How Could the Beach Boys Have Kept Themselves Relevant after 1966?

[I. Spaceman]

You maroons still think that picture is actually Mick Jagger?

[Paul J B]

What's your point? Is it a Mick impersonator? If so it's a good one and who cares.... Mick ran around in football pants looking like an idiot on tour.

[I. Spaceman]

What's your point? Is it a Mick impersonator? If so it's a good one and who cares.... Mick ran around in football pants looking like an idiot on tour.

No, it isn't a good impersonator, he doesn't look like him (it is closer to Mark Wahlberg, actually), his build is totally different and anyone who would criticize an artist based on an obvious impersonation has suspect judgement and obvious prejudice against that artist. Who cares? I do, I like great artists.
Mike ran around looking like a jackass as well, and so has Al, Bruce and the rest of them as well, during the two worst fashion eras of all time, the 1970s and 1980s. So, the REAL point is this: let's either criticize them both, or not at all.

Or, maybe we should judge The Beach Boys based on this:



Close enough, right?

[Paul J B]

What's your point? Is it a Mick impersonator? If so it's a good one and who cares.... Mick ran around in football pants looking like an idiot on tour.

No, it isn't a good impersonator, he doesn't look like him (it is closer to Mark Wahlberg, actually), his build is totally different and anyone who would criticize an artist based on an obvious impersonation has suspect judgement and obvious prejudice against that artist. Who cares? I do, I like great artists.
Mike ran around looking like a jackass as well, and so has Al, Bruce and the rest of them as well, during the two worst fashion eras of all time, the 1970s and 1980s. So, the REAL point is this: let's either criticize them both, or not at all.

Or, maybe we should judge The Beach Boys based on this:





Close enough, right?

My prejudice would be that certain "artists" routinely get a pass for looking and behaving like morons while others are singled out. The subject at hand was the one that routinely pops up around here about the Beach Boys "dorky" look having influenced their success or not. Mick's look form the football pants tour was the point and the guy in the photo is pretending to be him. And in my initial post I said the BB's DID have image problems. As far as the goofs on your last upload, you could judge the BB's 60's attire based on that, but even at a glance the faces are way off.

Bottom line for my commenting on the issue at at is....Mike Love was ripped for wearing a hat and loud shirt and at the same time Mick was running around onstage in football pants and somehow that was cool. Sorry, it wasn't.

[kookadams]

ok i'm probably pissing a lot of when i keep talking about the beatles, but one of the things I've wondered is why the beatles kept producing hits while the beach boys mostly didn't. Even after 1966, the beatles had quite a few hits:
Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane
All You Need Is Love/Baby You're A Rich Man
Hello Goodbye/I Am the Walrus
Lady Madonna/The Inner Light
Hey Jude/Revolution
Get Back/Don't Let Me Down
Let It Be/You Know My Name
The Ballad of John and Yoko/Old Brown Shoe
Come Together/Something

I'm not gonna undermine the beatles but the beatles werent even a REAL band after revolver. After revolver the beatles became a lameass acid-psychedelic trip.  And how could anyone say the beach boys lost relevance but the beatles didn't? The beatles didn even last after the 60s! The beach boys were and are timeless.

this thread makes no sense... 

[kookadams]

They just celebrated their 50th year, isn't that a pretty good record of relevance?

EXACTLY!

[kookadams]

Random memories: I don't think there's anything they could have done.  They were seen as squares as the youth movement became Stalinist in 1968 and narrowed what was acceptable entertainment.  I dutifully bought all their 45's from 1965 until 1969 when I missed "Break Away" because A)  I never found it in the local record store and B)  heard it maybe twice on the radio, and it disappeared from my consciousness for a time.  My "hip" friends dropped them quickly, although they all liked "I'd Love Just Once To See You" for the sneaky ending you could play for girls. I'm glad they stayed true to themselves in the unpopular years. They're not trapped in time like a lot of music was. The drug taking turned more to downers in those years and the music became more "heavy" and serious (I associated the success of Black Sabbath and Zeppelin to quaalude and angel dust lovers).  The Beatles were always on a higher level, maybe moreso in countries other than the UK, so they were bullet proof. "Happy" music in 1969 was the realm of Tommy Roe and the Archies- for younger kids.  By 1971 I could impress all but my most jaded friends and acquaintances with Sunflower and Surf's Up and it was starting to show at their concerts, which never failed to knock people out.  I am the original source of the November 7, 1971 Georgetown University concert tape, and the very end (which has not been let out) is the crowd singing, stomping, and clapping  the falsetto ending of "Fun, Fun, Fun" after the Boys had left the stage for the last time- that's how good that show was.

