gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
656252 Posts in 26240 Topics by 3733 Members - Latest Member: SpanoItaliano March 28, 2020, 04:11:30 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Brian to play with Al and David, July in Ohio  (Read 33577 times)
Wirestone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5848



View Profile
« Reply #300 on: January 26, 2013, 10:27:20 PM »

And let me add here, in case anyone thinks I've lost all internal consistency -- I still do believe what I wrote last year about the album and the tour.

-- I don't think it's preposterous at all that Brian is credited as producer on TWGMTR, despite the fact he probably contributed different amounts to different songs.

-- I don't think Mike's decision to cut off the full-group tour was a wise or prudent one.

But while I stick by those points, I've calmed down (as have most here, it looks like), and come to realize that the end-of-tour  burst of drama was probably just some hot air and mildly hurt feelings. Brian would never have wanted to tour full time with a reunited band, and his level of interest in future recording is probably mercurial at best.

Mike's moves -- as brutal and crass as they seemed at the time -- make a certain amount of sense in terms of his longer-term strategy as a performer. The BBs name doesn't mean the same thing to him as it does to some of us -- and while that may be unfortunate, it is what it is.

And I would like to note that I posted this more than a month ago:

Well, there could certainly be worse outcomes from this year then getting Brian and Al touring again (and why not bring along Dave?).

The guys should be working together in some configuration.
Logged
Sound of Free
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 410


View Profile
« Reply #301 on: January 26, 2013, 10:36:46 PM »


Except that Mike didn't like the way Mike sounded on it. As he said in multiple interviews this past summer...He wrote Getcha Back with Dennis in mind to sing it, but by the time it was recorded Dennis was dead. He thought David gave it something closer to the vocal texture that he had originally intended for the song.

Do you know when Mike wrote it? It's amazing that with all that went on with Mike and Dennis, that Mike wrote a song for Dennis to sing that late in the game. What a complex (more like bizarre) relationship the cousins had love/hate, musical differences/good collaborations.
Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #302 on: January 26, 2013, 10:39:13 PM »

I have been disappointed with Mike's decision not to continue the tour for artistic reasons and my own personal preferences. But getting into his head on the reunion issue has never been that difficult.

On an individual basis, yes, people appear to have a strong opinion as to Mike's feelings. But, after several threads and dozens and dozens of pages, apparently there isn't a lot of agreement on the subject.

Also, this appears to be one of those topics where you believe what you want to believe, and use what you've read to substantiate your opinion. You can cherry-pick a comment here or there, but I don't think Mike showed his hand at all, including his "parting words". I'm still very unsure as to what Mike really wants (post August 2013) for the future of The Beach Boys, whereas a year ago, I didn't think there was any doubt.
Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #303 on: January 26, 2013, 10:45:54 PM »

But while I stick by those points, I've calmed down (as have most here, it looks like), and come to realize that the end-of-tour  burst of drama was probably just some hot air and mildly hurt feelings. Brian would never have wanted to tour full time with a reunited band, and his level of interest in future recording is probably mercurial at best.



I alluded to this in my lengthy post last night. While I'm not exactly sure what Mike is feeling about the future of the band with Brian, I do think (and stated) that Brian burned too many bridges with Mike - professionally - and Mike is probably taking that into strong consideration when making future decisions.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8741



View Profile WWW
« Reply #304 on: January 27, 2013, 02:06:39 PM »


I alluded to this in my lengthy post last night. While I'm not exactly sure what Mike is feeling about the future of the band with Brian, I do think (and stated) that Brian burned too many bridges with Mike - professionally - and Mike is probably taking that into strong consideration when making future decisions.

This is always important to keep in mind. Brian has certainly exposed the rest of the band to a lot of drama and stress over the years (as many or all of them have done to each other over the years), so they probably do still keep that in mind.

At the same time, I'm curious to know what Brian or his "camp" did during the reunion that might have made things worse. I personally don't find it a very compelling argument when folks have said something along the lines that "Mike had to sacrifice a lot for this tour" if most of those sacrifices were things like not having 100% control, having to actually let a couple of other people have a say in things, have a "camp" that is equally as controlling and complex as yours, etc. These were all difficult things to deal with I would imagine, a difficult adjustment to the way things have been. But seeing as the group is a group and not a solo act, and that it involves a corporation with shareholders who own the trademark together, I don't really give any of the guys extra credit purely for the general idea of having to compromise and work together and sometimes concede some points on things.

