Carl queers the pitch in the mid '90s

[Paulos]

...after the disaster that was 15 Big Ones/Love You.

No argument with 15 B/O's, but Love You is no disaster, by a long shot(a really, really long shot).

Love You was a disaster, not artistically but commercially.

Agreed to some extent, although US top 60/UK top 30 isn't too bad going from a commercial point of view, is it (happy to be corrected)?

I get that Love You didn't set the world on fire back in the day and haul in mountains of cash, but 35 years on we can probably forgo the economic rationalism and assess the album on it's artistic merit.

And Love You did not seal the band's fate as an oldies act.

The way I see things, an album that peaks at #53 is a commercial disaster, it seems to me that quite a lot of newer fans who had gotten into the Boys via Endless Summer would have been majorly put out by the one-two punch of 15 Big Ones & Love You - 15 Big Ones being just plain bad and Love You being way to weird to be a true commercial success.

Are you sure that anything that made the US Top 100, or UK Top 30, some 35 years ago was a "commercial disaster"? You could say poor performer, or even "average", but not "commercial disaster" (let's reserve that for SIP).

As far as the 1-2 punch thing goes; we know after 15 B/Os, Capitol slipped in Live in London (off the back of 15 biggies chart "performance") - generating sales and interest in the BBs aimed at the the Endless Summer set, and prior to Love You.

Yeah, Love you is left-center - from a personal perspective, I bought it unheard in '83, when I was 12, having bought the Beach Boys greatest hits, Surfin' Saf/USA vinyl twofer, followed by PS/Smiley vinyl twofer. 

I got it from a clockney geezer, flogging punch-outs in downtown Brisbane so he could get back to London for Christmas.  Went home and threw it on the 3-in-1, sucked it in and loved it like any other BB product you can name (bar SIP) - so, I don't get why Love You could be called a disaster; by any definition.

That's fine, we don't have to agree but I still stick by what I said, a #53 album following a #8 album is, in my opinion a commercial disaster although no-where near the commercial disaster of Sunflower. At least I'm not one of the people who refer to Pet Sounds as a commercial disaster, that one has never made sense to me.

[Emdeeh]

Regarding the drinking, somebody on here once told a story about seeing the group in concert 1996(I believe), and that Carl's cup was continuously being filled with beer for the entire concert.

I've seen that happen, but it wasn't Carl's cup that was being filled -- it was someone else's (different people on different occasions).

[SloopJohnB]

You know, over the years I've read a LOT about The Beach Boys in most of the books, magazine and newspaper articles, message boards, and other journalism/web sites/blogs on the Internet, and this is the very first time I've read someone suggesting that Carl Wilson was inebriated during the recording of a song(s). I must have missed something somewhere. Would someone please direct me to a source for this "info"?

Well, the KTSA/BB85 twofer liner notes, for starters. And plenty of other sources as well.

[Mikie]

Well, the KTSA/BB85 twofer liner notes, for starters. And plenty of other sources as well.

OK, lessee. I plucked this out of the KTSA/BB85 liner notes (written by AGD). It refers to the song, "Livin' With A Heatache". This is all I could find relating to Carl being 'inebriated' during a recording session:

"According to engineer Steve Desper, when Carl’s vocal was cut, he was so “relaxed” (thanks to the odd beer or three…) that he sang leaning against the barn wall".

Just listened to "Livin' With A Heartache" one more time since first hearing it in March, 1980.  I cannot tell that Carl is the least bit inebriated or influenced by alcohol.

[Micha]

Actually I've often thought that on the LPs from 15 Big Ones through MIU Carl sounds positively drunk. From LA on though he sounds sober and powerful again. I think his worst days were over by then.

Yeah, I totally agree with you on that. On "Good Timin" from L.A. (Light Album) he sounds great again, but on stuff like "Talk to Me" or "Sweet Sunday Kinda Love" he sounds pretty inebriated. And actually, even though it was an L.A. session, he sounds pretty sleepy on "California Feelin'."

Hey, finally somebody agrees with me!

Speaking of disagreeing, I think Love You is a total disaster arrangementwise. To me, the songs are good, but there is no bite, punch or energy in the sound. Not saying I'm right, it's IMHO!!! But surely Love You did not seal the band's fate as an oldies act, I agree there.

You know, over the years I've read a LOT about The Beach Boys in most of the books, magazine and newspaper articles, message boards, and other journalism/web sites/blogs on the Internet, and this is the very first time I've read someone suggesting that Carl Wilson was inebriated during the recording of a song(s). I must have missed something somewhere. Would someone please direct me to a source for this "info"?

