Monterey Pop Festival

[filledeplage]

So.......the Monterey gig was in the middle of June, 1967. If the indictment for Carl was in January and he was arrested in April, what did that have to do with the Monterey festival? I don't understand the tie-in. If they wanted to take him for draft dodging, they would have re-arrested him in California sooner. They didn't have to wait for him to show up to Monterey. And didn't the settlement mean he (the band) had to play prisons and institutions for free or something or did that pan out in 1068?

Yeah as Bgas said this thing took until 1971 to really settle. Part of the problem was the original terms of the plea deal required Carl to empty bed pans in hospitals and that type of thing, he refused and instead insisted it would be a better use of his time for the group to perform in prisons and hospitals, but the court initially did not agree and Carl was in violation of the court order throughout '67...and was threatened with jail time.

Yes, there was an issue of appropriateness of service.  But, the court has discretion. 
open jurist.org/436/f2d/972/united-states-v-wilson
It is also on Justia US Law
 

[Mikie]

Yeah, Filledeplage, it doesn't really matter now of course (as don't a lot of things up for discussion on this board). The only reason I keep coming back to this thread is to try and clear up a couple of things as far as to why they didn't show up for the Festival. Many think it affected their career in a big way. It was the beginning of an ebb in their career for sure - they were on a ride with a lot of momentum up until mid to late 1967. You wonder if they would have maintained or had more credibility in the Rock world at that point if they had attended Monterey. Did one gig matter that much? Should showing their "hipness" and musical credibility have mattered that much to the band in 1967? Did they know the consequences for not showing up? 1967 was when they lost the tennis shoes and striped shirts. It was a pivotal time for this band, that's for sure.

But the others who were considered and asked who didn't show up, the aforementioned Doors, Kinks, Beatles, Stones, Clapton, Donovan, Captain Beafheart, went on to have very successful careers. Of course the ones who did show up where also successful, or died within a few years. You look at the lineup for the groups who showed up and it was a who's who and up and coming of the Rock world at the time.

I think in 20/20 hindsite...............a missed opportunity.

[filledeplage]

Yeah, Filledeplage, it doesn't really matter now of course (as don't a lot of things up for discussion on this board). The only reason I keep coming back to this thread is to try and clear up a couple of things as far as to why they didn't show up for the Festival. Many think it affected their career in a big way. It was the beginning of an ebb in their career for sure - they were on a ride with a lot of momentum up until mid to late 1967. You wonder if they would have maintained or had more credibility in the Rock world at that point if they had attended Monterey. Did one gig matter that much? Should showing their "hipness" and musical credibility have mattered that much to the band in 1967? Did they know the consequences for not showing up? 1967 was when they lost the tennis shoes and striped shirts. It was a pivotal time for this band, that's for sure.

But the others who were considered and asked who didn't show up, the aforementioned Doors, Kinks, Beatles, Stones, Clapton, Donovan, Captain Beafheart, went on to have very successful careers. Of course the ones who did show up where also successful, or died within a few years. You look at the lineup for the groups who showed up and it was a who's who and up and coming of the Rock world at the time.

I think in 20/20 hindsite...............a missed opportunity.

It's good that it gets brought up and discussed. And I appreciate your asking my opinion. Thanks.  It was such a cool, yet weird time.  (Winchester Cathedral weird.)  It feels easy because that was the era that I grew up in, and don't have to look it up in a book.  And we were so "into" all the bands.  

Monterey was made into a movie, like Woodstock, so that, it was recorded and distributed in the same way and I suppose it could be compared to missing out on a big party.  It was 3 days long. And, it was a trade-off of sorts.  In the long run, was it worth it?  I think so.  It was a hard decision.  I'm speculating as to the reason being related to Carl because nothing was more important.

Many guys would have gladly emptied bed pans, rather than go to Vietnam and face napalm. It did not play well in the press.  And, there was the issue of not showing up and reporting.  They came and got you.  And how could they get Joe the Plumber, and not a high profile rock star?  And, it was basically unfair.  If Carl was enrolled as a student, he would have been off the hook.  

That might have been a good solution, to enroll in some college and major in basket weaving or whatever, and work the tour around classes. 20/20 as you say.  College deferrals were pitting the haves against the have-nots. It created a class system and resentment with guys who wanted to work in business or a trade and got nailed for Nam, and Joe College got a pass.  

The ebb, I think had nothing to do with them.  It seemed that it was more a case of circumstances beyond their control, like the record company's lack of support, for them, while supporting the avant garde Beatles, and the War, and their public perception of just being centered on frivolity, a direct effect of the record company's not representing Pet Sounds for the masterful work that it was, and is, and hassling them for early 60's stuff.  See Gaumont Palace 1&2 on YouTube. They tell it like it is.  It is honest, funny and they didn't hold back.  

