Did Brian's use of session musicians hurt the Beach Boys popularity?

[MyGlove]

Of course the Beach Boys are arguably one of the best and most critically and commercially accepted and respected American bands of the rock era. But I really can't help thinking that a lot of the reason why the average person doesn't look at them as "revolutionary" like bands such as the Beatles or Led Zeppelin is because they were not ever really known for playing their own instruments. The fact that none of them (except Brian) are ever individually credited for much at all. You never see any of them individually on any lists for Greatest (Drummer, Guitarist, Songwriter) which kinda leads me to believe that even tho the music itself may be respected, that they as a band in all are not universally accepted as a huge band (like the Beatles are). The Beatles did of course use session musicians but all the drums, bass, and guitar and production techniques were done by them. Or any other band really, I just say the Beatles because of their extensive popularity with basically everyone. But do you know what I mean? Do you agree?

[runnersdialzero]

The Beach Boy are a boy band who dinnint even play there own instruments!

[EgoHanger1966]

I know what you mean, but don't agree.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't know what you mean, but i agree.

[Al Jardine: Pick Up Artist]

Not really related, but this reminded me of something.

A couple days ago, I played Smile for my grandmother. She liked it, but looked really confused the whole time. I asked her why, and she says "did they play all those instruments?" After explaining the Wrecking Crew to her, Today! and Pet Sounds (which, amazingly, she didn't know about) she looked kinda disappointed. She owns a lot of old BB vinyl, but it's mainly 45s and LDC/SG/SS/Endless Summer.

So the general fan base might not even have thought about it.

[JohnMill]

Of course the Beach Boys are arguably one of the best and most critically and commercially accepted and respected American bands of the rock era. But I really can't help thinking that a lot of the reason why the average person doesn't look at them as "revolutionary" like bands such as the Beatles or Led Zeppelin is because they were not ever really known for playing their own instruments. The fact that none of them (except Brian) are ever individually credited for much at all. You never see any of them individually on any lists for Greatest (Drummer, Guitarist, Songwriter) which kinda leads me to believe that even tho the music itself may be respected, that they as a band in all are not universally accepted as a huge band (like the Beatles are). The Beatles did of course use session musicians but all the drums, bass, and guitar and production techniques were done by them. Or any other band really, I just say the Beatles because of their extensive popularity with basically everyone. But do you know what I mean? Do you agree?

No.  I doubt the audience they were playing to in the sixties even cared.  As far as today is concerned, The Wrecking Crew is still highly respected by music fans and it's understood what they brought to the records of The Beach Boys and many of their contemporaries.  It would be ridiculous to assume that music fans think less of these bands because they utilized the best musicians available to them to enhance their records.  As far as casual music fans, you can file them under the first group of folks I spoke of.  Most casual fans don't spend time dissecting who played what on "Wouldn't It Be Nice".  They either enjoy the song or they don't.

[keysarsoze001]

I'm not sure that people necessarily thought about the fact that the Boys weren't playing on those records. Even if so, you'd have to discount an ENORMOUS amount of music in the 60s if you took umbrage every time the Wrecking Crew played on the tracks. Their presence didn't hurt, say, Simon and Garfunkel any, right? Besides which, for people who saw the BBs live at the time, it's not as if they were just standing like a barber shop quartet with a bunch of backing tracks.

I think if they weren't respected as musicians, it's because they were mediocre musicians, plain and simple. They weren't bad, by any stretch, and at times could really cook (the Rieley era springs to mind). But the reason people respected Led Zeppelin was not just because they played their instruments, but because they could PLAY their instruments, you know? To be frank, The Beatles weren't amazing musicians either, in terms of being virtuosos at their instruments. George developed into a quite magnificent guitarist, but was never really a Guitar Hero (that perception has gradually changed in the last decade, particularly after his death). They did in fact use session musicians quite regularly, yes, but it was only to play the instruments they didn't already play themselves. That said, nothing they did instrumentally was terribly flashy, which is really what leads people to think of musicians as virtuosos. Pete Townshend isn't actually technically a great guitarist, but he's got more flash than anyone else, so the perception is that he's an amazing player. The only BB who played with flash was Denny.

I think people put the emphasis on the right thing with the BBs: the vocals. I personally have never heard a blend like that before or since, and it's impossible to impersonate. The sound of the records was superb, of course, because of the musicians, extraordinary imagination on Brian's part, and terrific songwriting to begin with. But the band's legacy as a unit is and probably should be the vocals, not how well they play.

I'm not sure any of that made sense, but it's late and my brain is addled.

[JohnMill]

Not really related, but this reminded me of something.