But I think it may well be true that Mike's aversion to continuing the reunion doesn't have much to do with any terrible incident or experience during the reunion itself; indeed, he apparently booked his own shows during (or conceivably even before) the reunion tour.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Jon Stebbins
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2624


View Profile
« Reply #305 on: January 27, 2013, 02:35:30 PM »


Except that Mike didn't like the way Mike sounded on it. As he said in multiple interviews this past summer...He wrote Getcha Back with Dennis in mind to sing it, but by the time it was recorded Dennis was dead. He thought David gave it something closer to the vocal texture that he had originally intended for the song.

Do you know when Mike wrote it? It's amazing that with all that went on with Mike and Dennis, that Mike wrote a song for Dennis to sing that late in the game. What a complex (more like bizarre) relationship the cousins had love/hate, musical differences/good collaborations.
I don't, in fact I'd never known that factoid until Mike said so in an interview with my friend Howie Edelson last year. David also confirmed to me that Mike told him about wanting a rougher textured lead vocal than what ended up on the record. Mike's quote mentions that he'd first thought of Dennis, and later Bryan Adams as the type of voice he wanted for the song.
Logged
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5476


View Profile
« Reply #306 on: January 27, 2013, 03:07:15 PM »


I alluded to this in my lengthy post last night. While I'm not exactly sure what Mike is feeling about the future of the band with Brian, I do think (and stated) that Brian burned too many bridges with Mike - professionally - and Mike is probably taking that into strong consideration when making future decisions.

This is always important to keep in mind. Brian has certainly exposed the rest of the band to a lot of drama and stress over the years (as many or all of them have done to each other over the years), so they probably do still keep that in mind.

At the same time, I'm curious to know what Brian or his "camp" did during the reunion that might have made things worse. I personally don't find it a very compelling argument when folks have said something along the lines that "Mike had to sacrifice a lot for this tour" if most of those sacrifices were things like not having 100% control, having to actually let a couple of other people have a say in things, have a "camp" that is equally as controlling and complex as yours, etc. These were all difficult things to deal with I would imagine, a difficult adjustment to the way things have been. But seeing as the group is a group and not a solo act, and that it involves a corporation with shareholders who own the trademark together, I don't really give any of the guys extra credit purely for the general idea of having to compromise and work together and sometimes concede some points on things.

But I think it may well be true that Mike's aversion to continuing the reunion doesn't have much to do with any terrible incident or experience during the reunion itself; indeed, he apparently booked his own shows during (or conceivably even before) the reunion tour.

For want of a better term, Brian on tour during the C50 was 'high maintenance' compared to Mikes normal touring. Add in Al and David plus the extended band, this rules out many of the smaller markets that Mike targets.

There is a lot more to it sure, but on a business level the numbers just don't add up to me.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 03:12:37 PM by Pretty Funky » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #307 on: January 27, 2013, 03:52:15 PM »

The Sweetdude (who is always wise and delights The Professor with his insight),
Instead of branding Dave an "afterthought" (a potentially dismissive and pejorative term), I see what we all here recount as simply as the sequence of historical events that led to "putting the band back together," to invoke the classic archetype. 

The notion of "afterthought" in this context is a red herring. They thought of him and he came in "after" the video, after the tracks of the album, etc. No need to foreground the term as if to disprove any other assertion that he did not enter when he entered. . . .

What I am taking away from all our Friday night comments is that we want a full-on BB album, such as the realities and state of being is in 2013 because we wonder what in high holy heaven such an album would sound like. Radio did not answer that question last year. Or rather, we find its answer provisional,  incomplete , and corrupted by illusion.
This seems a little puzzling to me, since David had worked with the Touring Band, in December of 2011, just prior to the national TV appearances in early 2012, and in the Google interview, David spoke about working with Al's band.  I saw him 3 nights in a row (NY/NJ) in those December, 2011 shows, and Mike announced him as an "original signatory" so I'm not getting the "afterthought" impressions on any level.  He is a "guitar star." Wow!  In working with Brian's band after having worked with the other two, and with his academic training, he is in such a good place.  His lead on Pet Sounds (instrumental) during the Tour, blew people away, and allowed the audience to see his long history with this music in a fuller context even if he was not physically present, he was doing work with very prominent musicians.

