Would Surfs Up have been the Greatest?

[Moon Dawg]

 Number 29 was a very solid chart placement for The Beach Boys in 1971, an opinion shared by most fans, critics, the record company, and the guys themselves.  If your previous four albums had tanked at #151, #68, #153, #126 I'm guessing # 29 would look like gold. Despite the loss of Dennis' tracks, Jack Rieley did his job well in 1971.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Number 29 was a very solid chart placement for The Beach Boys in 1971, an opinion shared by most fans, critics, the record company, and the guys themselves.  If your previous four albums had tanked at #151, #68, #153, #126 I'm guessing # 29 would look like gold. Despite the loss of Dennis' tracks, Jack Rieley did his job well in 1971.

This is, clearly, unarguably, correct. Sorry filledeplage, I don't know what you're talking about...

[Dove Nested Towers]

The addition of WIBNTLA and 4th of July and exclusion of SDT and Feet would have made it an album of unparallelled depth and melancholia. A majestic, lovely, seamless, angst-infused masterpiece, if a little one-dimensional.

Agreed, minus the 'one-dimensional' comment.

SDT and Feet are both changes of pace from the introspection of the rest of the album, which is made up of alternately spacey (Feel Flows) and somber stuff = basically one dimensional, albeit a rich dimension.

[Mike's Beard]

Number 29 was a very solid chart placement for The Beach Boys in 1971, an opinion shared by most fans, critics, the record company, and the guys themselves.  If your previous four albums had tanked at #151, #68, #153, #126 I'm guessing # 29 would look like gold. Despite the loss of Dennis' tracks, Jack Rieley did his job well in 1971.

This is, clearly, unarguably, correct. Sorry filledeplage, I don't know what you're talking about...

A #29 placing in 1971 would have convinced the guys that their career wasn't over. The Surf's Up album must have been the last roll of the dice for the band. It's strange that it's success didn't motivate Brian to contribute a bit more again.

[filledeplage]

Disney Boy 1985 - here's how I explained SMiLE to my youngest son, when it was released (Brian's 2004 version) - he was the same age as I was when Smiley came out.  I said, "Imagine waiting all this time?" And he "got it."  For a Beach Boys album to be #29 in the US, was abysmal back then, even if NOW, it is regarded as #154.  It is sort of fixed in a generation, but it was extraordinary competition, in an extraordinarily musically rich time.  Otherwise, it is studying the work in a vacuum, if you just confine the music to the music, in isolation, without what "drove" or inspired the work, such as war, racial issues, ecology, and the human psyche.

The only analogy I can make is that for a long time, I studied French lit, mostly 19th century.  In order to do that, I had to learn stuff that went on, historically, such as the first workers' unions, and, what were the trends and wars going on at the time.  And, lucky for me, that is how the literature was taught, in an historical context, alongside all the painters, and musicians of that time. It is a package deal, as art and politics and music in a society all intersect.  And it did with our Boys.  
We can disagree, and that is fine...it is all good.  

No, #29 for a Beach Boys album in 1971 wasn't 'absymal' at all - in fact, given that their previous album had failed to make the top 150, charting at 29 was nothing short of miraculous. Top 30 after years of chart duds and playing to crowds of 200 people was an incredible turn-around.

As for telling your son about Smile and so forth, er... great, but what's that got to do with what we were talking about?? Your replies to my posts don't seem to bare any relation to whatever it is I've just being saying.

I said that, in hindsight, 'Surf's Up' would've been a better album minus SDT and that it would've been wise to release it as a single only, and you're talking about French literature and the human psyche.  

Disney Boy 1985 - #29 in the States, was awful for the Beach Boys. Sorry, if you don't agree with that. It was #15 in the UK, IIRC. Their work did better outside it the States because of the historic dynamic.  One can't create in a vacuum.  You need ideas, and some came from the campus riots, race riots and politics in general.  Brian seemed to addresss the personal reflectiveness of the human condition.  And, telling my son, gave him a context of how long the Smile project was unfinished/unreleased.  And in the meantime , The Boys had not disappeared into obscurity.  They kept touring. I think it kept them viable.