They were really ahead of their time...we got the validation last night!

But, I don't think it affected their overall career at all. It tested their mettle. They outlasted and bested just about all those other bands.  JMHO

[Mikie]

 (Winchester Cathedral weird.)

Yes! That was weird. Winchester Cathedral overtaking Good Vibrations in the number one spot! How'd that happen?

Monterey was made into a movie, like Woodstock, so that, it was recorded and distributed in the same way and I suppose it could be compared to missing out on a big party.

 

Right! They were not in that movie and soundtrack and probably should have been. For that matter, they shoulda been at Woodstock! 

The ebb, I think had nothing to do with them.  It seemed that it was more a case of circumstances beyond their control, like the record company's lack of support.

Disagree with you that there wasn't an ebb in their career, but agree that Capitol contributed to that.

[Don Malcolm]

I think it's easy to overstate the effect of Monterey. Not appearing was a blow, but SMILEY SMILE's reception was far more damaging to their career, leading to five years of "a prophet is not without honor save in his own country" scenarios from one end of the counterculture to the other. WILD HONEY and FRIENDS, as wonderful as we know those albums to be now, didn't stop the bleeding, and there were a sizable number of rolled eyes when "Do It Again" emerged as a "revert to the old sound" single (even though it had--and has--a lot more going for it than that).

It was just a very strange, dark time in America...as filledeplage has said, you really had to be there at the time in order to grasp it--and even then, the behavior being manifested was mighty darn weird. To be a BB fan then was like being a French family giving shelter to Jews in WW II--it was something that you just didn't talk about.

[Jason Penick]

I think it's easy to overstate the effect of Monterey. Not appearing was a blow, but SMILEY SMILE's reception was far more damaging to their career, leading to five years of "a prophet is not without honor save in his own country" scenarios from one end of the counterculture to the other. WILD HONEY and FRIENDS, as wonderful as we know those albums to be now, didn't stop the bleeding, and there were a sizable number of rolled eyes when "Do It Again" emerged as a "revert to the old sound" single (even though it had--and has--a lot more going for it than that).

It was just a very strange, dark time in America...as filledeplage has said, you really had to be there at the time in order to grasp it--and even then, the behavior being manifested was mighty darn weird. To be a BB fan then was like being a French family giving shelter to Jews in WW II--it was something that you just didn't talk about.

I agree with pretty much all of this. Simply putting in an appearance at Monterey Pop I don't believe would have salvaged the group's fortunes in the States. Probably the closest comparison would be with The Association, whose set by all accounts was extremely well regarded (sadly only one song exists of it today to the best of my knowledge) but did nothing to help the group's declining commercial status in the years ahead. Likely the Mamas and the Papas may have followed the same fate, had they survived 1967 intact.

No matter how groovy a set the Beach Boys came on with-- and even if they had done "Good Vibrations", "Heroes & Villains", "Surf's Up" and half of Pet Sounds while dressed in their best hippie attire-- pop was about to be eaten alive by rock, and the group was still about 5 years away from their live peak.

Even the pop charts of the time were taking a turn towards a heavier sound. Yes there were still pure pop gems such as "Wichita Lineman" to be found in the Top 10 during 67-69, but that was becoming a dying artform, and most of the new pop music that informed radio playlists was rock based (Moody Blues, Rolling Stones, Jefferson Airplane), soul/ r'n'b (Percy Sledge, Arthur Conley, Temptations) or white people attempting to do soul with varying degrees of success (Buckinghams, Rascals, BS&T, Gary Puckett). As such, Wild Honey seems like a savvy career move for the boys at the time, but "Darlin'" aside, it was simply too under-produced to fit the expectations of radio. Listen to, say, "Crimson and Clover" or "Ride My See-Saw" and put those up against the song "Wild Honey", and it becomes apparent. This doesn't mean it's not a great, great album because of course most of us love it, but it just didn't pop commercially.

Friends I see as Brian's attempt to crack the "adult" market, perhaps catering to the same sort of folks who bought Sergio Mendes records, but the adult listening market in 1968 was obviously not inclined to take the Beach Boys seriously, and the record stiffed. 20/20 consolidated the band's strengths to some degree, and they were able to eek out a couple more hits in "Do It Again" and "I Can Hear Music", but the wheels were already coming off the cart, and a dog single like "Bluebirds Over the Mountain" certainly couldn't have helped matters.