Just selfishly, I'd like to see the principals maybe redo/renew a couple of older works, as they did with Do It Again, with a fresh approach, but with the "principals" in authorship.  And, either "Don't Fight the Sea" or Soul Searchin' or whatever tracks of Dennis' and/or Carl's vocals might be in existence, from either Carl's or Dennis' solo works. ProTools or whatever technology out there, might be just the thing.  People reacted so well to the blending of the videos and live accompaniment, in the tributes.  It is so different from 50 years ago, and that's what I call progress.  Wink
Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #308 on: January 27, 2013, 04:00:45 PM »


I alluded to this in my lengthy post last night. While I'm not exactly sure what Mike is feeling about the future of the band with Brian, I do think (and stated) that Brian burned too many bridges with Mike - professionally - and Mike is probably taking that into strong consideration when making future decisions.

This is always important to keep in mind. Brian has certainly exposed the rest of the band to a lot of drama and stress over the years (as many or all of them have done to each other over the years), so they probably do still keep that in mind.

At the same time, I'm curious to know what Brian or his "camp" did during the reunion that might have made things worse.

I don't think Brian or his "camp" did anything that might have made things worse. What I alluded to in my original (lengthy) post, which Wirestone expanded on, is ....

Maybe - just maybe - Mike is skeptical about Brian "keeping up" his good behavior, for lack of a better term. Would he be able to keep up the extensive touring, the obligations that go with it, the quality performances, the commitment to making a quality record, etc. In other words, would Brian want to show up at Sea World on a hot summer night, and do interviews and pose for pictures, and sing his heart out, not as a reunion tour but as a one-nighter - for a couple of bucks? And for how long?

In the past 51 years, Brian's behavior has been, to put it kindly, inconsistent. But, Mike and the rest of the band overlooked it because of the benefits that Brian brought to the table, whether it be a song or two or an appearance or two. To paraphrase Mr. Dylan, and speculating about Mike's thoughts, "I used to care, but things have changed..."
Logged
I. Spaceman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2271

Revolution Never Again


View Profile
« Reply #309 on: January 27, 2013, 06:48:22 PM »

The Sweetdude (who is always wise and delights The Professor with his insight),
Instead of branding Dave an "afterthought" (a potentially dismissive and pejorative term), I see what we all here recount as simply as the sequence of historical events that led to "putting the band back together," to invoke the classic archetype.  

The notion of "afterthought" in this context is a red herring. They thought of him and he came in "after" the video, after the tracks of the album, etc. No need to foreground the term as if to disprove any other assertion that he did not enter when he entered. . . .

What I am taking away from all our Friday night comments is that we want a full-on BB album, such as the realities and state of being is in 2013 because we wonder what in high holy heaven such an album would sound like. Radio did not answer that question last year. Or rather, we find its answer provisional,  incomplete , and corrupted by illusion.

"The Spaceman" disagrees. If Radio is provisional and corrupted by illusion, so is Sunflower. The control of the album by Brian's camp is actually a totally honest and natural course of events. It is just that this time, his camp doesn't include other members of the band. He has been propped up by other people production-wise since the end of Smile. The guy who mainly propped him up from 1967-1977, Carl, is gone. The remaining members aren't his equal. Anyone who thinks a better album than Radio could be created with equal input from Al and David is fooling themselves. Even Mike's input should be limited to providing lyrics.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 06:49:54 PM by I. Spaceman » Logged

Nobody gives a sh*t about the Record Room
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1729



View Profile WWW
« Reply #310 on: January 27, 2013, 07:17:34 PM »

The Sweetdude (who is always wise and delights The Professor with his insight),
Instead of branding Dave an "afterthought" (a potentially dismissive and pejorative term), I see what we all here recount as simply as the sequence of historical events that led to "putting the band back together," to invoke the classic archetype.  

The notion of "afterthought" in this context is a red herring. They thought of him and he came in "after" the video, after the tracks of the album, etc. No need to foreground the term as if to disprove any other assertion that he did not enter when he entered. . . .

What I am taking away from all our Friday night comments is that we want a full-on BB album, such as the realities and state of being is in 2013 because we wonder what in high holy heaven such an album would sound like. Radio did not answer that question last year. Or rather, we find its answer provisional,  incomplete , and corrupted by illusion.

"The Spaceman" disagrees. If Radio is provisional and corrupted by illusion, so is Sunflower. The control of the album by Brian's camp is actually a totally honest and natural course of events. It is just that this time, his camp doesn't include other members of the band. He has been propped up by other people production-wise since the end of Smile. The guy who mainly propped him up from 1967-1977, Carl, is gone. The remaining members aren't his equal. Anyone who thinks a better album than Radio could be created with equal input from Al and David is fooling themselves. Even Mike's input should be limited to providing lyrics.