A couple days ago, I played Smile for my grandmother. She liked it, but looked really confused the whole time. I asked her why, and she says "did they play all those instruments?" After explaining the Wrecking Crew to her, Today! and Pet Sounds (which, amazingly, she didn't know about) she looked kinda disappointed. She owns a lot of old BB vinyl, but it's mainly 45s and LDC/SG/SS/Endless Summer.

So the general fan base might not even have thought about it.

With all due respect how old are you?  You just made me really feel old right now but I guess it's time I accepted that the generation that grew up listening to The Beach Boys are now finding themselves as grandparents.  Man, mind bender.

[runnersdialzero]

But Led Zeppelin are terrible

[Runaways]

i think Brian's loss of voice made a bigger dent in the band's popularity.

[JohnMill]

I think if they weren't respected as musicians, it's because they were mediocre musicians, plain and simple. They weren't bad, by any stretch, and at times could really cook (the Rieley era springs to mind). But the reason people respected Led Zeppelin was not just because they played their instruments, but because they could PLAY their instruments, you know? To be frank, The Beatles weren't amazing musicians either, in terms of being virtuosos at their instruments. George developed into a quite magnificent guitarist, but was never really a Guitar Hero (that perception has gradually changed in the last decade, particularly after his death).

Maybe not among music fans but he was certainly heralded as one by his peers.  In fact it's ironic that the people that Harrison had the hardest time currying favor from was Lennon and McCartney.  Clapton, Dylan, members of The Band and tons of his other sixties contemporaries all held him in extremely high esteem and that way I've heard Clapton talk about Hari since his death, it's obvious to me that the man who many regard as the greatest guitarist ever holds Harrison in the highest esteem one could possibly hold someone as a peer.

In addition (and I love relating this story), during the nineties Tom Petty and Dave Stewart would often visit Harrison at Friar Park and often their visits would end up with late night jam sessions in Harrison's living room.  During one of these impromptu jam session, Harrison apparently began showing his chops on guitar, literally blowing everyone in the room away, to the point when he concluded playing, Petty asked him "Why haven't you ever done anything like that on any of your records" to which Hari responded "Well Tom, that kinda of stuff is Eric's gig".

[keysarsoze001]

George was an excellent player, able to play rockabilly licks with the best of them back in the early days, and with a great sense of melody as the years went on. Like I said, he wasn't flashy. He didn't play to get attention, you know? He wasn't Yngwie Malmsteen or anything. But his playing had a delicacy which made you almost take for granted how technically splendid he was. He could certainly play a blistering solo, although he almost never did (the solo on the album version of "Let It Be" is a rare example), because he always played whatever suited the song overall. That's what The Beatles were really great at doing (much as Brian was able to do). Nothing in the arrangements ever called attention to itself; it served the song as a whole.

[JohnMill]

George was an excellent player, able to play rockabilly licks with the best of them back in the early days, and with a great sense of melody as the years went on. Like I said, he wasn't flashy. He didn't play to get attention, you know? He wasn't Yngwie Malmsteen or anything. But his playing had a delicacy which made you almost take for granted how technically splendid he was. He could certainly play a blistering solo, although he almost never did (the solo on the album version of "Let It Be" is a rare example), because he always played whatever suited the song overall. That's what The Beatles were really great at doing (much as Brian was able to do). Nothing in the arrangements ever called attention to itself; it served the song as a whole.

and that is why I've always rated him as a better musician than Yngwie Malmsteen, Tony Iommi or any of the other guitar gods that the heavy metal set worships.  I'm not saying they are wrong in appreciating what they do as their camp does have a valid opinion but just as valid is the camp that subscribes to the "Don't Bore Us Get To The Chorus" mentality.  

[keysarsoze001]

I think typically it corresponds with what the main focus of the people in the band happens to be. To my mind, people like Jimmy Page were musicians first, songwriters second (or even third). Brian is a songwriter first, singer second, musician third, so for him that's the approach, as a songwriter, and everything is in service to the overall sound. George was definitely a musician first, but so much of his trade was learned while he was with the Beatles, who were songwriters first, musicians second, that he ended up approaching his playing as if it were another lead melodic instrument, like another voice. Or in some cases, it really was the primary voice, with his own singing coming second. Would that he had taken that approach with the Dark Horse album.

[?]

The Beatles did of course use session musicians but all the drums, bass, and guitar and production techniques were done by them.

George Martin was the producer, not the Beatles.  They would have been lost without him.