As I've stated before, the most curious part of their commercial nosedive to me is the "Breakaway"/ Sunflower era, because by 1970 there was something of a pure pop renaissance going on on the AM side of the dial, as rock and pop drifted further apart. Several of the Beach Boys' songs from this era would have fit most comfortably alongside tunes by Bread, The Carpenters or Three Dog Night on the radio, but the one thing those groups had in common was that they were new, and I'm assuming that by this point America just considered The Beach Boys old hat and part of a bygone era.

Sorry to digress from the original topic of this thread, but I'm just basically making the point that there were several other factors at play that derailed their career in the US, and I don't think Monterey Pop was particularly one of them.

[LostArt]

I think it's easy to overstate the effect of Monterey. Not appearing was a blow, but SMILEY SMILE's reception was far more damaging to their career, leading to five years of "a prophet is not without honor save in his own country" scenarios from one end of the counterculture to the other. WILD HONEY and FRIENDS, as wonderful as we know those albums to be now, didn't stop the bleeding, and there were a sizable number of rolled eyes when "Do It Again" emerged as a "revert to the old sound" single (even though it had--and has--a lot more going for it than that).

It was just a very strange, dark time in America...as filledeplage has said, you really had to be there at the time in order to grasp it--and even then, the behavior being manifested was mighty darn weird. To be a BB fan then was like being a French family giving shelter to Jews in WW II--it was something that you just didn't talk about.

I agree with pretty much all of this. Simply putting in an appearance at Monterey Pop I don't believe would have salvaged the group's fortunes in the States. Probably the closest comparison would be with The Association, whose set by all accounts was extremely well regarded (sadly only one song exists of it today to the best of my knowledge) but did nothing to help the group's declining commercial status in the years ahead. Likely the Mamas and the Papas may have followed the same fate, had they survived 1967 intact.

No matter how groovy a set the Beach Boys came on with-- and even if they had done "Good Vibrations", "Heroes & Villains", "Surf's Up" and half of Pet Sounds while dressed in their best hippie attire-- pop was about to be eaten alive by rock, and the group was still about 5 years away from their live peak.

Even the pop charts of the time were taking a turn towards a heavier sound. Yes there were still pure pop gems such as "Wichita Lineman" to be found in the Top 10 during 67-69, but that was becoming a dying artform, and most of the new pop music that informed radio playlists was rock based (Moody Blues, Rolling Stones, Jefferson Airplane), soul/ r'n'b (Percy Sledge, Arthur Conley, Temptations) or white people attempting to do soul with varying degrees of success (Buckinghams, Rascals, BS&T, Gary Puckett). As such, Wild Honey seems like a savvy career move for the boys at the time, but "Darlin'" aside, it was simply too under-produced to fit the expectations of radio. Listen to, say, "Crimson and Clover" or "Ride My See-Saw" and put those up against the song "Wild Honey", and it becomes apparent. This doesn't mean it's not a great, great album because of course most of us love it, but it just didn't pop commercially.

Friends I see as Brian's attempt to crack the "adult" market, perhaps catering to the same sort of folks who bought Sergio Mendes records, but the adult listening market in 1968 was obviously not inclined to take the Beach Boys seriously, and the record stiffed. 20/20 consolidated the band's strengths to some degree, and they were able to eek out a couple more hits in "Do It Again" and "I Can Hear Music", but the wheels were already coming off the cart, and a dog single like "Bluebirds Over the Mountain" certainly couldn't have helped matters.

As I've stated before, the most curious part of their commercial nosedive to me is the "Breakaway"/ Sunflower era, because by 1970 there was something of a pure pop renaissance going on on the AM side of the dial, as rock and pop drifted further apart. Several of the Beach Boys' songs from this era would have fit most comfortably alongside tunes by Bread, The Carpenters or Three Dog Night on the radio, but the one thing those groups had in common was that they were new, and I'm assuming that by this point America just considered The Beach Boys old hat and part of a bygone era.

Sorry to digress from the original topic of this thread, but I'm just basically making the point that there were several other factors at play that derailed their career in the US, and I don't think Monterey Pop was particularly one of them.

These are two great posts, and I happen to agree 100%.  I have an issue with statements like this one, found on Wikipedia: "The cancellation permanently damaged their reputation and popularity in the US, which would contribute to their replacement album Smiley Smile charting lower than any other of their previous album releases."  I call B.S.  While the festival became legendary later on, at the time it was one of the first multi-day rock festivals in the U.S.  Besides the 90,000 or so folks who attended the concert, nobody in America knew much about it until the release of the Pennebaker film in late '68.  Yes, the concert marked America's introduction to Hendrix and The Who and Janis Joplin and others, but it wasn't the festival that made those acts big.  Lots of great acts did not perform at the festival, and their careers were not damaged by their non-appearances.  Likewise, many acts who did perform, like The Paupers or The Association, did not get a career boost from playing the show.  Of those 90,000 people who did attend the festival and had lots of fun, how many were seriously disappointed that The Beach Boys did not perform?  And how big of a boost did The Mamas and the Papas get from headlining the festival?  I just can't see Harry and Hannah from Hoboken reading the papers and saying, "Oh, I see The Beach Boys pulled out of some concert in California...Well, I guess that's it for them, then".    

