Why Were Carl & Dennis So Easy To "Replace"?

[JohnMill]

Awhile back there was a discussion on these forums about rock groups that still have all their original members intact and this list was somewhat predictably small.  My question is why unlike other groups that have lost an original member or two (Keith Moon from "The Who" for example) have there been seemingly no absence felt by the general public in regards to Dennis and Carl Wilson?

When "The Who" toured around a decade ago all people could talk about was what an outrage it was that the band was touring without Keith Moon and once Entwistle passed there was even more calls for the group to disband before they did damage to their legacy.  However with The Beach Boys it seems that Brian, Al, Mike, Bruce and David have very easily both reunited and forged ahead quite successfully with this new tour despite the absence of Carl and Dennis.

Is this just due to the loss of Carl and Dennis being so far in the past now chronologically speaking that their absence is less notable?  Is it because their contributions to the group were somehow less notable than that of the surviving Beach Boys?  Is the fact that The Beach Boys have never attempted to permanently replace Dennis and Carl as members of the band in the ways other groups have with their deceased members?  It just seems to me that The Beach Boys have found a way to transition without Carl and Denny much easier than other bands who have gone through similar situations.

Discuss...

PS: I might as well mention it before someone else does.  I'm aware of the video tributes at the current shows.  Having seen them in person a few times, they are very touching and beautiful but seriously does anyone view them as legitimate substitutions for Dennis and Carl as far as this current tour goes?

[KittyKat]

Dennis was an absentee member off and on when he was live.  There were times he couldn't sing or he was kicked out of the band.   With Carl, I'm not sure, but I think people and the band do miss him.  However, the fact that his voice was so similar to both Brian's and Al Jardine's makes him a little easier to cover for and get a similar sound in the harmonies.  In the case of Brian, since he was the one who wrote the songs, that gives him extra rights to take Carl's leads. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Maybe people are more inclined to fight over a signature instrument sound than a signature vocal sound. I'm not saying Carl and Dennis weren't great at their instruments but unfortunately neither were particularly known for them.

[Wirestone]

1.) In recent decades, the Beach Boys have not had distinct personal identities to the general public, with the possible exception of Mike (and Brian to the superfans). Dennis was big in his day, but faded out over the course of the 70s and early 80s.

2.) They have had evolving lineups on the road for decades (subs in and out for Brian, large backing ensembles who end up singing lots of the songs), which likewise suggests that individual members aren't that important.

3.) They forged ahead after both Dennis's and Carl's deaths without a pause. They recorded quite prolifically after Dennis passed. Carl was tougher, but the Mike-led group hit the road almost soon afterward. The point is, the Beach Boys have always been a going concern. They have never let member departures or deaths keep them from playing.

4.) The 50th anniversary, while missing the two brothers, still includes Brian, Al and Dave's returns to the fold. All of them are legitimate members, and fans are delighted to see them.

5.) I'm unclear what you mean in talking about the video tributes. Clearly they aren't substitutes for Carl and Dennis. But what else would you have them do?

[JohnMill]

1.) In recent decades, the Beach Boys have not had distinct personal identities to the general public, with the possible exception of Mike (and Brian to the superfans). Dennis was big in his day, but faded out over the course of the 70s and early 80s.

2.) They have had evolving lineups on the road for decades (subs in and out for Brian, large backing ensembles who end up singing lots of the songs), which likewise suggests that individual members aren't that important.

3.) They forged ahead after both Dennis's and Carl's deaths without a pause. They recorded quite prolifically after Dennis passed. Carl was tougher, but the Mike-led group hit the road almost soon afterward. The point is, the Beach Boys have always been a going concern. They have never let member departures or deaths keep them from playing.

4.) The 50th anniversary, while missing the two brothers, still includes Brian, Al and Dave's returns to the fold. All of them are legitimate members, and fans are delighted to see them.

5.) I'm unclear what you mean in talking about the video tributes. Clearly they aren't substitutes for Carl and Dennis. But what else would you have them do?

I have no issue with the video tributes.  I just wanted to cut those off at the pass who would say something like "Carl and Dennis are still members of the group.  Look at those fab video tributes!".  I understand the band's intentions in making them but as you said clearly they aren't substitutions for Dennis and Carl. 