In my case, it isn't info but my own perception of the sound of his voice on 15BO through MIU. Interesting to read that Carl was supposedly drunk during the vocal takes for "Living with a heartache", he doesn't sound off to me there.

[Mikie]

Micha, note that Desper doesn't say anything about Carl being 'drunk' and he doesn't specify the exact amont of beers Carl was drinking. He says Carl was "relaxed". Can't speak for Carl here, but personally I can knock back more than 3 beers before getting 'drunk'!

[joshferrell]

Carls "S's" sound a little slurred on Heartache but other than that he doesn't really sound "drunk"..

[Steve Mayo]

that has always been about my limit also mikie.....  

[adamghost]

Could also be that Desper was remembering an earlier take that wasn't used, too.  These things happen.

[southbay]

Regarding the drinking, somebody on here once told a story about seeing the group in concert 1996(I believe), and that Carl's cup was continuously being filled with beer for the entire concert. I hope I got the details right, or at least the overall gist of the story.

Someone once told a story about seeing something. People really need to have facts in their hands before telling tales about this kind of stuff. Who was this guy? Was he on the stage when he saw this? If not, how far away was he?  How was the lighting in the area?  I can tell you that during that era (1990 until Carl's death) I personally saw him backstage, entering and exiting his dressing room (within 5 feet of his dresssing room) at varying times before and after concerts on upwards of twenty occasions.  I never saw him with anything other than  a Perrier bottle in his hand (and no, I never asked or inspected to see if Perrier was in fact in the bottle). In speaking with him on each of those occasions, he never smelled of alcohol, nor did he act as if he were under the influence of same. This is not to say he did not drink away from the concert hall, I have no knowledge of that.

[b00ts]

Regarding the drinking, somebody on here once told a story about seeing the group in concert 1996(I believe), and that Carl's cup was continuously being filled with beer for the entire concert. I hope I got the details right, or at least the overall gist of the story.

Someone once told a story about seeing something. People really need to have facts in their hands before telling tales about this kind of stuff. Who was this guy? Was he on the stage when he saw this? If not, how far away was he?  How was the lighting in the area?  I can tell you that during that era (1990 until Carl's death) I personally saw him backstage, entering and exiting his dressing room (within 5 feet of his dresssing room) at varying times before and after concerts on upwards of twenty occasions.  I never saw him with anything other than  a Perrier bottle in his hand (and no, I never asked or inspected to see if Perrier was in fact in the bottle). In speaking with him on each of those occasions, he never smelled of alcohol, nor did he act as if he were under the influence of same. This is not to say he did not drink away from the concert hall, I have no knowledge of that.

So the man may have liked his booze (as many of us do) but he was functional and apparently did not drink all the time. Sounds similar to Paul McCartney's pot smoking, except for the part about not doing it all the time.

[Lonely Summer]

...after the disaster that was 15 Big Ones/Love You.

No argument with 15 B/O's, but Love You is no disaster, by a long shot(a really, really long shot).

Love You was a disaster, not artistically but commercially.

Agreed to some extent, although US top 60/UK top 30 isn't too bad going from a commercial point of view, is it (happy to be corrected)?

I get that Love You didn't set the world on fire back in the day and haul in mountains of cash, but 35 years on we can probably forgo the economic rationalism and assess the album on it's artistic merit.

And Love You did not seal the band's fate as an oldies act.

The way I see things, an album that peaks at #53 is a commercial disaster, it seems to me that quite a lot of newer fans who had gotten into the Boys via Endless Summer would have been majorly put out by the one-two punch of 15 Big Ones & Love You - 15 Big Ones being just plain bad and Love You being way to weird to be a true commercial success.

Exactly my point. Thank you, Paulos. To be a commercially viable recording band in 1976, the BB's needed to put out a record as pleasing as Summer Days, Today, or Pet Sounds. Not necessarily an album that sounded exactly like those albums, but something with some traces of the old sound, along with the more mature sounds they explored on Holland or Surf's Up. If they had done that, they would've permanently won over a new generation of fans. As it turned out, the new fans heard the new music, and moved on to other things.

[Mikie]

Could also be that Desper was remembering an earlier take that wasn't used, too.  These things happen.

True.  And Steve may have been being nice (diplomatic) by stating that Carl was "relaxed" instead of.....

But who cares.  Carl sounded great on the final product.