They didn't hide when times were rough, because the times had changed the dynamic. It wasn't an era of Fun, Fun, Fun. It was a time of aggressive campus police, locked down campuses, senseless killings and, just ugly under any standard. And, a war that the nation was sick of.  And exactly why SDT was an essential release.  The Boys took a stand. To  their fans in college, it was important. In 1971; it mattered.

Yes, some people woke up to the awesomeness of the work, but, not during the time it was released.  Yes, overall #154 in terms of the big 500, is great, but, not for 1971, when it mattered more, in terms of recognition and appreciation.  It was the fm station airplay, which slowly helped turn the tide.  

And, in terms of the 19th century French lit analogy, George Sand ( a woman writing under a man's name) connected to Chopin, Liszt, Marie D'Agout (another author) Balzac, Flaubert and others, corresponding, and meeting frequently.  It is not unlike the discussions seen on Bernstein's Inside Pop, were you can see Graham Nash, in the Hollies then, later in CSNY, discussing the impact of youth and music.  Janis Ian was writing at 15 about the social stigma of interracial dating. Society's Child.

These bands, did interact to a certain degree while touring, and certainly exchanged ideas.  The influence of Maharishi as between the Beatles and the Boys, shows that they discussed ideas, philosophy, perhaps world peace, and music. It isn't much different as between and among the various centuries.  JMHO  

I'm only going to respond to the first sentence of your reply, as the rest just seems to be extracts from a book you're writing - good luck with it!

Anyway: No, you're wrong, 29 wasn't an awful chart position for the Beach Boys in 1971. Had an album made 29 during their commercial mid-'60's heyday, then yes it would have been pretty awful - however, as you keep strangely ignoring, in 1971 they had just had several years of flop albums, some not even breaking into the top 100, and as such the respectable sales and Top 30 chart placing of Surf's Up was both a relief and a real accomplishment.   

Disney Boy 1985 - Surfs Up was #15 in the UK. That is from bellagio.  SU was #29 in the US, was and is inconsistent with even with the Party album which was #6 in the States.  It requires an historic context, that is largely absent.

This is an American Band, releasing music in their own country, during a war, assassinations of RFK, MLK, race riots, college unrest, and the music coming out of the States was a reflection of that.  If one looks at bellagio and compares 20/20 at #68 in the States, with #3 in the UK, is the context important? You bet it is.  And it begs the question, why?

Even Friends, in the UK was #13, when it was #126 in the US.  Same music, different social circumstances.   

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Disney Boy 1985 - here's how I explained SMiLE to my youngest son, when it was released (Brian's 2004 version) - he was the same age as I was when Smiley came out.  I said, "Imagine waiting all this time?" And he "got it."  For a Beach Boys album to be #29 in the US, was abysmal back then, even if NOW, it is regarded as #154.  It is sort of fixed in a generation, but it was extraordinary competition, in an extraordinarily musically rich time.  Otherwise, it is studying the work in a vacuum, if you just confine the music to the music, in isolation, without what "drove" or inspired the work, such as war, racial issues, ecology, and the human psyche.

The only analogy I can make is that for a long time, I studied French lit, mostly 19th century.  In order to do that, I had to learn stuff that went on, historically, such as the first workers' unions, and, what were the trends and wars going on at the time.  And, lucky for me, that is how the literature was taught, in an historical context, alongside all the painters, and musicians of that time. It is a package deal, as art and politics and music in a society all intersect.  And it did with our Boys.  
We can disagree, and that is fine...it is all good.  

No, #29 for a Beach Boys album in 1971 wasn't 'absymal' at all - in fact, given that their previous album had failed to make the top 150, charting at 29 was nothing short of miraculous. Top 30 after years of chart duds and playing to crowds of 200 people was an incredible turn-around.

As for telling your son about Smile and so forth, er... great, but what's that got to do with what we were talking about?? Your replies to my posts don't seem to bare any relation to whatever it is I've just being saying.