Your other points are great and shed some light on some issues I had questions about  Thanks for your insight. 

[SamMcK]

For many in the UK at least Brian is by far the most known and is the groups de facto leader. I have to admit when I first became a Beach Boys fan Brian was the only one I bothered to do any research on, he has also had a successful solo career which has spread his name out as well as playing high profile gigs such as Glastonbury, The Queen's Golden Jubilee etc. You don't get to those sorts of places if your not respected or unknown to the public. Mike is also the most famous voice and was the face of the touring group for a long time now. They both arguably sang on more well known songs to the public and as the lead singers and lead songwriters during their peak years with possibly the most distinctive voices get the most attention then and now.

Carl and Dennis are the heart and soul of the group, there's no way you can replace them, they wouldn't have become as great as they are now without them. In fact you could say they saved the group after Brian's breakdown. However there are enough original Beach Boys members in the reunion for the public at large not to notice that anyone is missing. As sad as that may be. If Brian or Mike weren't there or decided to leave you KNOW people would write about it.

[Wirestone]

It is a provocative and good question, though. I personally expected more of a backlash -- and there was some in the early days of the reunion. But I think that context matters, too. Everything has worked out far better than anyone hoped -- the shows have been great, the album well-received -- and that goes a fair ways toward blunting criticism. Whatever may be missed in this incarnation of the band, it's creating some good music now, which does make a difference.

[MBE]

I miss them of course and think that they would have made this album and tour even better. Yet the five guys up there are important members of the group and there is still a magic there. So to me Carl and Dennis are missed, but I am proud of their bandmates.

[Jon Stebbins]

I think a lot of us would be missing them more if David or Brian were not included in this "reunion". By having Brian there the Wilson banner is certainly being flown in a hugely significant way, and David adds a certain legitimacy because he was so close as a youngster to both Carl and Dennis...he's almost like an honorary Wilson in a way. Also David brings a little of Dennis' rocker edge, as well as some of Carl's guitar vibe into the proceedings. There needs to be five. If this reunion was 4 it wouldn't feel right. I knew as soon as I saw these five together on the roof of Capitol Records back in 2006 that this combination would work. It has a natural balance. There is no replacing Dennis or Carl. But a group called the Beach Boys can exist without them if its this exact combination, take one away and its broken and the absence of CW and DW is magnified exponentially.

[JohnMill]

For many in the UK at least Brian is by far the most known and is the groups de facto leader. I have to admit when I first became a Beach Boys fan Brian was the only one I bothered to do any research on, he has also had a successful solo career which has spread his name out as well as playing high profile gigs such as Glastonbury, The Queen's Golden Jubilee etc. You don't get to those sorts of places if your not respected or unknown to the public.

True but couldn't you also make the argument that Brian's status as a well respected and important musician has more to do with his past glories than anything he has done in his solo career?  I'm not trying to knock his solo work but I think most would agree if he ever went out and did a tour solely based around material off of his solo records there would be very little interest on the part of a paying audience to see that show.  There are very few acts that can get by with touring their recent catalog at the expense of their back catalog and Brian really isn't an exception to that rule. 

Whenever he goes out as a solo, he still needs to perform The Beach Boys hits to put together a commercial show.  Now given all that I'll ask the question: how successful has his solo career been outside of his revisiting and performing The Beach Boys' classics?

[GhostyTMRS]

I agree with Jon about this. Also, I don't think the general public recognizes the individual members of the Beach Boy outside of Brian and Mike.

That said...and believe me, I'm thrilled bout the reunion and thrilled that David is a part of it....I DO certainly notice the absence of Carl. For me, his talent towered over the rest of the touring act. I'm glad I got to see him with the guys when I did.

Never got to see Dennis in concert but I've always felt his loss as the band carried on without him.

[JohnMill]

I think a lot of us would be missing them more if David or Brian were not included in this "reunion". By having Brian there the Wilson banner is certainly being flown in a hugely significant way, and David adds a certain legitimacy because he was so close as a youngster to both Carl and Dennis...he's almost like an honorary Wilson in a way. Also David brings a little of Dennis' rocker edge, as well as some of Carl's guitar vibe into the proceedings. There needs to be five. If this reunion was 4 it wouldn't feel right. I knew as soon as I saw these five together on the roof of Capitol Records back in 2006 that this combination would work. It has a natural balance. There is no replacing Dennis or Carl. But a group called the Beach Boys can exist without them if its this exact combination, take one away and its broken and the absence of CW and DW is magnified exponentially.

