Brian without the Beach Boys: Would he still be regarded as a modern-day Mozart?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I agree 100% with that, rab.

Here's something else... it's fun to do a 'what-if' type of deal with artists, but there's something different in this case. In order for there not to be a Beach Boys, something fundamentally different would have to have occurred with the family situation. It's different since this was a family. Unlike a lot of other bands, where a chance encounter leads to a band formation, the family situation by its very nature made the band inevitable. They would have had to be fundamentally different people in order for it not to happen. Murry and Audree were very musical people, and they passed that on to their children. About the only thing that would have prevented it would have to be a crib death, or Carl gets run over by a car, or something like that. It was going to happen just because of the family situation. It was inevitable. A better 'what if' would be something along the lines of 'what if the Morgans liked the initial pre-Surfin' audition'?

[schiaffino]

Brian created complex chord progressions that are just as beautiful as anything Mozart did (obviously just my opinion, but I think Philip Lambert also shares a view similar to this - I could be mistaken). Also, Brian was working in the confines of the current music phase (where 3 1/2 minutes was the time allotted for a record) - and he pushed those boundaries to their very limits. He crammed symphonies into the tiny space of a 45.

Brian was a genius of his craft. Because he did not write 180 CDs worth of Operas or Symphonies doesn't make him less brilliant than Mozart.

People compare him to Mozart because they both created some of the most beautiful music in the history of mankind. nuff said.

Yes sir, agree

[schiaffino]

Ok, to make things a bit more structured, lets think about the following scenario. Brian releases 'Pet Sounds' as a solo effort, with guest vocals from Carl Wison (GOKs) and Mike Love (Hang on to your Ego). As we all know, Brian could've layered down all vocal tracks in all the songs in this album.

Since this is not a BBs album, 'Pet Sounds' tops the charts, hailed as masterpiece of musical production and arrangements. Critics hail Brian's smart use of session musicians and his writing maturity (acknowledging the importance of new lyricist partner, Tony Asher).

The band becomes weary of Brian's newly-gained position in the industry. To compensate them, Brian finishes 'Good Vibrations', a demo during the 'PS' sessions and gives them to the boys. Hits number one both sides of the Atlantic, everyone goes crazy for Brian's ability to produce both serious music and hit pocket symphonies for the kids.

Liberated from any doubts about his personal abilities, freed from performing duties, Brian becomes an independent artist and produces the decade-defining album 'Smile'. The Beatles hire Brian to help them produce a WIP project, code-named 'Pepper' and an artistic friendship is established between Brian & Paul. The duo would then produce and release the best music of the 20th century.

[schiaffino]

Ok, to make things a bit more structured, lets think about the following scenario. Brian releases 'Pet Sounds' as a solo effort, with guest vocals from Carl Wison (GOKs) and Mike Love (Hang on to your Ego). As we all know, Brian could've layered down all vocal tracks in all the songs in this album.

Since this is not a BBs album, 'Pet Sounds' tops the charts, hailed as masterpiece of musical production and arrangements. Critics hail Brian's smart use of session musicians and his writing maturity (acknowledging the importance of new lyricist partner, Tony Asher).

The band becomes weary of Brian's newly-gained position in the industry. To compensate them, Brian finishes 'Good Vibrations', a demo during the 'PS' sessions and gives them to the boys. Hits number one both sides of the Atlantic, everyone goes crazy for Brian's ability to produce both serious music and hit pocket symphonies for the kids.

Liberated from any doubts about his personal abilities, freed from performing duties, Brian becomes an independent artist and produces the decade-defining album 'Smile'. The Beatles hire Brian to help them produce a WIP project, code-named 'Pepper' and an artistic friendship is established between Brian & Paul. The duo would then produce and release the best music of the 20th century.

Just a nice thought 

[Myk Luhv]

This would be better: McCartney and Brian get together, snort some Adderall, and give us a holy combination of McCartney II and Brian Loves You. That would rule way more than Brian helping produce/arrange overwrought Beatles albums.

[schiaffino]

This would be better: McCartney and Brian get together, snort some Adderall, and give us a holy combination of McCartney II and Brian Loves You. That would rule way more than Brian helping produce/arrange overwrought Beatles albums.

 

[the captain]

One thing I'd like to mention that's not just about this thread, but rather a common recurring theme on this board and with pop disciples of a certain sort, is this: the comparisons or attempts to align Brian Wilson with Mozart or any other "classical" musician are just sad. They are an unnecessary attempt to justify someone who needs no justification. And to Wilson's detriment, it is a comparison without measurable benefits.