I said that, in hindsight, 'Surf's Up' would've been a better album minus SDT and that it would've been wise to release it as a single only, and you're talking about French literature and the human psyche.  

Disney Boy 1985 - #29 in the States, was awful for the Beach Boys. Sorry, if you don't agree with that. It was #15 in the UK, IIRC. Their work did better outside it the States because of the historic dynamic.  One can't create in a vacuum.  You need ideas, and some came from the campus riots, race riots and politics in general.  Brian seemed to addresss the personal reflectiveness of the human condition.  And, telling my son, gave him a context of how long the Smile project was unfinished/unreleased.  And in the meantime , The Boys had not disappeared into obscurity.  They kept touring. I think it kept them viable.

They didn't hide when times were rough, because the times had changed the dynamic. It wasn't an era of Fun, Fun, Fun. It was a time of aggressive campus police, locked down campuses, senseless killings and, just ugly under any standard. And, a war that the nation was sick of.  And exactly why SDT was an essential release.  The Boys took a stand. To  their fans in college, it was important. In 1971; it mattered.

Yes, some people woke up to the awesomeness of the work, but, not during the time it was released.  Yes, overall #154 in terms of the big 500, is great, but, not for 1971, when it mattered more, in terms of recognition and appreciation.  It was the fm station airplay, which slowly helped turn the tide.  

And, in terms of the 19th century French lit analogy, George Sand ( a woman writing under a man's name) connected to Chopin, Liszt, Marie D'Agout (another author) Balzac, Flaubert and others, corresponding, and meeting frequently.  It is not unlike the discussions seen on Bernstein's Inside Pop, were you can see Graham Nash, in the Hollies then, later in CSNY, discussing the impact of youth and music.  Janis Ian was writing at 15 about the social stigma of interracial dating. Society's Child.

These bands, did interact to a certain degree while touring, and certainly exchanged ideas.  The influence of Maharishi as between the Beatles and the Boys, shows that they discussed ideas, philosophy, perhaps world peace, and music. It isn't much different as between and among the various centuries.  JMHO  

I'm only going to respond to the first sentence of your reply, as the rest just seems to be extracts from a book you're writing - good luck with it!

Anyway: No, you're wrong, 29 wasn't an awful chart position for the Beach Boys in 1971. Had an album made 29 during their commercial mid-'60's heyday, then yes it would have been pretty awful - however, as you keep strangely ignoring, in 1971 they had just had several years of flop albums, some not even breaking into the top 100, and as such the respectable sales and Top 30 chart placing of Surf's Up was both a relief and a real accomplishment.    

Disney Boy 1985 - Surfs Up was #15 in the UK. That is from bellagio.  SU was #29 in the US, was and is inconsistent with even with the Party album which was #6 in the States.  It requires an historic context, that is largely absent.

This is an American Band, releasing music in their own country, during a war, assassinations of RFK, MLK, race riots, college unrest, and the music coming out of the States was a reflection of that.  If one looks at bellagio and compares 20/20 at #68 in the States, with #3 in the UK, is the context important? You bet it is.  And it begs the question, why?

Even Friends, in the UK was #13, when it was #126 in the US.  Same music, different social circumstances.  

Yet again you're replying to things that I never even said or even mentioned.
What has the UK chart position got to do with anything? We were talking about whether Surf's Up's chart peak of 29 in the US was a success (which it was) and now you're changing the subject, again.
I think. To be honest I'm utterly baffled as to exactly what point(s) you're trying to make. What exactly are you getting at? Why are you comparing the chart position of Party! to an album released six years later - what's your point?
And please don't start replies by saying things like "Disney Boy - Surfs Up was #15 in the UK. That is from bellagio", which of course instantly creates the impression that I'd been disputing Surf's Up reaching 15 in the UK, whereas in fact I'd not said anything of the sort.

[filledeplage]

Disney Boy 1985 - here's how I explained SMiLE to my youngest son, when it was released (Brian's 2004 version) - he was the same age as I was when Smiley came out.  I said, "Imagine waiting all this time?" And he "got it."  For a Beach Boys album to be #29 in the US, was abysmal back then, even if NOW, it is regarded as #154.  It is sort of fixed in a generation, but it was extraordinary competition, in an extraordinarily musically rich time.  Otherwise, it is studying the work in a vacuum, if you just confine the music to the music, in isolation, without what "drove" or inspired the work, such as war, racial issues, ecology, and the human psyche.