[dogear]

Re: Association. Two songs survived "Along comes Mary" and "Windy" (on the UK four CD Box "Monterey International Pop Festival" released in 1994).

[filledeplage]

I think it's easy to overstate the effect of Monterey. Not appearing was a blow, but SMILEY SMILE's reception was far more damaging to their career, leading to five years of "a prophet is not without honor save in his own country" scenarios from one end of the counterculture to the other. WILD HONEY and FRIENDS, as wonderful as we know those albums to be now, didn't stop the bleeding, and there were a sizable number of rolled eyes when "Do It Again" emerged as a "revert to the old sound" single (even though it had--and has--a lot more going for it than that).

It was just a very strange, dark time in America...as filledeplage has said, you really had to be there at the time in order to grasp it--and even then, the behavior being manifested was mighty darn weird. To be a BB fan then was like being a French family giving shelter to Jews in WW II--it was something that you just didn't talk about.

I agree with pretty much all of this. Simply putting in an appearance at Monterey Pop I don't believe would have salvaged the group's fortunes in the States. Probably the closest comparison would be with The Association, whose set by all accounts was extremely well regarded (sadly only one song exists of it today to the best of my knowledge) but did nothing to help the group's declining commercial status in the years ahead. Likely the Mamas and the Papas may have followed the same fate, had they survived 1967 intact.

No matter how groovy a set the Beach Boys came on with-- and even if they had done "Good Vibrations", "Heroes & Villains", "Surf's Up" and half of Pet Sounds while dressed in their best hippie attire-- pop was about to be eaten alive by rock, and the group was still about 5 years away from their live peak.

Even the pop charts of the time were taking a turn towards a heavier sound. Yes there were still pure pop gems such as "Wichita Lineman" to be found in the Top 10 during 67-69, but that was becoming a dying artform, and most of the new pop music that informed radio playlists was rock based (Moody Blues, Rolling Stones, Jefferson Airplane), soul/ r'n'b (Percy Sledge, Arthur Conley, Temptations) or white people attempting to do soul with varying degrees of success (Buckinghams, Rascals, BS&T, Gary Puckett). As such, Wild Honey seems like a savvy career move for the boys at the time, but "Darlin'" aside, it was simply too under-produced to fit the expectations of radio. Listen to, say, "Crimson and Clover" or "Ride My See-Saw" and put those up against the song "Wild Honey", and it becomes apparent. This doesn't mean it's not a great, great album because of course most of us love it, but it just didn't pop commercially.

Friends I see as Brian's attempt to crack the "adult" market, perhaps catering to the same sort of folks who bought Sergio Mendes records, but the adult listening market in 1968 was obviously not inclined to take the Beach Boys seriously, and the record stiffed. 20/20 consolidated the band's strengths to some degree, and they were able to eek out a couple more hits in "Do It Again" and "I Can Hear Music", but the wheels were already coming off the cart, and a dog single like "Bluebirds Over the Mountain" certainly couldn't have helped matters.

As I've stated before, the most curious part of their commercial nosedive to me is the "Breakaway"/ Sunflower era, because by 1970 there was something of a pure pop renaissance going on on the AM side of the dial, as rock and pop drifted further apart. Several of the Beach Boys' songs from this era would have fit most comfortably alongside tunes by Bread, The Carpenters or Three Dog Night on the radio, but the one thing those groups had in common was that they were new, and I'm assuming that by this point America just considered The Beach Boys old hat and part of a bygone era.

Sorry to digress from the original topic of this thread, but I'm just basically making the point that there were several other factors at play that derailed their career in the US, and I don't think Monterey Pop was particularly one of them.

These are two great posts, and I happen to agree 100%.  I have an issue with statements like this one, found on Wikipedia: "The cancellation permanently damaged their reputation and popularity in the US, which would contribute to their replacement album Smiley Smile charting lower than any other of their previous album releases."  I call B.S.  While the festival became legendary later on, at the time it was one of the first multi-day rock festivals in the U.S.  Besides the 90,000 or so folks who attended the concert, nobody in America knew much about it until the release of the Pennebaker film in late '68.  Yes, the concert marked America's introduction to Hendrix and The Who and Janis Joplin and others, but it wasn't the festival that made those acts big.  Lots of great acts did not perform at the festival, and their careers were not damaged by their non-appearances.  Likewise, many acts who did perform, like The Paupers or The Association, did not get a career boost from playing the show.  Of those 90,000 people who did attend the festival and had lots of fun, how many were seriously disappointed that The Beach Boys did not perform?  And how big of a boost did The Mamas and the Papas get from headlining the festival?  I just can't see Harry and Hannah from Hoboken reading the papers and saying, "Oh, I see The Beach Boys pulled out of some concert in California...Well, I guess that's it for them, then".    