Again very true but outside of the hardcore Beach Boys fanbase, I do wonder how many people are aware that David Marks was a member of the band in the sixties?  In fact I wouldn't be surprised if casual fans thought that perhaps he (and heaven forgive me even Bruce Johnston) were new additions to the band.

[Wirestone]

For many in the UK at least Brian is by far the most known and is the groups de facto leader. I have to admit when I first became a Beach Boys fan Brian was the only one I bothered to do any research on, he has also had a successful solo career which has spread his name out as well as playing high profile gigs such as Glastonbury, The Queen's Golden Jubilee etc. You don't get to those sorts of places if your not respected or unknown to the public.

True but couldn't you also make the argument that Brian's status as a well respected and important musician has more to do with his past glories than anything he has done in his solo career?  I'm not trying to knock his solo work but I think most would agree if he ever went out and did a tour solely based around material off of his solo records there would be very little interest on the part of a paying audience to see that show.  There are very few acts that can get by with touring their recent catalog at the expense of their back catalog and Brian really isn't an exception to that rule.  

Whenever he goes out as a solo, he still needs to perform The Beach Boys hits to put together a commercial show.  Now given all that I'll ask the question: how successful has his solo career been outside of his revisiting and performing The Beach Boys' classics?

Well, Brian has had it both ways. And that's purposeful: He's spent 15 years or so promoting himself as the architect of the group. In his interviews and press pieces, there is no difference between BW and the group. Not saying that's right or wrong, but that's how he's talked about it. And he's been pretty successful at shifting critical attitudes and the attitudes of die-hard music fans.

As for his solo career, his non-BB records have been modest critical successes, and they've likewise sold modestly well. So it depends on your definition of "successful," I suppose.

[Amy B.]

To the casual fan, I think the BBs story is boring. They think it's just a bunch of white-bread guys in striped shirts singing about surfing and cars. They might even think that an outsider wrote the BB material. So why bother getting to know the individuals? They think there's no compelling member, like John Lennon, or Keith Moon. Of course the bigger fans could tell them that Dennis's story is every bit as compelling, and that Carl was a terrific singer. But they don't know that. They just know that two guys in the band died at some point.

[Nicko1234]

I think a lot of us would be missing them more if David or Brian were not included in this "reunion". By having Brian there the Wilson banner is certainly being flown in a hugely significant way, and David adds a certain legitimacy because he was so close as a youngster to both Carl and Dennis...he's almost like an honorary Wilson in a way. Also David brings a little of Dennis' rocker edge, as well as some of Carl's guitar vibe into the proceedings. There needs to be five. If this reunion was 4 it wouldn't feel right. I knew as soon as I saw these five together on the roof of Capitol Records back in 2006 that this combination would work. It has a natural balance. There is no replacing Dennis or Carl. But a group called the Beach Boys can exist without them if its this exact combination, take one away and its broken and the absence of CW and DW is magnified exponentially.

Except to the absolute hardcore fans, I don`t think that David Marks`s inclusion makes too much difference. From a musical point of view his guitar parts could all be played by one of the other band members and he doesn`t really add anything vocally. Plus most people will never have heard of him and some of the newspapers/magazines have mocked his inclusion in an, `oh, he was only absent for 49 years` kind of way.

I`m very glad that he`s involved but the reunion would have been just as successful without him realistically.

[JohnMill]

For many in the UK at least Brian is by far the most known and is the groups de facto leader. I have to admit when I first became a Beach Boys fan Brian was the only one I bothered to do any research on, he has also had a successful solo career which has spread his name out as well as playing high profile gigs such as Glastonbury, The Queen's Golden Jubilee etc. You don't get to those sorts of places if your not respected or unknown to the public.

True but couldn't you also make the argument that Brian's status as a well respected and important musician has more to do with his past glories than anything he has done in his solo career?  I'm not trying to knock his solo work but I think most would agree if he ever went out and did a tour solely based around material off of his solo records there would be very little interest on the part of a paying audience to see that show.  There are very few acts that can get by with touring their recent catalog at the expense of their back catalog and Brian really isn't an exception to that rule.  