The only analogy I can make is that for a long time, I studied French lit, mostly 19th century.  In order to do that, I had to learn stuff that went on, historically, such as the first workers' unions, and, what were the trends and wars going on at the time.  And, lucky for me, that is how the literature was taught, in an historical context, alongside all the painters, and musicians of that time. It is a package deal, as art and politics and music in a society all intersect.  And it did with our Boys.  
We can disagree, and that is fine...it is all good.  

No, #29 for a Beach Boys album in 1971 wasn't 'absymal' at all - in fact, given that their previous album had failed to make the top 150, charting at 29 was nothing short of miraculous. Top 30 after years of chart duds and playing to crowds of 200 people was an incredible turn-around.

As for telling your son about Smile and so forth, er... great, but what's that got to do with what we were talking about?? Your replies to my posts don't seem to bare any relation to whatever it is I've just being saying.

I said that, in hindsight, 'Surf's Up' would've been a better album minus SDT and that it would've been wise to release it as a single only, and you're talking about French literature and the human psyche.  

Disney Boy 1985 - #29 in the States, was awful for the Beach Boys. Sorry, if you don't agree with that. It was #15 in the UK, IIRC. Their work did better outside it the States because of the historic dynamic.  One can't create in a vacuum.  You need ideas, and some came from the campus riots, race riots and politics in general.  Brian seemed to addresss the personal reflectiveness of the human condition.  And, telling my son, gave him a context of how long the Smile project was unfinished/unreleased.  And in the meantime , The Boys had not disappeared into obscurity.  They kept touring. I think it kept them viable.

They didn't hide when times were rough, because the times had changed the dynamic. It wasn't an era of Fun, Fun, Fun. It was a time of aggressive campus police, locked down campuses, senseless killings and, just ugly under any standard. And, a war that the nation was sick of.  And exactly why SDT was an essential release.  The Boys took a stand. To  their fans in college, it was important. In 1971; it mattered.

Yes, some people woke up to the awesomeness of the work, but, not during the time it was released.  Yes, overall #154 in terms of the big 500, is great, but, not for 1971, when it mattered more, in terms of recognition and appreciation.  It was the fm station airplay, which slowly helped turn the tide.  

And, in terms of the 19th century French lit analogy, George Sand ( a woman writing under a man's name) connected to Chopin, Liszt, Marie D'Agout (another author) Balzac, Flaubert and others, corresponding, and meeting frequently.  It is not unlike the discussions seen on Bernstein's Inside Pop, were you can see Graham Nash, in the Hollies then, later in CSNY, discussing the impact of youth and music.  Janis Ian was writing at 15 about the social stigma of interracial dating. Society's Child.

These bands, did interact to a certain degree while touring, and certainly exchanged ideas.  The influence of Maharishi as between the Beatles and the Boys, shows that they discussed ideas, philosophy, perhaps world peace, and music. It isn't much different as between and among the various centuries.  JMHO  

I'm only going to respond to the first sentence of your reply, as the rest just seems to be extracts from a book you're writing - good luck with it!

Anyway: No, you're wrong, 29 wasn't an awful chart position for the Beach Boys in 1971. Had an album made 29 during their commercial mid-'60's heyday, then yes it would have been pretty awful - however, as you keep strangely ignoring, in 1971 they had just had several years of flop albums, some not even breaking into the top 100, and as such the respectable sales and Top 30 chart placing of Surf's Up was both a relief and a real accomplishment.   

Disney Boy 1985 - Surfs Up was #15 in the UK. That is from bellagio.  SU was #29 in the US, was and is inconsistent with even with the Party album which was #6 in the States.  It requires an historic context, that is largely absent.