[Wirestone]

The band was in an impossible point in the mid-70s, though. None of the other members of the band were really able to do what needed to be done for commercial success. Dennis had some great songs, but they were in a different style, and it's not like he had hits with them. Brian was still their best hope and their best bet. And 15 Big Ones had hits -- Brian clearly still had an ear for some catchy hooks in a single. So Love You was a bit of a risk, perhaps, but I'm sure it seemed like a reasonable thing to do at the time.

And what do you do after the record is delivered? Carl remixes it and records some new parts, trying to jazz it up a bit while still retaining some artistic integrity. They design it in such a way to emphasize its offbeat nature. But if they reject it entirely, Brian (who is still the most valuable bargaining chip in the band) would probably be unwilling to write or perform with the group again. That's too much of a long-term risk! So you grin, bear it, and go along with it.

[harrisonjon]

They missed Bruce.

[Alan Smith]

...after the disaster that was 15 Big Ones/Love You.

No argument with 15 B/O's, but Love You is no disaster, by a long shot(a really, really long shot).

Love You was a disaster, not artistically but commercially.

Agreed to some extent, although US top 60/UK top 30 isn't too bad going from a commercial point of view, is it (happy to be corrected)?

I get that Love You didn't set the world on fire back in the day and haul in mountains of cash, but 35 years on we can probably forgo the economic rationalism and assess the album on it's artistic merit.

And Love You did not seal the band's fate as an oldies act.

The way I see things, an album that peaks at #53 is a commercial disaster, it seems to me that quite a lot of newer fans who had gotten into the Boys via Endless Summer would have been majorly put out by the one-two punch of 15 Big Ones & Love You - 15 Big Ones being just plain bad and Love You being way to weird to be a true commercial success.

Are you sure that anything that made the US Top 100, or UK Top 30, some 35 years ago was a "commercial disaster"? You could say poor performer, or even "average", but not "commercial disaster" (let's reserve that for SIP).

As far as the 1-2 punch thing goes; we know after 15 B/Os, Capitol slipped in Live in London (off the back of 15 biggies chart "performance") - generating sales and interest in the BBs aimed at the the Endless Summer set, and prior to Love You.

Yeah, Love you is left-center - from a personal perspective, I bought it unheard in '83, when I was 12, having bought the Beach Boys greatest hits, Surfin' Saf/USA vinyl twofer, followed by PS/Smiley vinyl twofer. 

I got it from a clockney geezer, flogging punch-outs in downtown Brisbane so he could get back to London for Christmas.  Went home and threw it on the 3-in-1, sucked it in and loved it like any other BB product you can name (bar SIP) - so, I don't get why Love You could be called a disaster; by any definition.

That's fine, we don't have to agree but I still stick by what I said, a #53 album following a #8 album is, in my opinion a commercial disaster although no-where near the commercial disaster of Sunflower. At least I'm not one of the people who refer to Pet Sounds as a commercial disaster, that one has never made sense to me.

That's fine with me too!

And right behind you on the Pet Sounds thing.

[Lonely Summer]

I've never understood how an album that reaches the top ten can be considered a failure. Sure, it didn't sell Revolver or Rubber Soul numbers, but then, what did? The Beatles were guaranteed the top of the charts with each release. The BB's had exactly one chart topping album in the 60's - Beach Boys Concert.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I've never understood how an album that reaches the top ten can be considered a failure.

I agree in this case, but failure is a relative term. Hootie & the Blowfish sold like 14 million copies of their first album, and the second sold like 2 million and was viewed as a failure in that context.

[Alan Smith]

I've never understood how an album that reaches the top ten can be considered a failure.

I agree in this case, but failure is a relative term. Hootie & the Blowfish sold like 14 million copies of their first album, and the second sold like 2 million and was viewed as a failure in that context.

On the bright side, it shows that at least 12 million humans developed the capacity to learn from their mistakes 

[Lonely Summer]

I've never understood how an album that reaches the top ten can be considered a failure.

I agree in this case, but failure is a relative term. Hootie & the Blowfish sold like 14 million copies of their first album, and the second sold like 2 million and was viewed as a failure in that context.

On the bright side, it shows that at least 12 million humans developed the capacity to learn from their mistakes 

One direction (no pun intended) the music industry went in that kind of backfired was the selling of these blockbuster type albums - which I guess sort of began in the late 70's with mega sellers like Rumours, Frampton Comes Alive, and Saturday Night Fever. It sets up a pattern where the followup is almost inevitably gonna be seen as a failure (i.e, Tusk only sold 3 million compared to Rumours' many many millions; I'm In You sold 3 million compared to FCA's 12 million). Nobody can sell that many albums every time out, but somewhere along the way, the record companies stopped developing careers, if you couldn't sell 10 million copies of whatever, you were viewed as a flop.