Whenever he goes out as a solo, he still needs to perform The Beach Boys hits to put together a commercial show.  Now given all that I'll ask the question: how successful has his solo career been outside of his revisiting and performing The Beach Boys' classics?

Well, Brian has had it both ways. And that's purposeful: He's spent 15 years or so promoting himself as the architect of the group. In his interviews and press pieces, there is no difference between BW and the group. Not saying that's right or wrong, but that's how he's talked about it. And he's been pretty successful at shifting critical attitudes and the attitudes of die-hard music fans.

As for his solo career, his non-BB records have been modest critical successes, and they've likewise sold modestly well. So it depends on your definition of "successful," I suppose.

Yeah but Wirestone his solo career has largely been based around the reputation of the principal songwriter of the vast majority of the hit catalog performing the songs for an audience.  There used to be this phrase that Dylan's people used to market him back in the day and that was "Nobody sings Dylan like Dylan!" which was in reference to how many other acts made their names covering Bob Dylan songs.  Well I look at Brian's tours the same way: "Nobody sings Wilson like Wilson".

As far as his solo albums go, while I have a great appreciation for most of them, I don't necessarily regard them as successful ventures because if you went out on the street and asked Joe Public to name you one non-Beach Boys Brian Wilson song, most people I'd wager would respond with a blank stare.

[JohnMill]

To the casual fan, I think the BBs story is boring. They think it's just a bunch of white-bread guys in striped shirts singing about surfing and cars. They might even think that an outsider wrote the BB material. So why bother getting to know the individuals? They think there's no compelling member, like John Lennon, or Keith Moon. Of course the bigger fans could tell them that Dennis's story is every bit as compelling, and that Carl was a terrific singer. But they don't know that. They just know that two guys in the band died at some point.

Um Brian's story is pretty compelling when you get into it.  Whether it's the truth or not, there are a lot of people who regard him as one of the true acid casualties of rock and roll.  The musical genius behind one of the most successful bands of the sixties that flew too close to the sun and then suffered a significant breakdown.  That is pretty compelling stuff there any way you look at it.

[Jon Stebbins]

I think a lot of us would be missing them more if David or Brian were not included in this "reunion". By having Brian there the Wilson banner is certainly being flown in a hugely significant way, and David adds a certain legitimacy because he was so close as a youngster to both Carl and Dennis...he's almost like an honorary Wilson in a way. Also David brings a little of Dennis' rocker edge, as well as some of Carl's guitar vibe into the proceedings. There needs to be five. If this reunion was 4 it wouldn't feel right. I knew as soon as I saw these five together on the roof of Capitol Records back in 2006 that this combination would work. It has a natural balance. There is no replacing Dennis or Carl. But a group called the Beach Boys can exist without them if its this exact combination, take one away and its broken and the absence of CW and DW is magnified exponentially.

Except to the absolute hardcore fans, I don`t think that David Marks`s inclusion makes too much difference. From a musical point of view his guitar parts could all be played by one of the other band members and he doesn`t really add anything vocally. Plus most people will never have heard of him and some of the newspapers/magazines have mocked his inclusion in an, `oh, he was only absent for 49 years` kind of way.

I`m very glad that he`s involved but the reunion would have been just as successful without him realistically.

For every one review that has mocked his inclusion there have been ten singling out his great guitar playing, and more than a few saying he's the coolest looking one on stage. I've been surprised by how much good press he's received considering low info journalists usual perception of him. You may be right, the reunion would bring in the cash just the same without him, but the premise of this thread seems to be why haven't BB's fans felt a bigger loss about the band doing a reunion without Dennis and Carl...for a lot of fans, especially the ones who actually know who Dennis and Carl were, having David there brings a little of DW and CW back into the mix, especially in comparison to the Mike and Bruce show.

[Amy B.]

To the casual fan, I think the BBs story is boring. They think it's just a bunch of white-bread guys in striped shirts singing about surfing and cars. They might even think that an outsider wrote the BB material. So why bother getting to know the individuals? They think there's no compelling member, like John Lennon, or Keith Moon. Of course the bigger fans could tell them that Dennis's story is every bit as compelling, and that Carl was a terrific singer. But they don't know that. They just know that two guys in the band died at some point.