This is an American Band, releasing music in their own country, during a war, assassinations of RFK, MLK, race riots, college unrest, and the music coming out of the States was a reflection of that.  If one looks at bellagio and compares 20/20 at #68 in the States, with #3 in the UK, is the context important? You bet it is.  And it begs the question, why?

Even Friends, in the UK was #13, when it was #126 in the US.  Same music, different social circumstances.   
[/quote)
Yet again you're replying to things that I never even said or even mentioned.
What has the UK chart position got to do with anything? We were talking about whether Surf's Up's chart peak of 29 in the US was a success (which it was) and now you're changing the subject, again.
I think. To be honest I'm utterly baffled as to exactly what point(s) you're trying to make. What exactly are you getting at? Why are you comparing the chart position of Party! to an album released six years later - what's your point?
And please don't start replies by saying things lie "Disney Boy - Surfs Up was #15 in the UK. That is from bellagio", which of course instantly creates the impression that I'd been disputing Surf's Up reaching 15 in the UK, whereas in fact I'd not said anything of the sort.

That is my opinion. You call it a success.  I don't. And it begs the question of what made the same music, more popular in another country other than the "homeland?"  It is a valid issue in my view.  And, used bellagio, since I discovered the erroneous #154 Rolling Stone chart position on wiki was entered falsely.  Bellagio appears more reliable.

To me it matters that the Band was under-promoted in the States.  My position is that it was almost "unpatriotic" of the record company, not to support the "home team." It may not matter to you. That is your opinion.   But it is my right to have a different position, and support it with facts, that I witnessed firsthand, at the time when the same great music was released.

After the Party album, was Pet Sounds, chronologically, and which is why I mentioned it.  Pet Sounds, for all its greatness, was under-marketed in the States.  The UK comparison is a frame-of-reference, with a source.  Not an opinion.  Those years were marked by diminution in sales, and concert goers in the States, with the band expanding their fan-base outside of the US, to their credit.   

You can maintain your position that #29 in the US, is fine. I don't agree and I'm not buying it. There was little promotion of the work during that time, in the States.  My opinion and my right to express it, here, following the board rules of this forum, is what I'm doing.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Disney Boy 1985 - here's how I explained SMiLE to my youngest son, when it was released (Brian's 2004 version) - he was the same age as I was when Smiley came out.  I said, "Imagine waiting all this time?" And he "got it."  For a Beach Boys album to be #29 in the US, was abysmal back then, even if NOW, it is regarded as #154.  It is sort of fixed in a generation, but it was extraordinary competition, in an extraordinarily musically rich time.  Otherwise, it is studying the work in a vacuum, if you just confine the music to the music, in isolation, without what "drove" or inspired the work, such as war, racial issues, ecology, and the human psyche.

The only analogy I can make is that for a long time, I studied French lit, mostly 19th century.  In order to do that, I had to learn stuff that went on, historically, such as the first workers' unions, and, what were the trends and wars going on at the time.  And, lucky for me, that is how the literature was taught, in an historical context, alongside all the painters, and musicians of that time. It is a package deal, as art and politics and music in a society all intersect.  And it did with our Boys.  
We can disagree, and that is fine...it is all good.  

No, #29 for a Beach Boys album in 1971 wasn't 'absymal' at all - in fact, given that their previous album had failed to make the top 150, charting at 29 was nothing short of miraculous. Top 30 after years of chart duds and playing to crowds of 200 people was an incredible turn-around.

As for telling your son about Smile and so forth, er... great, but what's that got to do with what we were talking about?? Your replies to my posts don't seem to bare any relation to whatever it is I've just being saying.

I said that, in hindsight, 'Surf's Up' would've been a better album minus SDT and that it would've been wise to release it as a single only, and you're talking about French literature and the human psyche.  

Disney Boy 1985 - #29 in the States, was awful for the Beach Boys. Sorry, if you don't agree with that. It was #15 in the UK, IIRC. Their work did better outside it the States because of the historic dynamic.  One can't create in a vacuum.  You need ideas, and some came from the campus riots, race riots and politics in general.  Brian seemed to addresss the personal reflectiveness of the human condition.  And, telling my son, gave him a context of how long the Smile project was unfinished/unreleased.  And in the meantime , The Boys had not disappeared into obscurity.  They kept touring. I think it kept them viable.