Yeh, this potential album by 'the band' would not only be impossible to create, but would be terrible if it were.

Mike has never really been a producer. I think Al is a great songwriter and a fine producer, but it seems to take him a long time to get something finished. Carl was the main producer of the group during the 'wilderness era' or whatever you call it ... Sunflower, Surf's Up, Holland -- those are his records. Carl basically stopped producing after the '70s, and was content to let outsiders run the show in the '80s-'90s. I'd really love to hear more about what he told that guy from the High Llamas.

While I think Brian is capable of producing an album these days, whether or not he is interested in doing it (or willing to) is unknown.

The years are creeping in. Anything that is going to happen needs to happen soon -- one more chance in my view.

The only hope is for Brian and Mike to get together, write a group of songs (who cares if the lyrics are about cruising and beaches? or girls or gettin back together or wild honey in the honey jar? -- revisit some old unfinished songs if need be like 'goin to the beach' or whatever), get whoever is left of the Wrecking Crew together with some younger people who know how to make 1960s-sounding records (without the aide of a computer), have them aide BW (and fill in the gaps where needed) in the back tracks, get the guys around a microphone (really), double, triple em up, whatever you have to do ... the result, good or bad glad or sad, will be history. Now that's a sentence.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 07:18:51 PM by DonnyL » Logged

AndrewHickey
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1999



View Profile
« Reply #311 on: January 27, 2013, 07:20:13 PM »

What I am taking away from all our Friday night comments is that we want a full-on BB album, such as the realities and state of being is in 2013 because we wonder what in high holy heaven such an album would sound like. Radio did not answer that question last year. Or rather, we find its answer provisional,  incomplete , and corrupted by illusion.

"The Spaceman" disagrees. If Radio is provisional and corrupted by illusion, so is Sunflower. The control of the album by Brian's camp is actually a totally honest and natural course of events. It is just that this time, his camp doesn't include other members of the band. He has been propped up by other people production-wise since the end of Smile. The guy who mainly propped him up from 1967-1977, Carl, is gone. The remaining members aren't his equal. Anyone who thinks a better album than Radio could be created with equal input from Al and David is fooling themselves. Even Mike's input should be limited to providing lyrics.

Absolutely agreed. I'd be fine with, say, a 12-track album with ten tracks written by Brian and one each from Al and Bruce, but much more input than that isn't really warranted (though I doubt Al has written more than one more song since Postcard, given his slow rate of work).

To the extent that the surviving members other than Brian are artists at all (and they are -- Al, for example, is as good a singer as I've heard, and that is an art at least as much as songwriting is) their artistic talents are as performers, not writers.
Logged

The Smiley Smile ignore function: http://andrewhickey.info/the-smiley-smile-ignore-button-sort-of/
Most recent update 03/12/15
urbanite
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 851


View Profile
« Reply #312 on: January 27, 2013, 07:31:25 PM »

I'm guessing that on some level there is a lot of lingering resentment for what Brian put Mike and others through over the years, probably a lot f wild stories that have never leaked out.  And my guess is, purely a guess, is they now have to deal with Brian's wife, who is not a musician and has no history in the music business, what a hassle.
Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #313 on: January 27, 2013, 07:57:40 PM »

I'm guessing that on some level there is a lot of lingering resentment for what Brian put Mike and others through over the years, probably a lot f wild stories that have never leaked out.  And my guess is, purely a guess, is they now have to deal with Brian's wife, who is not a musician and has no history in the music business, what a hassle.

I'm with you on the resentment aspect. I sometimes think that Mike could put the pre-1983 craziness behind, chalking it up to drugs, the Wilson family, Landy, etc. It's the post-1996 BW solo years when Brian did and said some things that I don't think sat too well with Mike that might be lingering.

The Melinda factor is more complicated. I do think she was behind some questionable career moves over the years, and, it might've been a hassle dealing with during the reunion. I have no idea. There is one way where I think Melinda was an asset. Melinda could "deliver" Brian. Do you ever get the feeling that she might've guaranteed or was the driving force behind Brian showing up, being in condition to perform, not quitting, basically being a responsible professional. Actually, for the most part, he has been professional in his solo career also. I give her credit for that, and I think she is crucial to any further relationship between Brian and The Beach Boys.
Logged
the professor
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 982


View Profile
« Reply #314 on: January 27, 2013, 08:18:29 PM »

What I am taking away from all our Friday night comments is that we want a full-on BB album, such as the realities and state of being is in 2013 because we wonder what in high holy heaven such an album would sound like. Radio did not answer that question last year. Or rather, we find its answer provisional,  incomplete , and corrupted by illusion.