[Bean Bag]

My perception of Carl was that he held most of the cards.  He's long been the most sacred personality to fans -- more than anyone, he could do no wrong.  Especially since Dennis' death...he was The Wilson.

Once Brian "resigned," Carl, by default, seemed to be the natural figure head.  He was the one that didn't appear mentally ill (Brian), or wasted (Dennis) or ego-maniacal (Mike) -- he had the quiet, calm authority (and good taste and class) to serve as the band's spokesman and figure head.  Leveled headed and mature beyond his years, he just seemed the one that people looked to.  Wasn't he managing many of the band's affairs when he was 15 - back in the early days?

Also, he probably had the most access to Brian...which gave him even more cred' and hence ill-will from Landy, too.  I don't know if Carl held anything up during the 90s or not -- but more than anyone, he certainly had the most power to do so.  I don't know much about the BB's mid-late 90s period.  I'll have to read up on this...it does sound interesting...

[Rocker]

...after the disaster that was 15 Big Ones/Love You.

No argument with 15 B/O's, but Love You is no disaster, by a long shot(a really, really long shot).

Love You was a disaster, not artistically but commercially.

Agreed to some extent, although US top 60/UK top 30 isn't too bad going from a commercial point of view, is it (happy to be corrected)?

I get that Love You didn't set the world on fire back in the day and haul in mountains of cash, but 35 years on we can probably forgo the economic rationalism and assess the album on it's artistic merit.

And Love You did not seal the band's fate as an oldies act.

The way I see things, an album that peaks at #53 is a commercial disaster, it seems to me that quite a lot of newer fans who had gotten into the Boys via Endless Summer would have been majorly put out by the one-two punch of 15 Big Ones & Love You - 15 Big Ones being just plain bad and Love You being way to weird to be a true commercial success.

Exactly my point. Thank you, Paulos. To be a commercially viable recording band in 1976, the BB's needed to put out a record as pleasing as Summer Days, Today, or Pet Sounds. Not necessarily an album that sounded exactly like those albums, but something with some traces of the old sound, along with the more mature sounds they explored on Holland or Surf's Up. If they had done that, they would've permanently won over a new generation of fans. As it turned out, the new fans heard the new music, and moved on to other things.

Looking at "Good timin'" and "It's ok" (maybe even "California feeling") Brian seemed to be on to something like that in '74. Just at the same time Endless Summer hit it big such an album might've been a blockbuster.

[Jim V.]

...after the disaster that was 15 Big Ones/Love You.

No argument with 15 B/O's, but Love You is no disaster, by a long shot(a really, really long shot).

Love You was a disaster, not artistically but commercially.

Agreed to some extent, although US top 60/UK top 30 isn't too bad going from a commercial point of view, is it (happy to be corrected)?

I get that Love You didn't set the world on fire back in the day and haul in mountains of cash, but 35 years on we can probably forgo the economic rationalism and assess the album on it's artistic merit.

And Love You did not seal the band's fate as an oldies act.

The way I see things, an album that peaks at #53 is a commercial disaster, it seems to me that quite a lot of newer fans who had gotten into the Boys via Endless Summer would have been majorly put out by the one-two punch of 15 Big Ones & Love You - 15 Big Ones being just plain bad and Love You being way to weird to be a true commercial success.

Exactly my point. Thank you, Paulos. To be a commercially viable recording band in 1976, the BB's needed to put out a record as pleasing as Summer Days, Today, or Pet Sounds. Not necessarily an album that sounded exactly like those albums, but something with some traces of the old sound, along with the more mature sounds they explored on Holland or Surf's Up. If they had done that, they would've permanently won over a new generation of fans. As it turned out, the new fans heard the new music, and moved on to other things.

Looking at "Good timin'" and "It's ok" (maybe even "California feeling") Brian seemed to be on to something like that in '74. Just at the same time Endless Summer hit it big such an album might've been a blockbuster.

I agree. I still don't know why they didn't try harder to get an album out earlier that would contain "Good Timin''", "It's OK" and "California Feelin'". Even if those were the only Brian written tracks, that would pretty much be par for the course anyways. I still don't know why "Good Timin'" was held back until L.A. (Light Album). It would have been a great "re-introductory" tune for the band in the mid '70s. But anyways, back to a proposed album, you would have 2 great singles, "Good Timin'" and "It's OK", and one great album track from Brian ("California Feelin'"). Then you throw in, say, three tracks from Dennis, like "River Song" and "Pacific Ocean Blue", and then "Angel Come Home" from Carl, "Everyone's In Love With You" from Mike, and something from Al, likely "Susie Cincinnati". Also talked about was "Our Life, Our Love, and Our Land" from Mike and "Don't Let Me Go" from Carl and Mike, so maybe those would've made it. Who knows how they sounded?