They didn't hide when times were rough, because the times had changed the dynamic. It wasn't an era of Fun, Fun, Fun. It was a time of aggressive campus police, locked down campuses, senseless killings and, just ugly under any standard. And, a war that the nation was sick of.  And exactly why SDT was an essential release.  The Boys took a stand. To  their fans in college, it was important. In 1971; it mattered.

Yes, some people woke up to the awesomeness of the work, but, not during the time it was released.  Yes, overall #154 in terms of the big 500, is great, but, not for 1971, when it mattered more, in terms of recognition and appreciation.  It was the fm station airplay, which slowly helped turn the tide.  

And, in terms of the 19th century French lit analogy, George Sand ( a woman writing under a man's name) connected to Chopin, Liszt, Marie D'Agout (another author) Balzac, Flaubert and others, corresponding, and meeting frequently.  It is not unlike the discussions seen on Bernstein's Inside Pop, were you can see Graham Nash, in the Hollies then, later in CSNY, discussing the impact of youth and music.  Janis Ian was writing at 15 about the social stigma of interracial dating. Society's Child.

These bands, did interact to a certain degree while touring, and certainly exchanged ideas.  The influence of Maharishi as between the Beatles and the Boys, shows that they discussed ideas, philosophy, perhaps world peace, and music. It isn't much different as between and among the various centuries.  JMHO  

I'm only going to respond to the first sentence of your reply, as the rest just seems to be extracts from a book you're writing - good luck with it!

Anyway: No, you're wrong, 29 wasn't an awful chart position for the Beach Boys in 1971. Had an album made 29 during their commercial mid-'60's heyday, then yes it would have been pretty awful - however, as you keep strangely ignoring, in 1971 they had just had several years of flop albums, some not even breaking into the top 100, and as such the respectable sales and Top 30 chart placing of Surf's Up was both a relief and a real accomplishment.    

Disney Boy 1985 - Surfs Up was #15 in the UK. That is from bellagio.  SU was #29 in the US, was and is inconsistent with even with the Party album which was #6 in the States.  It requires an historic context, that is largely absent.

This is an American Band, releasing music in their own country, during a war, assassinations of RFK, MLK, race riots, college unrest, and the music coming out of the States was a reflection of that.  If one looks at bellagio and compares 20/20 at #68 in the States, with #3 in the UK, is the context important? You bet it is.  And it begs the question, why?

Even Friends, in the UK was #13, when it was #126 in the US.  Same music, different social circumstances.  
[/quote)
Yet again you're replying to things that I never even said or even mentioned.
What has the UK chart position got to do with anything? We were talking about whether Surf's Up's chart peak of 29 in the US was a success (which it was) and now you're changing the subject, again.
I think. To be honest I'm utterly baffled as to exactly what point(s) you're trying to make. What exactly are you getting at? Why are you comparing the chart position of Party! to an album released six years later - what's your point?
And please don't start replies by saying things lie "Disney Boy - Surfs Up was #15 in the UK. That is from bellagio", which of course instantly creates the impression that I'd been disputing Surf's Up reaching 15 in the UK, whereas in fact I'd not said anything of the sort.

That is my opinion. You call it a success.  I don't. And it begs the question of what made the same music, more popular in another country other than the "homeland?"  It is a valid issue in my view.  And, used bellagio, since I discovered the erroneous #154 Rolling Stone chart position on wiki was entered falsely.  Bellagio appears more reliable.

To me it matters that the Band was under-promoted in the States.  My position is that it was almost "unpatriotic" of the record company, not to support the "home team." It may not matter to you. That is your opinion.   But it is my right to have a different position, and support it with facts, that I witnessed firsthand, at the time when the same great music was released.

After the Party album, was Pet Sounds, chronologically, and which is why I mentioned it.  Pet Sounds, for all its greatness, was under-marketed in the States.  The UK comparison is a frame-of-reference, with a source.  Not an opinion.  Those years were marked by diminution in sales, and concert goers in the States, with the band expanding their fan-base outside of the US, to their credit.  