[Uncomfortable Seat]

I agree

[Jon Stebbins]

The entire premise is flawed because of the huge over-crediting of the Wrecking Crew as replacements for the Beach Boys by journalists and fans who really have no idea who played on what. The Beach Boys played on far more of their hits and far more of their classic tracks than the Wrecking Crew did. They often worked in a setting with session musicians used as auxiliary but not as total replacements for them. Yes Pet Sounds is 95% Wrecking Crew but there is no other Beach Boys LP that has that distinction. One of the true crimes of the written history of the Beach Boys and the general consensus of fans who think of themselves as in the know is the lack of credit the Beach Boys receive as musicians on the tracks they actually played on. There is a Wrecking Crew movie and book out there right now spreading mis-information regarding the Beach Boys role as musicians on many of their hits. All I can say is that time will wear this down because truth is in the session tapes...not in flimsy anecdotes and myth.

[Wirestone]

The thing is, the Beach Boys have always been known as two things -- a rock band, yes, but also as a vocal harmony group. Even the guys who were the best / most charismatic players (Carl and Dennis) were more than willing to play down their technical skills in order to play up their vocals. Carl could have been renowned as a guitar whiz -- but he ended up concentrating more on production and singing.

The other thing was, they were a song-based group. Not a playing-based group. This was something they had in common with the Beatles, which is why the Beatles (with the exceptions already noted) aren't really known as virtuoso musicians either. Neither group had to be, because the composition was ultimately the most important thing. Not jamming, not solos, not effects -- just the songs.

The thing is, this notion of the boys being a vocal group, and of being all about the songs, both of those things are really integral to their identity. So would we rather know of them as a group with great players, or as stunning harmony singers with matchless singles? I'd choose the latter, I think.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I think it hurt them terribly and has caused near irreparable damage to their reputation and legacy and it did great damage to all involved........ I can't tell you how many times I've heard friends laugh off the Beach Boys as basically N-Sync of their day who didn't even play on their own records. Some people can't ever get past that "fact" and just forget about The Beach Boys altogether.... Now, someone who CAN get past that idea and has the patience to overcome all the various Beach Boys related perception issues, they come to not care one bit (it also doesn't hurt that they know how much the BBs DID contribute instrumentally) .... I think things have turned for the better recently thanks (especially) to Stebbins and others, but it was a hard hurdle in the uber cred conscious 90's/David Leaf era and when Pet Sounds was the only cool BBs album.

[keysarsoze001]

I think it hurt them terribly and has caused near irreparable damage to their reputation and legacy and it did great damage to all involved........ I can't tell you how many times I've heard friends laugh off the Beach Boys as basically N-Sync of their day who didn't even play on their own records. Some people can't ever get past that "fact" and just forget about The Beach Boys altogether.... Now, someone who CAN get past that idea and has the patience to overcome all the various Beach Boys related perception issues, they come to not care one bit (it also doesn't hurt that they know how much the BBs DID contribute instrumentally) .... I think things have turned for the better recently thanks (especially) to Stebbins and others, but it was a hard hurdle in the uber cred conscious 90's/David Leaf era and when Pet Sounds was the only cool BBs album.

Well, then it's a double-edged sword, cause without the session musicians who knows what Pet Sounds or "Good Vibrations" would've sounded like? And since those records are a huge part of their legacy, I have to wonder if they'd have been better or worse off in the long run if Brian had tried to record those songs with the band themselves. Frankly, I don't think they would have done it. I think that basically the SMiLE scenario would've happened a year earlier. And we'd have no Sgt. Pepper to boot, because Paul wouldn't have heard things like the bass harmonica all over PS to inspire him to expand the Beatles' palette.

To my mind, any tarnishing of their legacy lies entirely at the feet of each member of the band itself, not the session musicians. The SMiLE debacle, hodgepodge albums like 20/20, the whole Brian's Back era in the mid-70s, the bloody hula girls, the striped shirts or the hats or Mike in a damn turban or Mike half naked in the 80s, the endless rewrites of "California Girls" on each new album since the late 70s, Full House, SIP, the Manson thing, Denny's entire descent into addiction, the public's perception of Brian as basically some kind of extra-terrestrial, and dozens of others I just can't think of right now. They all contributed to the reputation of the band overall as being perhaps beneath critical engagement. But those are the things which ultimately make them so fascinating and worthy of discussion. They're so so flawed, but capable of achieving heights which have yet to be topped.