That whole "missed-the-boat" is foolish pseudo-intellectual propaganda. What a joke! 

And, many of those bands mentioned are Beach Boys inspired "offspring." 

[filledeplage]

 (Winchester Cathedral weird.)

Yes! That was weird. Winchester Cathedral overtaking Good Vibrations in the number one spot! How'd that happen?

Monterey was made into a movie, like Woodstock, so that, it was recorded and distributed in the same way and I suppose it could be compared to missing out on a big party.

 

Right! They were not in that movie and soundtrack and probably should have been. For that matter, they shoulda been at Woodstock! 

The ebb, I think had nothing to do with them.  It seemed that it was more a case of circumstances beyond their control, like the record company's lack of support.

Disagree with you that there wasn't an ebb in their career, but agree that Capitol contributed to that.

The record company "blame" likely has a time-window, then the total "weirdness" drove the train.  You can blame them for Pet Sounds and SMiLE, and the dropping the ball on promotion, but you can't apportion blame for the MLK and RFK assassinations, Watergate, and all the wild cards that flew around.

They were really smart to go to Europe, and work their market strength, to ride out the storm, as it were, and where it seemed less affected, at the time with all these "Winds of Change" at the time and keep touring. 

[Cam Mott]

That promotion "excuse" is a phony fan baloney too imo. Pet Sounds seems have had unprecedented promotion, it's still around out there. It had three or four singles on the radio and nationally chart alone. It had a four page ad to the industry. Anybody seen another four page ad for a single album for a single band? SMiLE didn't even get released and it had already been promoted.

Edit: OK, maybe "phony" is too strong. How about "well meaning" or "wishful thinking" baloney?

[I. Spaceman]

These are two great posts, and I happen to agree 100%.  I have an issue with statements like this one, found on Wikipedia: "The cancellation permanently damaged their reputation and popularity in the US, which would contribute to their replacement album Smiley Smile charting lower than any other of their previous album releases."  I call B.S.  While the festival became legendary later on, at the time it was one of the first multi-day rock festivals in the U.S.  Besides the 90,000 or so folks who attended the concert, nobody in America knew much about it until the release of the Pennebaker film in late '68.  Yes, the concert marked America's introduction to Hendrix and The Who and Janis Joplin and others, but it wasn't the festival that made those acts big.  Lots of great acts did not perform at the festival, and their careers were not damaged by their non-appearances.  Likewise, many acts who did perform, like The Paupers or The Association, did not get a career boost from playing the show.  Of those 90,000 people who did attend the festival and had lots of fun, how many were seriously disappointed that The Beach Boys did not perform?  And how big of a boost did The Mamas and the Papas get from headlining the festival?  I just can't see Harry and Hannah from Hoboken reading the papers and saying, "Oh, I see The Beach Boys pulled out of some concert in California...Well, I guess that's it for them, then".    

You're greatly underestimating the fame of the festival. It carried an immediate legend among serious rock fans, and was discussed in mass market publications such as Newsweek. "Nobody in America" simply is not true, and nullifies the credibility of what you are saying. The reason that the careers of Hendrix, The Who and Joplin soared afterward is because the INDUSTRY was there, the managers, label heads, fellow musicians. THAT is what makes careers. Joplin and Big brother got SIGNED to a major label directly because of their performance. Hendrix's performance was an immediate legend, and carried him through a period where he returned to the UK. I don't understand why anyone would even post such things, that are so easily disproven.

[Myk Luhv]

As I recall from some Janis Joplin biography I read a while ago (I believe it was Scars of Paradise or something like that?), Monterey was originally intended as a showcase for the Haight-Ashbury scene and other like-minded groups until the Hollywood types (read: industry folks) started moving in and took it over, forming the board upon which John Phillips and all those people sat. Of course, this incensed those from Haight-Ashbury and their sympathizers, who felt that it perverted what the festival was originally meant to be about -- and I think a lot of their ire was directed at The Mamas & The Papas (as well a that "San Francisco" song about wearing flowers in your hair) as being exemplary of the antithesis of what Monterey was in the beginning. I can't say I blame them either...