"The Spaceman" disagrees. If Radio is provisional and corrupted by illusion, so is Sunflower. The control of the album by Brian's camp is actually a totally honest and natural course of events. It is just that this time, his camp doesn't include other members of the band. He has been propped up by other people production-wise since the end of Smile. The guy who mainly propped him up from 1967-1977, Carl, is gone. The remaining members aren't his equal. Anyone who thinks a better album than Radio could be created with equal input from Al and David is fooling themselves. Even Mike's input should be limited to providing lyrics.

Absolutely agreed. I'd be fine with, say, a 12-track album with ten tracks written by Brian and one each from Al and Bruce, but much more input than that isn't really warranted (though I doubt Al has written more than one more song since Postcard, given his slow rate of work).

To the extent that the surviving members other than Brian are artists at all (and they are -- Al, for example, is as good a singer as I've heard, and that is an art at least as much as songwriting is) their artistic talents are as performers, not writers.

Well WE have worked it all out, now let's hope those guys get in the studio and make the album we have crafted for them!  I think we all are damned curious about what they have to say and how they can contribute, each according to their relative strength and ability, plus the always unknown role of the muses. We just want them to do well and be fulfilled and give us more of the unique joy that all of the BB music brings. I stand with all of you, my friends, as I share your longing for the best and most fulfilling art we can hope to share together as fans.
Logged
I. Spaceman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 2271

Revolution Never Again


View Profile
« Reply #315 on: January 27, 2013, 08:34:51 PM »

I'm guessing that on some level there is a lot of lingering resentment for what Brian put Mike and others through over the years, probably a lot f wild stories that have never leaked out.  And my guess is, purely a guess, is they now have to deal with Brian's wife, who is not a musician and has no history in the music business, what a hassle.

I'm with you on the resentment aspect. I sometimes think that Mike could put the pre-1983 craziness behind, chalking it up to drugs, the Wilson family, Landy, etc. It's the post-1996 BW solo years when Brian did and said some things that I don't think sat too well with Mike that might be lingering.

The Melinda factor is more complicated. I do think she was behind some questionable career moves over the years, and, it might've been a hassle dealing with during the reunion. I have no idea. There is one way where I think Melinda was an asset. Melinda could "deliver" Brian. Do you ever get the feeling that she might've guaranteed or was the driving force behind Brian showing up, being in condition to perform, not quitting, basically being a responsible professional. Actually, for the most part, he has been professional in his solo career also. I give her credit for that, and I think she is crucial to any further relationship between Brian and The Beach Boys.

Mike is pretty well managed by his wife at this point, as well. Reports point to tension between the manager/wives on the tour, and that heavily contributing to the end of the enterprise for the near future.
Logged

Nobody gives a sh*t about the Record Room
Awesoman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1485


Disagreements? Work 'em out.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #316 on: January 27, 2013, 08:37:15 PM »

I beg to differ. Its been covered on this board many times that Dave was no Pete Best. The first 5 albums, original signatory to Capitol etc. Also anyone who went to a C50 gig now knows that he can play. If the media didn't pick that up they failed.

I don't recall reading the 'Pete Best' comparrison anywhere?

A couple years back I once dared make a comparison between Best and Marks on this board which ignited some overly-obsessive backlashing by other members whom thought I was comparing their talents.  I was simply noting a similarity between their relatively short tenures of their respective bands.  Didn't think it was an unfair comparison in that regard, and still don't find it unfair today.  Lot of fellow board members couldn't handle it.  Marks is clearly the more talented of the two, but I think Best does just fine based on his name recognition alone.    

[Uh oh, think I just did it again...I'm gonna go hide now... police]
Logged

I'm the man on the mountain, come on up.
I'm the plowman in the valley with a face full of mud.
Yes, I'm fumbling and I know my car don't start.
Yes, I'm stumbling and I know I play a bad guitar.

Give me little drink from your loving cup.
Just one drink and I'll fall down drunk.
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2898



View Profile
« Reply #317 on: January 27, 2013, 10:08:00 PM »

"The Spaceman" disagrees. If Radio is provisional and corrupted by illusion, so is Sunflower. The control of the album by Brian's camp is actually a totally honest and natural course of events. It is just that this time, his camp doesn't include other members of the band. He has been propped up by other people production-wise since the end of Smile. The guy who mainly propped him up from 1967-1977, Carl, is gone. The remaining members aren't his equal. Anyone who thinks a better album than Radio could be created with equal input from Al and David is fooling themselves. Even Mike's input should be limited to providing lyrics.