Um Brian's story is pretty compelling when you get into it.  Whether it's the truth or not, there are a lot of people who regard him as one of the true acid casualties of rock and roll.  The musical genius behind one of the most successful bands of the sixties that flew too close to the sun and then suffered a significant breakdown.  That is pretty compelling stuff there any way you look at it.

I thought we were talking about Dennis and Carl. But anyway, my point is that a lot of people haven't bothered to get into the stories of the individuals.

[Nicko1234]

For every one review that has mocked his inclusion there have been ten singling out his great guitar playing, and more than a few saying he's the coolest looking one on stage. I've been surprised by how much good press he's received considering low info journalists usual perception of him. You may be right, the reunion would bring in the cash just the same without him, but the premise of this thread seems to be why haven't BB's fans felt a bigger loss about the band doing a reunion without Dennis and Carl...for a lot of fans, especially the ones who actually know who Dennis and Carl were, having David there brings a little of DW and CW back into the mix, especially in comparison to the Mike and Bruce show.

I agree that for the fans it means a lot for David to be on stage.

But the OP mentioned the general public which would include more than just fans I guess.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Now given all that I'll ask the question: how successful has his solo career been outside of his revisiting and performing The Beach Boys' classics?

Does anybody have the sales figures for these albums:

- BW 1988
- Imagination
- Gettin' In Over My Head
- What I Really Want For Christmas
- That Lucky Old Sun
- Brian Wilson Reimagines Gershwin
- In The Key Of Disney

 

[HeyJude]

I think one of the main things is that all of the surviving members are involved (discounting Blondie and Ricky). I remember back a decade or so ago in the midst of Mike and Al's bands (and Brian's of course) touring seperately, that a lot of conversations were going on among fans about whether we all really felt the BB's died with Carl, or if some sort of reunion would still be appealing. I remember my opinion being that I wasn't sure a Carl-less BB's would work, but I could definitely say that a reunion would have to have all of the surviving members involved. I think that's a key. Once a band can't even get the guys that are still alive to participate, then it quickly loses credibility exponentially.

David being there really does help the reunion hit that sort of "sweet spot." It does just visually look more appealing to have five guys in those reunion photos and up on stage, and he does lend some early-era authenticity that nobody else possibly could.

[Mark H]

 My question is why unlike other groups that have lost an original member or two (Keith Moon from "The Who" for example) have there been seemingly no absence felt by the general public in regards to Dennis and Carl Wilson?

I think the short answer to the question is that the 'general public' couldn't name the members of The Who, Pink Floyd, The Beach Boys etc.  In fact the only band that could have that band member name recognition from the 60's would be The Beatles, maybe the Bee Gees.

In other words these things are important to/felt by fans of the groups but don't have much importantance to anyone else.

Example being when Carl Wilson passed most of my friends/colleagues did not know who he was.

[Nicko1234]

I think the short answer to the question is that the 'general public' couldn't name the members of The Who, Pink Floyd, The Beach Boys etc.  In fact the only band that could have that band member name recognition from the 60's would be The Beatles, maybe the Bee Gees.

The Rolling Stones???

I would say that The Who have much greater name recognition than The BBs.

[hypehat]

Wirestone nails it, as per. The Beach Boys, for better or worse, didn't really stop in spite of anything. So no-one feels a loss.

The way they toured from about 1972 onwards (big backing ensembles etc) could ensure that Mike, Bruce and Al could put on a show called The Beach Boys in the early 80's - no Wilsons. Hell, apparently they can do without Mike, as per a couple of dates in the early 90's. And does the casual fan realise? Two mates of mine, inspired by my evangelical experience of seeing Brian in 2005, went to see Mike & Bruce's Beach Boys not long after (I could swear this is true, and yet did they even come here in 2005/2006?). They told me Carl was amazing that night, in any event. I guess there was just not much recognition in the popular consciousness.

As an aside, Brian feels the need to replace Carl with Foskett, as the new album shows. And yet, there is no desire for him to have a Dennis voice in there. That's quite sad, really.