Obviously in the end the industry won out due to the festival's success and fame but I thought it was very interesting to find that out. Of course, who knows how The Beach Boys would've been received by that same crowd. Maybe similarly to The Mamas, or perhaps they'd appreciate The Boys more for being nowhere near as fey, haha.

[filledeplage]

That promotion "excuse" is a phony fan baloney too imo. Pet Sounds seems have had unprecedented promotion, it's still around out there. It had three or four singles on the radio and nationally chart alone. It had a four page ad to the industry. Anybody seen another four page ad for a single album for a single band? SMiLE didn't even get released and it had already been promoted.

Edit: OK, maybe "phony" is too strong. How about "well meaning" or "wishful thinking" baloney?

Cam - Pet Sounds came out on May 16, 1966.  And Best of Volume I, came out in July 5, 1966. I'm awful in Math.  But, if I count on my fingers, it is about 7 weeks.  What is that? No confidence.

Caroline, No came out March 7, 1966. (Summer Means New Love on side B) SDSN - Brian solo single.
Sloop John B came out March 21, 1966.
God Only Knows on July 11, 1966
Wouldn't it Be Nice on July 18, 1966 - although it looks like A and B side single. (wiki has a little conflict with the dates)

4 singles from one album, and a compilation thrown in just prior to a Pet Sounds double hit, even though GOK was not an immediate hit in the States.  It was a sleeping giant.

My opinion is that the record company did not give Pet Sounds the time it needed to become ingrained in the marketplace. Sloop hit #3 in the States and #1 elsewhere which should have provided the momentum to keep Pet Sounds in the limelight without going to the oldies "cash cow" - and it was cheaper to buy the album than each single.  The singles did well.  3 of the 4 were extraordinary.

The chronology indicts the record company.  They could have waited at least six months to release a compilation, and have spaced out the albums, making room for Heroes and Villains, in July of 1967, which followed Good Vibrations, in October of 1966.  And, "teach" the public what the concept of an unfolding story of a musical version of the American story, in a soap opera style (which might sound ridiculous) but spoon-feed the public, as the soaps do, with gradual promotion, rather than dumping this new genre in the ocean and see if it "sinks or swims."  Waiting a bit would have taken the heat off the band with the New project.

Best of Volume 2 came out in July 24, 1967.  H & V on July 31st. Confidence? I don't think so.  How would the public not be confused?

New concepts always require cohesive education and spoon-feeding. The Beatles "new concepts" got the push, as the expense of the Home Team. But, the "cream always rises to the top" as my mother used to say, because Pet Sounds is now so wildly accepted and popular. And SMiLE required an enormous effort to filter into the music scene at a time, which had become insanely over-saturated with new bands, and one-hit wonders.  (Winchester Cathedral!) and maybe Ode to Billy Joe.

[Cam Mott]

That promotion "excuse" is a phony fan baloney too imo. Pet Sounds seems have had unprecedented promotion, it's still around out there. It had three or four singles on the radio and nationally chart alone. It had a four page ad to the industry. Anybody seen another four page ad for a single album for a single band? SMiLE didn't even get released and it had already been promoted.

Edit: OK, maybe "phony" is too strong. How about "well meaning" or "wishful thinking" baloney?

Cam - Pet Sounds came out on May 16, 1966.  And Best of Volume I, came out in July 5, 1966. I'm awful in Math.  But, if I count on my fingers, it is about 7 weeks.  What is that? No confidence.

Caroline, No came out March 7, 1966. (Summer Means New Love on side B) SDSN - Brian solo single.
Sloop John B came out March 21, 1966.
God Only Knows on July 11, 1966
Wouldn't it Be Nice on July 18, 1966 - although it looks like A and B side single. (wiki has a little conflict with the dates)

4 singles from one album, and a compilation thrown in just prior to a Pet Sounds double hit, even though GOK was not an immediate hit in the States.  It was a sleeping giant.

My opinion is that the record company did not give Pet Sounds the time it needed to become ingrained in the marketplace. Sloop hit #3 in the States and #1 elsewhere which should have provided the momentum to keep Pet Sounds in the limelight without going to the oldies "cash cow" - and it was cheaper to buy the album than each single.  The singles did well.  3 of the 4 were extraordinary.

The chronology indicts the record company.  They could have waited at least six months to release a compilation, and have spaced out the albums, making room for Heroes and Villains, in July of 1967, followed by Good Vibrations, in October of 1966.  And, "teach" the public what the concept of an unfolding story of a musical version of the American story, in a soap opera style (which might sound ridiculous) but spoon-feed the public, as the soaps do, with gradual promotion, rather than dumping this random new genre in the ocean and see if it "sinks or swims."  Waiting a bit would have taken the heat off the band with the New project.