"The Sweetdude" agrees with The Spaceman for the most part. I think our friend the professor, as good of intentions as he has, wants something that I don't think The Beach Boys would ever want.

The Beach Boys haven't been a classic self-contained band since when? Some time in the '60s I guess. The album considered as their best work, Pet Sounds barely has them on it instrumentally. And even if they wanted to be a self-contained band, they don't have a drummer. They could get Ricky Fataar if they wanted to look with "Beach Boys" ranks, but lets be honest, that ain't happenin'. The best Beach Boys work is also considered to be written by Brian Wilson. So what sense would it make to not give him the majority of the songs to do his thing? Al Jardine hardly hand any new self-written material on his own solo album, and David Marks, well, good ol' Dave never had a Beach Boys writing credit in the first place, so why start now?

Yeh, this potential album by 'the band' would not only be impossible to create, but would be terrible if it were.

Mike has never really been a producer. I think Al is a great songwriter and a fine producer, but it seems to take him a long time to get something finished. Carl was the main producer of the group during the 'wilderness era' or whatever you call it ... Sunflower, Surf's Up, Holland -- those are his records. Carl basically stopped producing after the '70s, and was content to let outsiders run the show in the '80s-'90s. I'd really love to hear more about what he told that guy from the High Llamas.

While I think Brian is capable of producing an album these days, whether or not he is interested in doing it (or willing to) is unknown.

The years are creeping in. Anything that is going to happen needs to happen soon -- one more chance in my view.

The only hope is for Brian and Mike to get together, write a group of songs (who cares if the lyrics are about cruising and beaches? or girls or gettin back together or wild honey in the honey jar? -- revisit some old unfinished songs if need be like 'goin to the beach' or whatever), get whoever is left of the Wrecking Crew together with some younger people who know how to make 1960s-sounding records (without the aide of a computer), have them aide BW (and fill in the gaps where needed) in the back tracks, get the guys around a microphone (really), double, triple em up, whatever you have to do ... the result, good or bad glad or sad, will be history. Now that's a sentence.

I don't quite understand the need to bring in the Wrecking Crew. How about Brian brings in who he is comfortable with (i.e. Darian, Jeff, etc) and works with them? And as far as working with computers? Well, pretty much everybody works with computers in the music world these days. I understand what you are looking for is more of a "classicist" Beach Boys record with the Wrecking Crew and the guys all singing around one mic and recording in analog and whatever. Which is cool if that's what they wanted to do. But maybe Brian doesn't wanna make 1960s sounding records. He already made those. Maybe he wants to make records that sounds like Brian Wilson in the 2010s. I'm not saying Brian chose to have Skunk Baxter and that the sound of the last album doesn't have a whole lot to do with Joe Thomas.

I personally would rather leave all this in the hands of Brian Wilson, Mike Love, Al Jardine, David Marks and Bruce Johnston. They are a lot better at making Beach Boys albums than us. And even though all this nonsense is going on, I do think we will see at least one more new Beach Boys album.
Logged
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5476


View Profile
« Reply #318 on: January 28, 2013, 12:21:58 AM »

I beg to differ. Its been covered on this board many times that Dave was no Pete Best. The first 5 albums, original signatory to Capitol etc. Also anyone who went to a C50 gig now knows that he can play. If the media didn't pick that up they failed.

I don't recall reading the 'Pete Best' comparrison anywhere?

A couple years back I once dared make a comparison between Best and Marks on this board which ignited some overly-obsessive backlashing by other members whom thought I was comparing their talents.  I was simply noting a similarity between their relatively short tenures of their respective bands.  Didn't think it was an unfair comparison in that regard, and still don't find it unfair today.  Lot of fellow board members couldn't handle it.  Marks is clearly the more talented of the two, but I think Best does just fine based on his name recognition alone.    

[Uh oh, think I just did it again...I'm gonna go hide now... police]

Get out from under the bed!

Andrew Hickey said it was the media perception, and he may be right. I just don't recall reading that in any stories last year. Not that it didn't happen.
Logged
AndrewHickey
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1999



View Profile
« Reply #319 on: January 28, 2013, 03:18:12 AM »

I beg to differ. Its been covered on this board many times that Dave was no Pete Best. The first 5 albums, original signatory to Capitol etc. Also anyone who went to a C50 gig now knows that he can play. If the media didn't pick that up they failed.