You can maintain your position that #29 in the US, is fine. I don't agree and I'm not buying it. There was little promotion of the work during that time, in the States.  My opinion and my right to express it, here, following the board rules of this forum, is what I'm doing.

Will you at least acknowledge that #29 was a vast - vast - improvement on #151, #153 and #123?

[SMiLE Brian]

I think she is implying it took endless summer and the oldies to put them back on top.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

I think she is implying it took endless summer and the oldies to put them back on top.

If so, what a strange convoluted way to go about saying something relatively straightforward...

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Filledeplage: Will you at least acknowledge that #29 was a vast - vast - improvement on #151, #153 and #123?

My question and my right to ask it, following the board rules of this forum.

[Jim V.]

In my opinion, it seems like filledeplage always feels she has to like provide "context" (or at least in her view) and that those of us who weren't around just don't get it.

Also can't stand that she calls them "the Band." Last time I checked Levon and Robbie aren't in the Beach Boys.

[filledeplage]

In my opinion, it seems like filledeplage always feels she has to like provide "context" (or at least in her view) and that those of us who weren't around just don't get it.

Also can't stand that she calls them "the Band." Last time I checked Levon and Robbie aren't in the Beach Boys.

Context or the "backstory" of the, then, occuring events always important. The Pete Seeger thread supports that.   

If this is a BB/BW forum, it isn't any other "band" but those connected to the BB sphere.  No offence to the music group entitled "The Band." No offense is meant to them.  Or, you.

[filledeplage]

Filledeplage: Will you at least acknowledge that #29 was a vast - vast - improvement on #151, #153 and #123?

My question and my right to ask it, following the board rules of this forum.

"Acknowledgment" is the same demanding "admit" term used earlier. 

Is any member on this forum, obligated to respond to a "demand?" I think not. 

Didn't notice that in the rules for the board...

No, #29 is only numerically ahead of those other rankings.  After Range RoverA1 kindly pointed out the claim of Rolling Stone #154 greatest 500, the ranking, at least on wiki, which can become "edited" then "sourced" lose credibity. 

My Band BB/BW etal, are top of the heap. No, if it is higher abroad, than in the US, then, I think the problem is something "other than the music."  Could have been promotion, or marketing or social climate.

And, I asked "rhetorically" -Who would go into wiki and insert that erroneous ranking? (paraphrased) There was no one who came forth with any reply.  It wasn't directed at anyone personally, and that is the difference. 

We have a different position.  Reasonable minds can differ.

[Catbirdman]

The lightbulb just went on. After all this time, I only just now looked closely at the "filledeplage" moniker and made the "beach girl" connection.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Filledeplage: Will you at least acknowledge that #29 was a vast - vast - improvement on #151, #153 and #123?

My question and my right to ask it, following the board rules of this forum.

"Acknowledgment" is the same demanding "admit" term used earlier. 

Is any member on this forum, obligated to respond to a "demand?" I think not. 

Didn't notice that in the rules for the board...

No, #29 is only numerically ahead of those other rankings.  After Range RoverA1 kindly pointed out the claim of Rolling Stone #154 greatest 500, the ranking, at least on wiki, which can become "edited" then "sourced" lose credibity. 

My Band BB/BW etal, are top of the heap. No, if it is higher abroad, than in the US, then, I think the problem is something "other than the music."  Could have been promotion, or marketing or social climate.

And, I asked "rhetorically" -Who would go into wiki and insert that erroneous ranking? (paraphrased) There was no one who came forth with any reply.  It wasn't directed at anyone personally, and that is the difference. 

We have a different position.  Reasonable minds can differ.

In other words, yes #29 is a vast improvement on #151 and #153.

[Mike's Beard]

I don't understand why it is so hard to say that comparatively speaking a #29 ranking is a vast improvement over one of #153.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

I don't understand why it is so hard to say that comparatively speaking a #29 ranking is a vast improvement over one of #153.