Best of Volume 2 came out in July 24, 1967.  H & V on July 31st. Confidence? I don't think so.  How would the public not be confused?

New concepts always require cohesive education and spoon-feeding. The Beatles "new concepts" got the push, as the expense of the Home Team. But, the "cream always rises to the top" as my mother used to say, because Pet Sounds is now so wildly accepted and popular. And SMiLE required an enormous effort to filter into the music scene at a time, which had become insanely over-saturated with new bands, and one-hit wonders.  (Winchester Cathedral!) and maybe Ode to Billy Joe.

It's been awhile so I hope I'm not off too much. As I remember PS was already rounding over in the charts before Best Of was released [or charting?] and PS actually got an upward bump on the charts when Best was hitting its top. I believe Best Of was put together before PS and then held by Capitol when PS began to be put together. Subject to verification.

Also, I don't think comps worked that way in the industry. They were a way to capitalize on a group's existing popularity and capitalize a back catalog when a group was moving new stuff. Not a vote of no confidence. It just seems to me the Boys got a lot of promotion and we now know that PS was not a relative underperformer but performed very well though the numbers were not reported for some reason. Maybe the lawsuit?

[I. Spaceman]

At that time, The Beach Boys were expected to deliver three albums a year, for the spring, summer and Christmas markets. The Best Of set was compiled and scheduled as the group's summer 1966 release, as Brian was not going to deliver a new LP for that season. Pet Sounds was delivered late, and as such, released late, too close to the already scheduled Best Of. Capitol should have pushed it back or not released it, sure. But in their mind, the summer and Christmas markets were far more important, as that is when the band's LP releases did the best business.

[filledeplage]

At that time, The Beach Boys were expected to deliver three albums a year, for the spring, summer and Christmas markets. The Best Of set was compiled and scheduled as the group's summer 1966 release, as Brian was not going to deliver a new LP for that season. Pet Sounds was delivered late, and as such, released late, too close to the already scheduled Best Of. Capitol should have pushed it back or not released it, sure. But in their mind, the summer and Christmas markets were far more important, as that is when the band's LP releases did the best business.

Not being in the business or knowing the contract language, I am at a disadvantage as to know the production terms.  But, what I do know, is that art can't be rushed.  And that I don't remember these major player bands, for the most part churning out 3 a year.  There was a big build up, prior to release.  And teaser singles, Airplay, and interviews, prior to the LP's to maximize revenue. 

Contract terms can always be amended by agreement of the parties, and I've heard interviews where there was disappointment on the part of the band, with the release schedule.  From what I looked at, the releases seemed unreasonable and did not possibly allow for simultaneous promotion of a new concept album, and a compilation.  JMHO

[LostArt]

These are two great posts, and I happen to agree 100%.  I have an issue with statements like this one, found on Wikipedia: "The cancellation permanently damaged their reputation and popularity in the US, which would contribute to their replacement album Smiley Smile charting lower than any other of their previous album releases."  I call B.S.  While the festival became legendary later on, at the time it was one of the first multi-day rock festivals in the U.S.  Besides the 90,000 or so folks who attended the concert, nobody in America knew much about it until the release of the Pennebaker film in late '68.  Yes, the concert marked America's introduction to Hendrix and The Who and Janis Joplin and others, but it wasn't the festival that made those acts big.  Lots of great acts did not perform at the festival, and their careers were not damaged by their non-appearances.  Likewise, many acts who did perform, like The Paupers or The Association, did not get a career boost from playing the show.  Of those 90,000 people who did attend the festival and had lots of fun, how many were seriously disappointed that The Beach Boys did not perform?  And how big of a boost did The Mamas and the Papas get from headlining the festival?  I just can't see Harry and Hannah from Hoboken reading the papers and saying, "Oh, I see The Beach Boys pulled out of some concert in California...Well, I guess that's it for them, then".    

You're greatly underestimating the fame of the festival. It carried an immediate legend among serious rock fans, and was discussed in mass market publications such as Newsweek. "Nobody in America" simply is not true, and nullifies the credibility of what you are saying. The reason that the careers of Hendrix, The Who and Joplin soared afterward is because the INDUSTRY was there, the managers, label heads, fellow musicians. THAT is what makes careers. Joplin and Big brother got SIGNED to a major label directly because of their performance. Hendrix's performance was an immediate legend, and carried him through a period where he returned to the UK. I don't understand why anyone would even post such things, that are so easily disproven.

But do you think that The Beach Boys' non-appearance at the festival had anything to do with their decline in popularity?  I think not.  I guess I shouldn't have said that 'nobody in America' paid attention. but I don't think that the festival made or broke anyone's career.  The publicity helped, for sure, but it surely did not make or break The Beach Boys career at the time, as it did not make the careers of The Who or Hendrix.  