It probably wouldn't be as "artistic" as Holland, but I think it probably still would've been a pretty good album that would have done well, especially as people were flippin' over Endless Summer. Most of the tracks above would show a "grown up" Beach Boys, but with a lot of the feeling of the "old days", but not as overtly nostalgic and lame as it seemed to come across on 15 Big Ones.

[Sound of Free]

I've said it before, but it's hard to believe how badly they dropped the ball on 15 Big Ones. If the story is true that Brian was "warming up" on the oldies and then Warner Bros. wanted something to release quickly, they still could have made it a lot better, without taking anything intended for Pacific Ocean Blue.

San Miguel was completed, and it would have been a perfect song to put on a post-Endless Summer album for fans looking for "fun in the sun." It also was a fabulous song from Dennis. They could have dug out Good Time for this album instead of the next one, and told Carl, look, it's a great song, just redo that one line from "shunshine" to "sunshine."

With no work needed on two of the songs and very minor work on another, in one day they could have replaced three of the covers with originals, reinforced that Brian really was "back" (even if Soulful Old Man Sunshine was more Rick Henn than Brian, it still had Brian's name and fingerprints on it) and put out a much better album.

If you're going to resurrect Good Time, why not do it an album earlier? And tell Carl, look, it's a great song, just fix that one line, from "shunshine" to "sunshine."

[Lonely Summer]

...after the disaster that was 15 Big Ones/Love You.

No argument with 15 B/O's, but Love You is no disaster, by a long shot(a really, really long shot).

Love You was a disaster, not artistically but commercially.

Agreed to some extent, although US top 60/UK top 30 isn't too bad going from a commercial point of view, is it (happy to be corrected)?

I get that Love You didn't set the world on fire back in the day and haul in mountains of cash, but 35 years on we can probably forgo the economic rationalism and assess the album on it's artistic merit.

And Love You did not seal the band's fate as an oldies act.

The way I see things, an album that peaks at #53 is a commercial disaster, it seems to me that quite a lot of newer fans who had gotten into the Boys via Endless Summer would have been majorly put out by the one-two punch of 15 Big Ones & Love You - 15 Big Ones being just plain bad and Love You being way to weird to be a true commercial success.

Exactly my point. Thank you, Paulos. To be a commercially viable recording band in 1976, the BB's needed to put out a record as pleasing as Summer Days, Today, or Pet Sounds. Not necessarily an album that sounded exactly like those albums, but something with some traces of the old sound, along with the more mature sounds they explored on Holland or Surf's Up. If they had done that, they would've permanently won over a new generation of fans. As it turned out, the new fans heard the new music, and moved on to other things.

Looking at "Good timin'" and "It's ok" (maybe even "California feeling") Brian seemed to be on to something like that in '74. Just at the same time Endless Summer hit it big such an album might've been a blockbuster.

I agree. I still don't know why they didn't try harder to get an album out earlier that would contain "Good Timin''", "It's OK" and "California Feelin'". Even if those were the only Brian written tracks, that would pretty much be par for the course anyways. I still don't know why "Good Timin'" was held back until L.A. (Light Album). It would have been a great "re-introductory" tune for the band in the mid '70s. But anyways, back to a proposed album, you would have 2 great singles, "Good Timin'" and "It's OK", and one great album track from Brian ("California Feelin'"). Then you throw in, say, three tracks from Dennis, like "River Song" and "Pacific Ocean Blue", and then "Angel Come Home" from Carl, "Everyone's In Love With You" from Mike, and something from Al, likely "Susie Cincinnati". Also talked about was "Our Life, Our Love, and Our Land" from Mike and "Don't Let Me Go" from Carl and Mike, so maybe those would've made it. Who knows how they sounded?

It probably wouldn't be as "artistic" as Holland, but I think it probably still would've been a pretty good album that would have done well, especially as people were flippin' over Endless Summer. Most of the tracks above would show a "grown up" Beach Boys, but with a lot of the feeling of the "old days", but not as overtly nostalgic and lame as it seemed to come across on 15 Big Ones.

I agree. An album like that would've sold well, and also encouraged people to take a chance on the next album. After 15 Big Ones, the average fan probably felt that "these guys aren't worth it", and passed on the albums after it.