It's seems as if filledeplage has written a thesis or something, only some of it doesn't hold up to questions and facts. I don't want to be seen to be picking on her or anything, I just didn't get (and still don't) the point(s) she was trying to make and requests for clarification only seem to result in ever more confusing statements.

[Steve Mayo]

If one was around in 1971 and into the beach boys one would know how big the surfs up lp was to the group. It was the lp
  that broke them into the FM radio big time . sdt and feel flows were the songs played the most. Jaws dropped when people found out who recorded those songs. They fit in well in 1971. The lp was given a major promotion. Cashbox had a front page story about how the lp
 demand exceeded the initial pressing and another 50,000 copies had to be pressed....this was in the first two weeks after its release. Cashbox had it at number 22. Fans, record company and the group were very happy with the results. To say otherwise would be an error.

[SMiLE Brian]

That is awesome Steve, I bet you felt vindicated after you were made fun of liking the BBs in the late 1960s.

[Steve Mayo]

All of 1971 was a great year to be a beach boy fan.

[Mendota Heights]

Filledeplage: Will you at least acknowledge that #29 was a vast - vast - improvement on #151, #153 and #123?

My question and my right to ask it, following the board rules of this forum.

"Acknowledgment" is the same demanding "admit" term used earlier. 

Is any member on this forum, obligated to respond to a "demand?" I think not. 

Didn't notice that in the rules for the board...

No, #29 is only numerically ahead of those other rankings.  After Range RoverA1 kindly pointed out the claim of Rolling Stone #154 greatest 500, the ranking, at least on wiki, which can become "edited" then "sourced" lose credibity. 

My Band BB/BW etal, are top of the heap. No, if it is higher abroad, than in the US, then, I think the problem is something "other than the music."  Could have been promotion, or marketing or social climate.

And, I asked "rhetorically" -Who would go into wiki and insert that erroneous ranking? (paraphrased) There was no one who came forth with any reply.  It wasn't directed at anyone personally, and that is the difference. 

We have a different position.  Reasonable minds can differ.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Filledeplage: Will you at least acknowledge that #29 was a vast - vast - improvement on #151, #153 and #123?

My question and my right to ask it, following the board rules of this forum.

"Acknowledgment" is the same demanding "admit" term used earlier. 

Is any member on this forum, obligated to respond to a "demand?" I think not. 

Didn't notice that in the rules for the board...

No, #29 is only numerically ahead of those other rankings.  After Range RoverA1 kindly pointed out the claim of Rolling Stone #154 greatest 500, the ranking, at least on wiki, which can become "edited" then "sourced" lose credibity. 

My Band BB/BW etal, are top of the heap. No, if it is higher abroad, than in the US, then, I think the problem is something "other than the music."  Could have been promotion, or marketing or social climate.

And, I asked "rhetorically" -Who would go into wiki and insert that erroneous ranking? (paraphrased) There was no one who came forth with any reply.  It wasn't directed at anyone personally, and that is the difference. 

We have a different position.  Reasonable minds can differ.

Ha! Filledeplage has gone strangely quiet on this topic... Perhaps she looked back through her own posts and thought, 'Jesus, what am I talking about??"

[RangeRoverA1]

Ha! Filledeplage has gone strangely quiet on this topic... Perhaps she looked back through her own posts and thought, 'Jesus, what am I talking about??"

Maybe she stopped because she thinks there's nothing to add further to this circular discussion.

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Ha! Filledeplage has gone strangely quiet on this topic... Perhaps she looked back through her own posts and thought, 'Jesus, what am I talking about??"

Maybe she stopped because she thinks there's nothing to add further to this circular discussion.

Not really - it ended with several people directly questioning her line of thought on the subject and me asking her a perfectly reasonable question. That's leaving things up in the air, not neatly resolved. In fact, it was just getting interesting. I'm all for people having opinions but stand by what you say, don't just vanish from the conversation once people start questioning your reasoning, especially when your reasoning seems to directly contradict known facts. That's like me saying 'Dennis was actually born a girl and had a sex change' and then when people ask me what's led me to this bizarre opinion I just don't bother responding.