[Mikie]

Also, I don't think comps worked that way in the industry. They were a way to capitalize on a group's existing popularity and capitalize a back catalog when a group was moving new stuff. Not a vote of no confidence.

Right. So you had Best of Vol. 1 in 1966, Best of Vol 2 in 1967, BB Deluxe Set (compiling 3 previous albums) in 1967, and Best of Vol 3 in 1968.

[Steve Mayo]

i believe it was in the 6 part bbc bob harris 1974 special mike mentions some story about brian and the group being worried about how the proceeds were to be distributed and said something like sure enough there were problems with that. it was something along those lines. i don't have the special with me right now to quote what he said but it was something like that. plus some other reasons but those escape me at the moment.

do you remember where in the special?  not sure I want to listen to the whole thing ( again?)

PART 4 @ 43:50 mark....derek blames brian and cold feet. says he had a yes from brian but probably it never was a yes and they took too long to say no. mike blames carl and the draft, dennis and his divorce. then he says that he "was ready to go". odd indeed. then he said bruce was back (from where? i don't know but this is what he said). then mike adds that brian was on the board and got cold feet because" he didn't think the money would be handled right." and "sure enough not a lot of  scholarships were given out but people had new homes and cars". then he said there was not a total agreement to do that show.

[I. Spaceman]

But do you think that The Beach Boys' non-appearance at the festival had anything to do with their decline in popularity?  

It solidified their uncool within heavier music circles. But if Heroes had been another Good Vibrations, all of the damage could have been undone. Overall, the importance of Monterey has been overstated. It was a small boulder in a career landslide.

[I. Spaceman]

Not being in the business or knowing the contract language, I am at a disadvantage as to know the production terms.  But, what I do know, is that art can't be rushed.  And that I don't remember these major player bands, for the most part churning out 3 a year.  There was a big build up, prior to release.  And teaser singles, Airplay, and interviews, prior to the LP's to maximize revenue.  

Every major act, including The Beatles and Stones, were expected to deliver three US albums a year (The Beatles broke this tradition at the end of 1966, as did The Beach Boys). As late as 1969, Creedence Clearwater Revival were held to a three-albums-a-year deal. Maybe art can't be rushed, but the Golden Era of pop music took place in a factory-type manner. In general, these type of strictures were good for music, as it encouraged a high turnover, and a healthy artistic competition. Art sometimes should be rushed and scheduled, as a motivational factor. Brian should have been given the same leeway as The Beatles, sure. But some type of deadline should have been held to, with the Smile project, if he expected to stay in the game.

[Cam Mott]

Also, I don't think comps worked that way in the industry. They were a way to capitalize on a group's existing popularity and capitalize a back catalog when a group was moving new stuff. Not a vote of no confidence.

Right. So you had Best of Vol. 1 in 1966, Best of Vol 2 in 1967, BB Deluxe Set (compiling 3 previous albums) in 1967, and Best of Vol 3 in 1968.

Yep. No new recording costs for the group/label. Getting paid twice [3,4,5...] for the same product, it raises the groups visibility, promotes the group, leads new audience to older albums, creates brand interest and loyalty, etc. etc.. It just isn't the label tombstone that it gets made out to be by us BB fans imo. You could say they have over done it but how to explain that still 50 years later new and old comps still have top sales and interest in the group is still high. The comp might be what saved their careers and allowed them to continue to record over all of those decades.

[I. Spaceman]

But Cam, wouldn't you say The Beatles' relative lack of compilations increased that group's "prestige" value? Also, those 3 60's Capitol Best Of sets are very, very poorly compiled, and are similar to the later Pickwick bargain albums. This set a very bad precedent.

[Mikie]

Steve, it sounds like Mike was blaming everyone else. Carl and Dennis for having "personal" problems. Still don't see why those issues had much to do with not playing one gig. And Brian just moved into his new house in Bel-Aire and was working on the Smiley album and was smoking a lot of dope and beginning his reclusive period. He hadn't been on the road with them for more than two years - surprised he was even considered for the gig.

So where was Bruce? Mike says he was "back" but he was barely, if at all involved with the Smiley album being recorded during those months and still wasn't around when they went to Hawaii two months after the Monterey gig. Says he didn't like being around the drug situation. So I'm not sure he was "back" from anything, except for being back from recording on Smile months earlier and from being on the road.....

Didn't say anything about Al. Al didn't want much to do with the drug scene up on Bellagio either. What were his thoughts on missing Monterey (which would be near his home 6 years later).