[runnersdialzero]

I think it hurt them terribly and has caused near irreparable damage to their reputation and legacy and it did great damage to all involved........ I can't tell you how many times I've heard friends laugh off the Beach Boys as basically N-Sync of their day who didn't even play on their own records. Some people can't ever get past that "fact" and just forget about The Beach Boys altogether.... Now, someone who CAN get past that idea and has the patience to overcome all the various Beach Boys related perception issues, they come to not care one bit (it also doesn't hurt that they know how much the BBs DID contribute instrumentally) .... I think things have turned for the better recently thanks (especially) to Stebbins and others, but it was a hard hurdle in the uber cred conscious 90's/David Leaf era and when Pet Sounds was the only cool BBs album.

Well, then it's a double-edged sword, cause without the session musicians who knows what Pet Sounds or "Good Vibrations" would've sounded like? And since those records are a huge part of their legacy, I have to wonder if they'd have been better or worse off in the long run if Brian had tried to record those songs with the band themselves. Frankly, I don't think they would have done it. I think that basically the SMiLE scenario would've happened a year earlier. And we'd have no Sgt. Pepper to boot, because Paul wouldn't have heard things like the bass harmonica all over PS to inspire him to expand the Beatles' palette.

To my mind, any tarnishing of their legacy lies entirely at the feet of each member of the band itself, not the session musicians. The SMiLE debacle, hodgepodge albums like 20/20, the whole Brian's Back era in the mid-70s, the bloody hula girls, the striped shirts or the hats or Mike in a damn turban or Mike half naked in the 80s, the endless rewrites of "California Girls" on each new album since the late 70s, Full House, SIP, the Manson thing, Denny's entire descent into addiction, the public's perception of Brian as basically some kind of extra-terrestrial, and dozens of others I just can't think of right now. They all contributed to the reputation of the band overall as being perhaps beneath critical engagement. But those are the things which ultimately make them so fascinating and worthy of discussion. They're so so flawed, but capable of achieving heights which have yet to be topped.

I really don't know about that. About half the time someone says "The Beach Boys? Really?" to me, it's the stuff you named. The other half is "They didn't even play their own instruments" or, at best, "They didn't even play on their own records."

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I think it hurt them terribly and has caused near irreparable damage to their reputation and legacy and it did great damage to all involved........ I can't tell you how many times I've heard friends laugh off the Beach Boys as basically N-Sync of their day who didn't even play on their own records. Some people can't ever get past that "fact" and just forget about The Beach Boys altogether.... Now, someone who CAN get past that idea and has the patience to overcome all the various Beach Boys related perception issues, they come to not care one bit (it also doesn't hurt that they know how much the BBs DID contribute instrumentally) .... I think things have turned for the better recently thanks (especially) to Stebbins and others, but it was a hard hurdle in the uber cred conscious 90's/David Leaf era and when Pet Sounds was the only cool BBs album.

Well, then it's a double-edged sword, cause without the session musicians who knows what Pet Sounds or "Good Vibrations" would've sounded like? And since those records are a huge part of their legacy, I have to wonder if they'd have been better or worse off in the long run if Brian had tried to record those songs with the band themselves. Frankly, I don't think they would have done it. I think that basically the SMiLE scenario would've happened a year earlier. And we'd have no Sgt. Pepper to boot, because Paul wouldn't have heard things like the bass harmonica all over PS to inspire him to expand the Beatles' palette.

To my mind, any tarnishing of their legacy lies entirely at the feet of each member of the band itself, not the session musicians. The SMiLE debacle, hodgepodge albums like 20/20, the whole Brian's Back era in the mid-70s, the bloody hula girls, the striped shirts or the hats or Mike in a damn turban or Mike half naked in the 80s, the endless rewrites of "California Girls" on each new album since the late 70s, Full House, SIP, the Manson thing, Denny's entire descent into addiction, the public's perception of Brian as basically some kind of extra-terrestrial, and dozens of others I just can't think of right now. They all contributed to the reputation of the band overall as being perhaps beneath critical engagement. But those are the things which ultimately make them so fascinating and worthy of discussion. They're so so flawed, but capable of achieving heights which have yet to be topped.

I see what you're saying and consider it a distinct possibility, as for Pet Sounds either never being completed or sounding so different with the Beach Boys playing that it would have derailed their legacy (I know that's probably not what you meant) but then again, Brian did manage to get "That's Not Me" in the can with The Beach Boys (and an auxiliary guy or two to a lesser extent) and it just so happens to be one of the most unusual and exciting arrangement on the that album (IMHO). Pet Sounds might have taken longer to finish with the Boys, but there's no reason to assume it wouldn't have happened......