The good: Brian Wilson wrote, arranged, produced, played on, and sang some of the most loved popular music ever. He innovated that industry and reached huge audiences. That has to be enough.

The bad: the efforts of comparison to classical music assume that form of music is a higher form are inherently self-defeating. If that's the realm we're talking about, Wilson is just an example of a talented, upper level outsider. But seriously, using non-root tones in the bass? Or surprising key changes? These things are not impressive in that context. The point isn't that what Wilson did isn't amazing, but rather that context matters.

On that subject … Mozart is just someone--someone brilliant, mind you--who has caught the public's imagination because of marketing. Amadeus and so forth. Syphillis. Farting. Et cetera. A movie shouldn't fool you into thinking that the word "Mozart" is any more magical than the word "Brian," but for that matter, than the word "Gram" or "Elvis" or "Fiona" or "Emmylou" or "John" or "Kevin." These are all just names. People make music, and there is no god-touch for any of them ensuring each output will be blessed. There is nothing magical about a pop musician who can be compared to a classical musician, or a jazz musician to a pop musician, etc etc.

All of it is music. It does different things for different people, and further complicating the situation, different people get something different from it (in each instance). Some areas are based in deep theory, others in memorable hooks, others in technical brilliance. There are always artists blurring lines. But let's calm down and appreciate things for what they are without making silly aspirational (and insecure) comparisons.

[schiaffino]

One thing I'd like to mention that's not just about this thread, but rather a common recurring theme on this board and with pop disciples of a certain sort, is this: the comparisons or attempts to align Brian Wilson with Mozart or any other "classical" musician are just sad. They are an unnecessary attempt to justify someone who needs no justification. And to Wilson's detriment, it is a comparison without measurable benefits.

The good: Brian Wilson wrote, arranged, produced, played on, and sang some of the most loved popular music ever. He innovated that industry and reached huge audiences. That has to be enough.

The bad: the efforts of comparison to classical music assume that form of music is a higher form are inherently self-defeating. If that's the realm we're talking about, Wilson is just an example of a talented, upper level outsider. But seriously, using non-root tones in the bass? Or surprising key changes? These things are not impressive in that context. The point isn't that what Wilson did isn't amazing, but rather that context matters.

On that subject … Mozart is just someone--someone brilliant, mind you--who has caught the public's imagination because of marketing. Amadeus and so forth. Syphillis. Farting. Et cetera. A movie shouldn't fool you into thinking that the word "Mozart" is any more magical than the word "Brian," but for that matter, than the word "Gram" or "Elvis" or "Fiona" or "Emmylou" or "John" or "Kevin." These are all just names. People make music, and there is no god-touch for any of them ensuring each output will be blessed. There is nothing magical about a pop musician who can be compared to a classical musician, or a jazz musician to a pop musician, etc etc.

All of it is music. It does different things for different people, and further complicating the situation, different people get something different from it (in each instance). Some areas are based in deep theory, others in memorable hooks, others in technical brilliance. There are always artists blurring lines. But let's calm down and appreciate things for what they are without making silly aspirational (and insecure) comparisons.

Hi Luther, thanks for commenting in this thread.

I understand your point and I agree that the greater-public visibility Mozart has comes from the movie. But for people who know about classical music history, Mozart still stands as an exception and as a genius. Great composers like Brahms or Lizt, even the great Bach, came from musically educated families and had a very demanding training (private lessons, conservatories) when growing up. They all indeed showed musical abilities (or better, inclinations) at early stages but the potential they developed came from hard-work (studying), good relationships with mecenas and being at the right place at the right time.

Take Salieri for example (not the cartoon from the movie, the real-life character). He was an impressive musician in his own right, wrote great pieces of work and had most of the above-to-superior knowledge of classical composing. But he acknowledged something in Mozart that he couldn't study, nor learn, nor developed. It was something you have to be born with and it's that extra level that creates a genius.

And Brian indeed is in this category. God only knows if he wouldnt have gone through the life path of drugs and mental illness, where would his work be right now. Someone deaf, with no musical training (like real one), from such a complicated family (with whatever limited musical atmosphere) that could score the violins section in 'Dont talk...' has something else in his brain.

So yes, both Brian and Mozart, Beethoven, Paganini are geniuses. I kind of answer my question at the beginning of this thread: Yes, Brian would have been equally admired and regarded as a genius 'cause its in him.

[Jukka]

Yes, Brian would have been equally admired and regarded as a genius 'cause its in him.