SO they lost popularity in the US in 68, rockNroll as a whole died in the US at that time. They were HUGE in the UK!! thats what mattered. Its not like they werent cool anymore, just not to brainwashed americans til endless summer.

[kookadams]

Spinning off the Neil Young thread, the indifference towards the group shown by American culture in 1967-73 seems to have various explanations:

1) Cheesy image that the music could not counteract

2) The band's name

3) Brian's sporadic involvement

4) Historical trends outside the band's control

I don't quite buy No. 4 because I don't see why they couldn't have reinvented themselves as a CSN&Y or Mamas & the Papas kind of outfit. They could never have made a White Album or Beggars Banquet because they did not have that edge in the group (no Lennon or Keith figure), but there were harmony-rock options in 1967-70 that Brian could certainly have written albums for.

My own feeling is that, although Wild Honey to Holland is musically a good run of albums, the stylistic variations were just too confusing, and the record company politics meant they never had a clear run at marketing a new image with a solid album/tour package. Brian's image as the man tortured by Smile's failure to appear also haunted the period and meant the albums that did appear were always compared unfavorably to the lost masterpiece or Pet Sounds. Imagine how the White Album would have gone down if Sgt Pepper had been unfinished and instead we got Smiley Sgt Pepper.  

The reason the Beach Boys didn't stay relevant after '66 is in my opinion because they were just never hip.  They're all dorks, they're likeable but they were never going to be relevant in the ultra-cool era of the late 60's and early 70's.  Nothing really lasted through that early time into that period, though, outside of what, the Stones and Elvis?  We're talking about a group that was birthed in 1962!  Nothing from '62 stayed relevant in that age, like all those bands and artists no matter how great just fell off the radar.  The Beatles changed so drastically that they became a literal caricature of themselves with Sgt. Peppers and then again with the White Album.  The Beach Boys weren't going to do that, they were brothers from Hawthorne simple as that.  Even the cheesy 80's Beach Boys was essentially.... STILL the 1962 Beach Boys!  Cheesy and dorky just like they started.  God love em. 

IS THIS A JOKE??? The Beach Boys were "dorks" and the Beatles weren't? How the hell are stupid moptop haircuts and business suits less dorky than badass stripe shirts? The beatles got more into the psychedelia and whether some people wanna admit it or not thats the horseshit that was ruining rockNroll stylistically. RockNroll was the real deal in the 50s and thru 67. Then it faded from the mainstream in the US and didn't come back til the mid 70s like another previous commenter had mentioned. Rock had 2 legitimate eras of purity- 56' - 66 and punk rock when  the Ramones rejuvenated it.

[kookadams]

I'm more shocked by the fact that the group fell off of American Top 40, rather than that they failed to catch on with the emerging underground rock scene. Look at the charts from say 1967-1972 and you could see who was tearing it up, so to speak. Roughly in order: The Mamas & Papas, The Association, The Rascals, The Monkees, The Buckinghams, Gary Puckett, Classics IV, The Cowsills, The Carpenters, Bread, The Partridge Family, Osmonds etc. Are you telling me The Beach Boys were too square to fit in amongst that crowd?

Their late 60s singles continued to chart locally in L.A. and over in England, so it's not like they were commercially non-viable. I think there has to be some other reason that radio programmers wouldn't pick up on their songs; the image thing doesn't really hold water when it comes to the pop market, as the pop charts at the time were filled with squares.

EXACTLY!!

[Gertie J.]

ok i'm probably pissing a lot of when i keep talking about the beatles, but one of the things I've wondered is why the beatles kept producing hits while the beach boys mostly didn't. Even after 1966, the beatles had quite a few hits:
Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane
All You Need Is Love/Baby You're A Rich Man
Hello Goodbye/I Am the Walrus
Lady Madonna/The Inner Light
Hey Jude/Revolution
Get Back/Don't Let Me Down
Let It Be/You Know My Name
The Ballad of John and Yoko/Old Brown Shoe
Come Together/Something

I'm not gonna undermine the beatles but the beatles werent even a REAL band after revolver. After revolver the beatles became a lameass acid-psychedelic trip.  And how could anyone say the beach boys lost relevance but the beatles didn't? The beatles didn even last after the 60s! The beach boys were and are timeless.

this thread makes no sense... 

yes sir, beatles suck.