I don't recall reading the 'Pete Best' comparrison anywhere?

A couple years back I once dared make a comparison between Best and Marks on this board which ignited some overly-obsessive backlashing by other members whom thought I was comparing their talents.  I was simply noting a similarity between their relatively short tenures of their respective bands.  Didn't think it was an unfair comparison in that regard, and still don't find it unfair today.  Lot of fellow board members couldn't handle it.  Marks is clearly the more talented of the two, but I think Best does just fine based on his name recognition alone.    

[Uh oh, think I just did it again...I'm gonna go hide now... police]

Get out from under the bed!

Andrew Hickey said it was the media perception, and he may be right. I just don't recall reading that in any stories last year. Not that it didn't happen.

Off the top of my head there was a story in the Australian Daily Telegraph which led with the comparison. There were others as well. It didn't come up much mostly because Dave himself barely came up in those stories.
Logged

The Smiley Smile ignore function: http://andrewhickey.info/the-smiley-smile-ignore-button-sort-of/
Most recent update 03/12/15
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2898



View Profile
« Reply #320 on: January 28, 2013, 07:01:16 AM »

I beg to differ. Its been covered on this board many times that Dave was no Pete Best. The first 5 albums, original signatory to Capitol etc. Also anyone who went to a C50 gig now knows that he can play. If the media didn't pick that up they failed.

I don't recall reading the 'Pete Best' comparrison anywhere?

A couple years back I once dared make a comparison between Best and Marks on this board which ignited some overly-obsessive backlashing by other members whom thought I was comparing their talents.  I was simply noting a similarity between their relatively short tenures of their respective bands.  Didn't think it was an unfair comparison in that regard, and still don't find it unfair today.  Lot of fellow board members couldn't handle it.  Marks is clearly the more talented of the two, but I think Best does just fine based on his name recognition alone.    

[Uh oh, think I just did it again...I'm gonna go hide now... police]

Get out from under the bed!

Andrew Hickey said it was the media perception, and he may be right. I just don't recall reading that in any stories last year. Not that it didn't happen.

Off the top of my head there was a story in the Australian Daily Telegraph which led with the comparison. There were others as well. It didn't come up much mostly because Dave himself barely came up in those stories.

It's true. How about the Rolling Stone article that had interviews with Brian, Mike, Al and Bruce. They even had quotes from Jeff Foskett and another band member or two, I'm pretty sure. But not a word from Dave.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8741



View Profile WWW
« Reply #321 on: January 28, 2013, 08:55:57 AM »


A couple years back I once dared make a comparison between Best and Marks on this board which ignited some overly-obsessive backlashing by other members whom thought I was comparing their talents.  I was simply noting a similarity between their relatively short tenures of their respective bands.  Didn't think it was an unfair comparison in that regard, and still don't find it unfair today.  Lot of fellow board members couldn't handle it.  Marks is clearly the more talented of the two, but I think Best does just fine based on his name recognition alone.   

[Uh oh, think I just did it again...I'm gonna go hide now... police]

David's situation is not the same as Pete Best's; we all know that by this point thanks for the work of Jon Stebbins and others. But I agree that a vague comparison by fans on this board is not inappropriate. The uninitiated media types that might make such a comparison would do so crassly and compare the two too directly. But among those of us who know how he was on those first five albums, signed the Capitol deal, etc., I think we also know that there are some vague comparisons to make, mostly along the lines of "early member who missed out on the fame and fortune that occured after they left." Yes, David was still in the band when the BB's were extremely popular, whereas Best was gone literally right as the Beatles were even getting a record deal. But if anything, I've always felt Best's situation was much more sad. At least David Marks was able to collect some royalties over the years and really got to appear on some albums, and was years later embraced by the band again. Not so for Pete Best, who presumably never met any of the other Beatles again after getting canned and only finally collected any substantial royalties when they dug up the stuff he played on for the "Anthology" project.

So I do understand scoffing at the Best/Marks comparison, but such objections do occasionally seem to happen in such a way that is even sadder for Best, sort of like "Hey, don't compare Marks to Best. Marks isn't anywhere near as much of a sad unfortunate sack as Best is."

Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Gohi
Guest
« Reply #322 on: January 28, 2013, 10:09:11 AM »

I'm really excited that I'm finally seeing Brian Wilson and Al Jardine. David Marks is a great bonus for sure.
Logged
Jon Stebbins
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2624


View Profile
« Reply #323 on: January 28, 2013, 10:35:44 AM »


A couple years back I once dared make a comparison between Best and Marks on this board which ignited some overly-obsessive backlashing by other members whom thought I was comparing their talents.  I was simply noting a similarity between their relatively short tenures of their respective bands.  Didn't think it was an unfair comparison in that regard, and still don't find it unfair today.  Lot of fellow board members couldn't handle it.  Marks is clearly the more talented of the two, but I think Best does just fine based on his name recognition alone.   