And dare I say: in relation to the litany of Beach Boys offenses you listed: some of those things may have never come to be had the Beach Boys (other than Brian) gotten more respect and had been looked at as more of a typical band/unit..... I mean, when Dennis died, weren't there a whole lot of write-ups describing him as not having played on the records and with songwriting credits/lead vocals being far and few between?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I think it hurt them terribly and has caused near irreparable damage to their reputation and legacy and it did great damage to all involved........ I can't tell you how many times I've heard friends laugh off the Beach Boys as basically N-Sync of their day who didn't even play on their own records. Some people can't ever get past that "fact" and just forget about The Beach Boys altogether.... Now, someone who CAN get past that idea and has the patience to overcome all the various Beach Boys related perception issues, they come to not care one bit (it also doesn't hurt that they know how much the BBs DID contribute instrumentally) .... I think things have turned for the better recently thanks (especially) to Stebbins and others, but it was a hard hurdle in the uber cred conscious 90's/David Leaf era and when Pet Sounds was the only cool BBs album.

Well, then it's a double-edged sword, cause without the session musicians who knows what Pet Sounds or "Good Vibrations" would've sounded like? And since those records are a huge part of their legacy, I have to wonder if they'd have been better or worse off in the long run if Brian had tried to record those songs with the band themselves. Frankly, I don't think they would have done it. I think that basically the SMiLE scenario would've happened a year earlier. And we'd have no Sgt. Pepper to boot, because Paul wouldn't have heard things like the bass harmonica all over PS to inspire him to expand the Beatles' palette.

To my mind, any tarnishing of their legacy lies entirely at the feet of each member of the band itself, not the session musicians. The SMiLE debacle, hodgepodge albums like 20/20, the whole Brian's Back era in the mid-70s, the bloody hula girls, the striped shirts or the hats or Mike in a damn turban or Mike half naked in the 80s, the endless rewrites of "California Girls" on each new album since the late 70s, Full House, SIP, the Manson thing, Denny's entire descent into addiction, the public's perception of Brian as basically some kind of extra-terrestrial, and dozens of others I just can't think of right now. They all contributed to the reputation of the band overall as being perhaps beneath critical engagement. But those are the things which ultimately make them so fascinating and worthy of discussion. They're so so flawed, but capable of achieving heights which have yet to be topped.

"Mike half naked in the 80s"

When did this happen?

Please tell OSD to post the footage!!!!

[Andrew G. Doe]

"Did Brian's use of session musicians hurt the Beach Boys popularity?"

No, because back then, no-one knew and fewer cared.

[keysarsoze001]

I think it hurt them terribly and has caused near irreparable damage to their reputation and legacy and it did great damage to all involved........ I can't tell you how many times I've heard friends laugh off the Beach Boys as basically N-Sync of their day who didn't even play on their own records. Some people can't ever get past that "fact" and just forget about The Beach Boys altogether.... Now, someone who CAN get past that idea and has the patience to overcome all the various Beach Boys related perception issues, they come to not care one bit (it also doesn't hurt that they know how much the BBs DID contribute instrumentally) .... I think things have turned for the better recently thanks (especially) to Stebbins and others, but it was a hard hurdle in the uber cred conscious 90's/David Leaf era and when Pet Sounds was the only cool BBs album.

Well, then it's a double-edged sword, cause without the session musicians who knows what Pet Sounds or "Good Vibrations" would've sounded like? And since those records are a huge part of their legacy, I have to wonder if they'd have been better or worse off in the long run if Brian had tried to record those songs with the band themselves. Frankly, I don't think they would have done it. I think that basically the SMiLE scenario would've happened a year earlier. And we'd have no Sgt. Pepper to boot, because Paul wouldn't have heard things like the bass harmonica all over PS to inspire him to expand the Beatles' palette.

To my mind, any tarnishing of their legacy lies entirely at the feet of each member of the band itself, not the session musicians. The SMiLE debacle, hodgepodge albums like 20/20, the whole Brian's Back era in the mid-70s, the bloody hula girls, the striped shirts or the hats or Mike in a damn turban or Mike half naked in the 80s, the endless rewrites of "California Girls" on each new album since the late 70s, Full House, SIP, the Manson thing, Denny's entire descent into addiction, the public's perception of Brian as basically some kind of extra-terrestrial, and dozens of others I just can't think of right now. They all contributed to the reputation of the band overall as being perhaps beneath critical engagement. But those are the things which ultimately make them so fascinating and worthy of discussion. They're so so flawed, but capable of achieving heights which have yet to be topped.

"Mike half naked in the 80s"

When did this happen?

Please tell OSD to post the footage!!!!

You know what I mean. Those shows when he wore like shorts and maybe a lei and nothing else. Oh, wait. He wore a trucker hat, of course.