[hypehat]

I'm not gonna undermine the beatles but the beatles werent even a REAL band after revolver. After revolver the beatles became a lameass acid-psychedelic trip.  And how could anyone say the beach boys lost relevance but the beatles didn't? The beatles didn even last after the 60s! The beach boys were and are timeless.

this thread makes no sense... 

What the sh*t is this.

[Gertie J.]

stay away from kookad, hype.

[filledeplage]

Spinning off the Neil Young thread, the indifference towards the group shown by American culture in 1967-73 seems to have various explanations:
1) Cheesy image that the music could not counteract
2) The band's name
3) Brian's sporadic involvement
4) Historical trends outside the band's control
I don't quite buy No. 4 because I don't see why they couldn't have reinvented themselves as a CSN&Y or Mamas & the Papas kind of outfit. They could never have made a White Album or Beggars Banquet because they did not have that edge in the group (no Lennon or Keith figure), but there were harmony-rock options in 1967-70 that Brian could certainly have written albums for.

My own feeling is that, although Wild Honey to Holland is musically a good run of albums, the stylistic variations were just too confusing, and the record company politics meant they never had a clear run at marketing a new image with a solid album/tour package. Brian's image as the man tortured by Smile's failure to appear also haunted the period and meant the albums that did appear were always compared unfavorably to the lost masterpiece or Pet Sounds. Imagine how the White Album would have gone down if Sgt Pepper had been unfinished and instead we got Smiley Sgt Pepper.  

The reason the Beach Boys didn't stay relevant after '66 is in my opinion because they were just never hip.  They're all dorks, they're likeable but they were never going to be relevant in the ultra-cool era of the late 60's and early 70's.  Nothing really lasted through that early time into that period, though, outside of what, the Stones and Elvis?  We're talking about a group that was birthed in 1962!  Nothing from '62 stayed relevant in that age, like all those bands and artists no matter how great just fell off the radar.  The Beatles changed so drastically that they became a literal caricature of themselves with Sgt. Peppers and then again with the White Album.  The Beach Boys weren't going to do that, they were brothers from Hawthorne simple as that.  Even the cheesy 80's Beach Boys was essentially.... STILL the 1962 Beach Boys!  Cheesy and dorky just like they started.  God love em.  

IS THIS A JOKE??? The Beach Boys were "dorks" and the Beatles weren't? How the hell are stupid moptop haircuts and business suits less dorky than badass stripe shirts? The beatles got more into the psychedelia and whether some people wanna admit it or not thats the horseshit that was ruining rockNroll stylistically. RockNroll was the real deal in the 50s and thru 67. Then it faded from the mainstream in the US and didn't come back til the mid 70s like another previous commenter had mentioned. Rock had 2 legitimate eras of purity- 56' - 66 and punk rock when  the Ramones rejuvenated it.

Kookadams - gotta love your loyalty! I think one might need to look beyond the clothing, to the statement in #4 above that just captures it all, albeit some disagreement.  

It was largely the "Winchester Cathedral" phenomenon.  Out of nowhere, bands getting established, breaking up, trends changing so quickly, such as art, with Warhol, Peter Max, Carnaby St. Fashion, and in the States, a divided nation at war.  And, from what I'm learning, that for the most part the Boys were doing most of their own work. And it seemed that other bands had at least some of that work done for them.

SMiLE was probably meant to be a triple album, with the American Saga concepts, and that seems overwhelming, but Brian thought "big."  Now, we can look back at the absolute volume of work and it is mind boggling.  I must admit, that the Beatles had great stuff, but weren't doing the kind of touring that the Boys did, nor did they have a family band member under the sword of the draft, complete with arrest and a trial.  

And, more than one band broke up or had to regroup as a result of the "knock on the door" from Uncle Sam.  Although the Beatles were vocal about war,  Uncle Sam could not knock on the Beatles' door, because they were not American citizens. I like to think that for a few years, they were understood better outside of the States, than at home.  

They were perceived to be "relevant" and understood, but less so in the States.  It was a truly bizarre time.  