He'd be genius alright, but would he have gotten his shot at proving his skills? Not necessarily, and that would be even more tragic than all the other tragedies in his life combined. So I'd say the BB's were a blessing for Brian.

[schiaffino]

Yes, Brian would have been equally admired and regarded as a genius 'cause its in him.

He'd be genius alright, but would he have gotten his shot at proving his skills? Not necessarily, and that would be even more tragic than all the other tragedies in his life combined. So I'd say the BB's were a blessing for Brian.

Yes sir, like Dennis said, the BBs were the messengers of Brian's genius.

[Jukka]

And then again, would Mozart have been Mozart of his time without mecenates and his father's efforts? Maybe not. Every genius needs a platform, a starting point.

[southbay]

yes, he'd be a genius, but a frustrated one.  The Beach Boys were (are) Brian's greatest instrument.  Brian without the Beach Boys would be like Mozart without the piano. Or Kermit without the banjo.

[Jon Stebbins]

yes, he'd be a genius, but a frustrated one.  The Beach Boys were (are) Brian's greatest instrument.  Brian without the Beach Boys would be like Mozart without the piano. Or Kermit without the banjo.

...or AGD without idiots.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[southbay]

yes, he'd be a genius, but a frustrated one.  The Beach Boys were (are) Brian's greatest instrument.  Brian without the Beach Boys would be like Mozart without the piano. Or Kermit without the banjo.

...or AGD without idiots.

nailed it

[schiaffino]

In 'Pet Sounds', the BBs were useful to Brian for their voices. But the album has been hailed for its production, thematic unity and lyrical maturity.

Even with Brian-only vocals, the album would still have the above-mentioned qualities. It was a Brian album from A to Z...and if the best album ever in the history of rock is not sufficient proof of his individual genius, then what is it?

Yes, Brian needed his father push, Mike's ambition and the band during the early years. But after 'Summer Days...' he needed them just for the voices (TSS is the proof).

I don't think he'd have been a frustrated genius. I actually think he became a frustrated genius for staying with a band that did not understand his musical growth.

[Letsgoawayforawhile]

In 'Pet Sounds', the BBs were useful to Brian for their voices. But the album has been hailed for its production, thematic unity and lyrical maturity.

Even with Brian-only vocals, the album would still have the above-mentioned qualities. It was a Brian album from A to Z...and if the best album ever in the history of rock is not sufficient proof of his individual genius, then what is it?

Yes, Brian needed his father push, Mike's ambition and the band during the early years. But after 'Summer Days...' he needed them just for the voices (TSS is the proof).

I don't think he'd have been a frustrated genius. I actually think he became a frustrated genius for staying with a band that did not understand his musical growth.

I agree.

[the captain]

Today I came across an article in Standpoint titled "The Mozart Delusion," by Norman Lebrecht, found at http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/4832/full, that makes some of the points I was hinting at earlier in this thread about the problem with deifying Mozart (or Wilson, for that matter). I've quoted parts of a few relevant paragraphs below. I hope you'll find it interesting, and also keep it in context: I love Mozart (and Wilson) .. but that's no reason to get silly about them.

Pierre Boulez [said] that Mozart was a regressive force who added nothing to the development of music. The inventors and energisers in music history were Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Wagner, Mahler and Schoenberg; all else was entertainment. Boulez, as music director of the New York Philharmonic in the 1970s, replaced Mozart with Haydn on its programmes.

His case still holds, up to a point. ... Mozart pushed no musical form forward beyond existing borders. He was conformist to a fault, a conservative composer. On the plus side, he contributed two dozen works to what one might term general human civilisation, the common stock of culture—from “A Little Night Music” to the last notes of a Requiem he never lived to finish. That’s two dozen out of 630 works, but it’s a dozen more than Haydn and it is a rush of works that arouse instant warmth and acceptance from an audience.

Andrew Ford, the Australian composer and broadcaster, reinforces this point in a new collection of essays, Try Whistling This (Black Inc., £21.95). Mozart, he writes, “knows how to keep us close to the edge of our seats”, something few composers ever achieve. Ford goes on to acknowledge, however, that once we start to believe that his music is “a sonic panacea from God, we might well lose our ability to listen at all”.

And therein lies the danger of the Mozart propaganda that is blared at us day and night, weakening even the ascetic Boulez, who has taken up conducting Mozart in his eighties. Once we invest music with supernal qualities, once we maintain (there are learned papers to this effect) that Mozart can ease childbirth pains and stimulate brain cells in laboratory rats, it ceases to be music at all and becomes a part of humdrum mundanity, along with unemployment statistics and the football results. Sooner or later, you will read that Mozart can cure cancer.

