.

The hilarious thing about it is, they think they're being intelligent or thinking on their own to do that, but they ALL do it!  I've got more respect for 15 year old chicks in high school who like justin Bieber than I do for the so called educated music fans who are so fickle about what they'll admit liking. 

[lee]

I can honestly say I never liked Maroon 5. As I said before, I can't stand the guys voice. If I did like them or had at one point, I"d have no problem admitting it.

[Ron]

I can honestly say I never liked Maroon 5. As I said before, I can't stand the guys voice. If I did like them or had at one point, I"d have no problem admitting it.

I don't believe you. 

[hypehat]

Are you newguy's dad or something? He's allowed not to like Maroon 5.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Maroon 5, to me, are one of those crappy bands who were fortunate enough to get signed back when record labels had enough power/money/pull to push them relentlessly to where they could get heavy airplay, video rotation, buzz, which could pay off handsomely via momentum until people either got sick of them or realized how badly they sucked.

Maroon 5 typify such phenomena. Plus, they also got a weird foothold (curiosity-wise at least) by indie/hipster kids because at least two of the guys look/dress like hipsters, so at least some people (myself included) assumed they were that sort of band and gave them a chance.

But they suck bad and the singer has an irritating voice that is the polar opposite of The Beach Boys beauty. But girls like him because he's hot so he gets to be up there singing with them. Yeah, life is fair.

[SBonilla]

I'm going to pass. The last time I sat through a Grammy show was in 1985. I had tickets (in the nose bleed section) and I got to go to the parties afterward, so it was worth it.

I'll read all about it here. And look for the clip.

[Beach Head]

You know, you'd think an outfit like The Grammys could get their facts correct.

In the very first sentence of the press release, they state: "The Beach Boys — Brian Wilson, Mike Love, Al Jardine, Bruce Johnston, and David Marks, who have not performed together live in more than two decades ..."

Of course, those five have NEVER performed togther. David was long gone by the time Bruce joined in 1965, and 32 years later (1997) David re-joined a full year after Brian had last played with the group.

But perhaps they're discounting David and just referring to the last time the performing Beach Boys included Brian and Alan in addition to Mike and Bruce. If that's the case, they're still wrong! It's only been 15 years since those four performed together live, not the "more than two decades" cited in the press release. According to AGD's website (and I have no reason to doubt his excellent trove of data), Brian last performed with Mike, Bruce & Alan at two shows at The Navy Pier in Chicago on Sept. 8, 1996.

Good Lord, Grammy guys and gals, get it right!

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Maroon 5, to me, are one of those crappy bands who were fortunate enough to get signed back when record labels had enough power/money/pull to push them relentlessly to where they could get heavy airplay, video rotation, buzz, which could pay off handsomely via momentum until people either got sick of them or realized how badly they sucked.

Maroon 5 typify such phenomena. Plus, they also got a weird foothold (curiosity-wise at least) by indie/hipster kids because at least two of the guys look/dress like hipsters, so at least some people (myself included) assumed they were that sort of band and gave them a chance.

But they suck bad and the singer has an irritating voice that is the polar opposite of The Beach Boys beauty. But girls like him because he's hot so he gets to be up there singing with them. Yeah, life is fair.

If there was any justice in this world, Adam Marsland and his band would be up there with The Beach Boys

[Quzi]

Foster the people actually aren't too bad a band to be squeezed into a grammy cheese event.
Their hit song from last year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oLzX0RPquk

Hey, that bass line is eerily similar to Don't Worry Baby's, it'd be too easy to mash those two up. /speculation

[Zach95]

I'd like for everybody to explain exactly what year they all stopped liking Maroon 5.  You know you all loved them when nobody had heard of them, like Foster The People, but once they moved into, oh, legend status (they're basically looked at like their legends already, because every album sells huge), everybody stopped liking them.

So, let me know when you stopped liking Maroon 5, and when you'll stop liking Foster the People.  

BTW, if Foster the People continues to be a half-assed rock band and never really makes it huge, will it be alright for me to still like them as much as I do now?

I'm trying to understand the whole "I HATE THEM" timeline, I don't know when it's cool to stop liking a band.  I realize there's a direct correlation between record sales, and uncoolness, but I'm not in touch with it.  For instance the Boys biggest single was Kokomo, and that's the song their 'fans' (ahem) hate the most.  

Somebody break it down for me: I'm not naturally inclined to hate bands I used to like.  

I'll tell you when I started to hate them.  2010, Hands All Over. They sold out from being a somewhat decent, catchy, pop/rock/indie group that I enjoyed to creating mainstream, garbage pop songs like Misery and Moves Like Jagger. Just complete sell outs.  

I even read an interview Levine did before their big tour they did this past summer, and he even said that because they're not a well respected indie group, they can do stadium sized tours and perform any sort of garbage they like.  The interview was in Rolling Stone by the way.  It's just a game to them, where as long as records are sold and the cash is flowing, they really could care less about the quality of their music.

That's when I started hating them.

[stack-o-tracks]

Ah, see, but that's not how I remember it, Kokomo.  When Maroon 5 came out, every motherf*cker I knew thought they were great.  Now everyone of you guys is like "Oh, i don't like them, that's chick music".  I think you're just pissed that you know he can pull off singing "I Get Around' and you can't.
 
Foster the People are really cool.  I agree.  They're almost as cool as Maroon 5. 

Of course, since by definition you're too cool to enjoy anything that's mainstream, you'll soon turn on Foster the People too. 

Maroon 5 has always sucked. They're like a black hole of sucking that just keeps sucking in more suck and growing constantly suckier. That song about moving like Jagger is such sh*t. I didn't even know it was Maroon 5 for the longest time I thought it was some new crapadelic dance group.