[kookadams]

Kudos to the last comment. And I get what yer saying about the context of the times etc. Most people would be offended by this but I stick to my statement that the Beatles should've broken up in fall of '66. They put out Revolver, their last great album before succumbing to the overindulgence of psychedelia; ceased as a performing entity to become a studio group. I'm not gonna dismiss Sgt Pepper and the last 3 albums that followed because  they were great for what they were but when regarding the state of what American pop culture was in the late 60s and into the early 70s it seemed as tho rockNroll was in a coma or only existent in the UK cuz the English were the perceptive music consumers of that time. I mean Pet Sounds barely cracked the top 10 in the US and almost topped the charts in the UK, as well as the following albums  which all performed much better commercially overseas. I guess it was just how the times were but it irks the hell outta me when people question their relevance just because their popularity shifted continents. Its not that the Beach Boys werent hip anymore its that Americans didn't give a sh*t about quality music anymore. At least til the Ramones came and even then they werent top sellers. The early-mid 60s was not only the most progressive era in music history but also the only time when good music actually SOLD!

[NHC]

ok i'm probably pissing a lot of when i keep talking about the beatles, but one of the things I've wondered is why the beatles kept producing hits while the beach boys mostly didn't. Even after 1966, the beatles had quite a few hits:
Strawberry Fields Forever/Penny Lane
All You Need Is Love/Baby You're A Rich Man
Hello Goodbye/I Am the Walrus
Lady Madonna/The Inner Light
Hey Jude/Revolution
Get Back/Don't Let Me Down
Let It Be/You Know My Name
The Ballad of John and Yoko/Old Brown Shoe
Come Together/Something

There are only a handful of songs on this list that I enjoy. Penny Lane, Lady Madonna, Get Back, Let It Be, Ballad of John and Yoko, Something. The rest of them, I'll stick to the Beach Boys.

[hypehat]

Kudos to the last comment. And I get what yer saying about the context of the times etc. Most people would be offended by this but I stick to my statement that the Beatles should've broken up in fall of '66. They put out Revolver, their last great album before succumbing to the overindulgence of psychedelia; ceased as a performing entity to become a studio group. I'm not gonna dismiss Sgt Pepper and the last 3 albums that followed because  they were great for what they were but when regarding the state of what American pop culture was in the late 60s and into the early 70s it seemed as tho rockNroll was in a coma or only existent in the UK cuz the English were the perceptive music consumers of that time. I mean Pet Sounds barely cracked the top 10 in the US and almost topped the charts in the UK, as well as the following albums  which all performed much better commercially overseas. I guess it was just how the times were but it irks the hell outta me when people question their relevance just because their popularity shifted continents. Its not that the Beach Boys werent hip anymore its that Americans didn't give a sh*t about quality music anymore. At least til the Ramones came and even then they werent top sellers. The early-mid 60s was not only the most progressive era in music history but also the only time when good music actually SOLD!

Dude, if you're seriously repping for The Beach Boys over The Beatles on the basis that The Beatles stopped playing live and thus did not HONOUR THE FIRE OF ROCKNROLL, I think it's time you finally listened to any Beach Boys album made after 1964. And I mean ANY Beach Boys album.

[kookadams]

Kudos to the last comment. And I get what yer saying about the context of the times etc. Most people would be offended by this but I stick to my statement that the Beatles should've broken up in fall of '66. They put out Revolver, their last great album before succumbing to the overindulgence of psychedelia; ceased as a performing entity to become a studio group. I'm not gonna dismiss Sgt Pepper and the last 3 albums that followed because  they were great for what they were but when regarding the state of what American pop culture was in the late 60s and into the early 70s it seemed as tho rockNroll was in a coma or only existent in the UK cuz the English were the perceptive music consumers of that time. I mean Pet Sounds barely cracked the top 10 in the US and almost topped the charts in the UK, as well as the following albums  which all performed much better commercially overseas. I guess it was just how the times were but it irks the hell outta me when people question their relevance just because their popularity shifted continents. Its not that the Beach Boys werent hip anymore its that Americans didn't give a sh*t about quality music anymore. At least til the Ramones came and even then they werent top sellers. The early-mid 60s was not only the most progressive era in music history but also the only time when good music actually SOLD!

Dude, if you're seriously repping for The Beach Boys over The Beatles on the basis that The Beatles stopped playing live and thus did not HONOUR THE FIRE OF ROCKNROLL, I think it's time you finally listened to any Beach Boys album made after 1964. And I mean ANY Beach Boys album.

What are you talking about?? I listen to Beach Boys albums post-64 all the time.

[hypehat]

The Beach Boys are possibly the most studio orientated band of all time. Their leader retired from the road, before The Beatles did, to make better records. They made records they could not possibly recreate live, for the most part, and they didn't try that hard until about the arrival of Blondie & Ricky and a whole bunch of auxillary musicians, because their main focus was on the record. You ever listened to '67 bootlegs of their gigs (the 'A Vocal Element' one, for instance)? They could not give a f***. Dennis is barely playing his drums, Mike is joking MID-SONG, the sound is one of the least rock and roll things I've ever heard. To insist that they were somehow more rock and roll because they played live and The Beatles didn't is obscene.