[Uh oh, think I just did it again...I'm gonna go hide now... police]

David's situation is not the same as Pete Best's; we all know that by this point thanks for the work of Jon Stebbins and others. But I agree that a vague comparison by fans on this board is not inappropriate. The uninitiated media types that might make such a comparison would do so crassly and compare the two too directly. But among those of us who know how he was on those first five albums, signed the Capitol deal, etc., I think we also know that there are some vague comparisons to make, mostly along the lines of "early member who missed out on the fame and fortune that occured after they left." Yes, David was still in the band when the BB's were extremely popular, whereas Best was gone literally right as the Beatles were even getting a record deal. But if anything, I've always felt Best's situation was much more sad. At least David Marks was able to collect some royalties over the years and really got to appear on some albums, and was years later embraced by the band again. Not so for Pete Best, who presumably never met any of the other Beatles again after getting canned and only finally collected any substantial royalties when they dug up the stuff he played on for the "Anthology" project.

So I do understand scoffing at the Best/Marks comparison, but such objections do occasionally seem to happen in such a way that is even sadder for Best, sort of like "Hey, don't compare Marks to Best. Marks isn't anywhere near as much of a sad unfortunate sack as Best is."


If one chooses to look at the hard info...It is really a stupid comparison whether you are a fan or a journalist or whatever. I think it was Awesoman above who rationalized that he wasn't comparing talent level, but talent level is not what makes the comparison ridiculous, it is just the simple facts. Many years ago I was among those who stupidly made the comparison, and that was without giving any thought to what the facts were regarding the history of their respective bands. I think its an innocent comparison, maybe a lazy comparison, and one that doesn't hold up to even minor scrutiny. One guy was sacked because the group wanted to replace him, the other guy quit because he didn't want to be in the band anymore. One guy was fired before the band signed a major record contract, the other guy walked away after recording a bunch of hit records. When Best left...the Beatles biggest audiences were in the hundreds, when David left the Beach Boys were playing to as many as 10,000. Best was gone before the Beatles had any level of national fame, they were still a club level band when he was there. He's not on any of the Beatles signature hits and he's not on any of their classic LP's. Best wasn't in the band when they hit major fame. If Pete Best had been the drummer on Please Please Me, Twist and Shout, I Saw Her Standing There, She Loves You, I Want To Hold Your Hand and Can't Buy Me Love and the Beatles first four of five LP's then the comparison would be accurate. One thing is for sure, both lost out on a lot of money, but David still got some $$ from day one to now, Best got nothing until a lump settlement in the 90's. The Beatles never talked to, and still don't talk to Pete...David remains close to all the boys. I suppose you can awkwardly spin it to make some kind of tenuous comparison, innocently or lazily, but even the slightest glance at the facts reveal its a deeply flawed comparison.
Logged
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5476


View Profile
« Reply #324 on: January 28, 2013, 11:59:26 AM »

I beg to differ. Its been covered on this board many times that Dave was no Pete Best. The first 5 albums, original signatory to Capitol etc. Also anyone who went to a C50 gig now knows that he can play. If the media didn't pick that up they failed.

I don't recall reading the 'Pete Best' comparrison anywhere?

A couple years back I once dared make a comparison between Best and Marks on this board which ignited some overly-obsessive backlashing by other members whom thought I was comparing their talents.  I was simply noting a similarity between their relatively short tenures of their respective bands.  Didn't think it was an unfair comparison in that regard, and still don't find it unfair today.  Lot of fellow board members couldn't handle it.  Marks is clearly the more talented of the two, but I think Best does just fine based on his name recognition alone.    

[Uh oh, think I just did it again...I'm gonna go hide now... police]

Get out from under the bed!

Andrew Hickey said it was the media perception, and he may be right. I just don't recall reading that in any stories last year. Not that it didn't happen.

Off the top of my head there was a story in the Australian Daily Telegraph which led with the comparison. There were others as well. It didn't come up much mostly because Dave himself barely came up in those stories.

That would be this then.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/beach-boys-guitarist-david-marks-tells-us-about-the-bands-50-year-heatwave/story-fnejobe2-1226457213408
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.198 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!