The challenge for my working life is to rescue music from such tedious misconceptions.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[the captain]

If any of that, and especially the second paragraph, was aimed at me, you need to learn some manners.

[schiaffino]

If any of that, and especially the second paragraph, was aimed at me, you need to learn some manners.

There's no need to blow things out of proportion. The comparison with Mozart is just contextual, how an artist at some point in time had a large impact in the cultural momentum of a society and how their musical output has grown in appreciation after their heyday.

The comparison ends basically there. True, both Brian and Mr. Amadeus were born with musical skills above average and they both were able to produce some of the most beautiful pieces of art in human history. Each a genius in their own terms and in a specific artistic style.

Maybe I should change the title of the thread to ''Brian without the BBs: Would he still be regarded as a modern-day [insert name of your genius of choice}'? Never thought Mozart's name would make such a fuzz.

[Cabinessenceking]

No, Mozart worked his ass of, he literally worked himself to death! from his childhood he was crafting masterpieces. Brian had a short burst of wonder in his mid 20's then sat on his ass the rest of his life. Highly doubtful that such a comparison would ever be made, despite Brian's unique and marvelous sound and enduring place in western culture.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[the captain]

I'm not blowing anything out of proportion and while I'm not sure what "a fuzz" is in this context (that's a great term--do you mind me asking where you're from and whether it is common there?), I'm not trying to make one. And no doubt, my issue with the topic is less the main thrust of the initial question--would Wilson still be highly regarded if not for the Beach Boys?--than with the comparison to "classical" composers in general AND Mozart in particular.

So let me just make two (hopefully) quick final points on the subject to address the composer-in-general point and the Mozart-specific point, then I can be done with it.

1) Genius-Composer-In-General. This one just doesn't make much sense to me for a lot of reasons, for reasons made in my initial post on the subject. If we're talking about the music itself, Wilson's is just nowhere near as complex. That's not an insult. It's just true. Conversely, in the context of being appreciated by the composer's peers and sometimes the public, the comparison works, but it just doesn't seem especially noteworthy.

2) Mozart-Specific. Multi-part issue here--not with any posters on this board but the world in general.

a) Mozart being somewhat artificially raised to deific (I made up that word) heights and subsequently being used as some kind of ultimate comparison. If everyone understands it's more shorthand than reality, I guess it's fine (if lazy).

b) If we're talking in terms of the music itself, A v B (or rather WAM v BDW), they are similar in terms of popularity within their own (very different) contexts. BDW's probably was more innovative in its context than was WAM's. (I just realized I wish that my initials were WAM. I would insist people called me WAM, pronounced like wham. That would be f***ing awesome!) And as noted in my first post and general point above, in terms of direct comparison (as opposed to comparisons within their own contexts), BDW's is not even close in terms of complexity.

c) In terms of their talents separated from resulting music, I think a comparison holds less water: WAM was a true child prodigy in terms of both composition and performance, being trotted about Europe and amazing people; BDW could hum basic tunes at an early age and, eventually, painstakingly learned to transcribe music bar-by-bar, and later to write, arrange, produce, etc. very well.

d) If we're talking personalities or lives, which is a big part of what I always suspect drives the comparison ("troubled genius," among the most tired stereotypes there is, in my opinion), the biggest similarity is just a broad storyline of "child star gone wrong." Again, it's such a common storyline it doesn't seem worth mentioning. You could make it more specific by adding "parent of child star a big part of the problem." Remains common storyline among child stars gone wrong. The specifics of their issues are quite different, so I don't know that you can take it that much further. Mozart remained a hard worker throughout his life, Wilson took breaks. Mozart remained a public figure, Wilson kept out of sight for periods. They share a sense of humor, though Mozart's tended to be toward sh*t-jokes... (Classy guy.) And I'm not sure Mozart had real mental health issues (prior to whatever his final illness led to, which isn't really the same thing), though it would be tough to say considering the lack of understanding of them.

And finally--yes, I said this would be short and halfheartedly apologize that it wasn't--to the real point of the question: would BDW be held in high regard as a musical figure if not for the Beach Boys? Probably not; it's unlikely he would have been known well enough to have been appreciated, though it's possible he could have gotten a gig as a staff songwriter and producer at some point and gotten into the industry through that route.

[mr_oleary]

Brian's Bach!