[SMiLE Brian]

The 1964 Beach Boys were boss though live.

I think another reason their popularity went down is their live show got really crappy in 1965-1967 once Brian left the road.

[filledeplage]

The 1964 Beach Boys were boss though live.

I think another reason their popularity went down is their live show got really crappy in 1965-1967 once Brian left the road.

Did you go to any shows in 1965-1967 to tell us in what manner they were "crappy?"

[SMiLE Brian]

The 1964 Beach Boys were boss though live.

I think another reason their popularity went down is their live show got really crappy in 1965-1967 once Brian left the road.

Did you go to any shows in 1965-1967 to tell us in what manner they were "crappy?"

The soundboard bootlegs of the era (live in Michigan, vocal element 1967 fall tour, Lei'd in Hawaii) show a group struggling to perform the complex hits and goofing off too much to top it off. I think they got lazy until the shock of losing their fame hit them.

[filledeplage]

The 1964 Beach Boys were boss though live.

I think another reason their popularity went down is their live show got really crappy in 1965-1967 once Brian left the road.

Did you go to any shows in 1965-1967 to tell us in what manner they were "crappy?"

The soundboard bootlegs of the era (live in Michigan, vocal element 1967 fall tour, Lei'd in Hawaii) show a group struggling to perform the complex hits and goofing off too much to top it off. I think they got lazy until the shock of losing their fame hit them.

That was not the question.  Did you ever see them live between 1965 and 1967? 

[SMiLE Brian]

The 1964 Beach Boys were boss though live.

I think another reason their popularity went down is their live show got really crappy in 1965-1967 once Brian left the road.

Did you go to any shows in 1965-1967 to tell us in what manner they were "crappy?"

The soundboard bootlegs of the era (live in Michigan, vocal element 1967 fall tour, Lei'd in Hawaii) show a group struggling to perform the complex hits and goofing off too much to top it off. I think they got lazy until the shock of losing their fame hit them.

That was not the question.  Did you ever see them live between 1965 and 1967? 

I won't be bullied, the soundboards tell a story a concert tells.

[filledeplage]

The 1964 Beach Boys were boss though live.

I think another reason their popularity went down is their live show got really crappy in 1965-1967 once Brian left the road.

Did you go to any shows in 1965-1967 to tell us in what manner they were "crappy?"

The soundboard bootlegs of the era (live in Michigan, vocal element 1967 fall tour, Lei'd in Hawaii) show a group struggling to perform the complex hits and goofing off too much to top it off. I think they got lazy until the shock of losing their fame hit them.

That was not the question.  Did you ever see them live between 1965 and 1967?  

I won't be bullied, the soundboards tell a story a concert tells.

No one is bullying you. A soundboard does not a concert tale tell.  A live performance is an entirely different dynamic. Flaws and all.  Stage banter about current events, anecdotes, and audience participation.  I'm looking for a frame of reference and that is not unreasonable. That is all.  

[SMiLE Brian]

The 1964 Beach Boys were boss though live.

I think another reason their popularity went down is their live show got really crappy in 1965-1967 once Brian left the road.

Did you go to any shows in 1965-1967 to tell us in what manner they were "crappy?"

The soundboard bootlegs of the era (live in Michigan, vocal element 1967 fall tour, Lei'd in Hawaii) show a group struggling to perform the complex hits and goofing off too much to top it off. I think they got lazy until the shock of losing their fame hit them.

That was not the question.  Did you ever see them live between 1965 and 1967?  

I won't be bullied, the soundboards tell a story a concert tells.

No one is bullying you. A soundboard does not a concert tale tell.  A live performance is an entirely different dynamic. Flaws and all.  Stage banter about current events, anecdotes, and audience participation.  I'm looking for a frame of reference and that is not unreasonable. That is all.  

Well, you are implying I am a 21st century knucklehead who wasn't around to see the BBs in the 1960s, so I can't form an opinion on their live show at the time. A sound board is a complete record of a show with banter, audience, and mistakes. I fell like the BBs should have taken the shows more seriously with effort or backup players to do the songs justice. Hell, they should have taken a break from touring like the Beatles and helped finish SMiLE. The 1966 Beatles shows had a hard time doing the songs as well.