Were The Beach Boys already a hits act before Endless Summer

[oldsurferdude]

I've always interpreted the "oldies act" moniker being applied to them not so much for playing hits, but for the image they have fostered (particularly Mike Love) over the years.

Here's what is both a blessing and curse for the Beach Boys: their image is completely intertwined with surfing, cars and the beach. One one hand, that gives them powerful branding and nostalgia that people continue to appreciate, especially in the summer. Conversely, it also pigeon-holes them as a nostalgia act which tries to replicate the sound and image of the early 1960s beach life. For some people this comes across as hopelessly outdated. I think when people see the band image and setlist, they think of it being very much of a time period. Someone like Paul McCartney plays a bunch of hits, but his songs/image don't seem as locked into a certain time period as the Beach Boys songs/image do.

Brian wanted to shatter the "beach brand" in 1966 with Pet Sounds and Smile. As he said sometime in the 2000s, "we raped" that topic. There was literally no more to write about cars, surfing and the beach. But because the band kind of crashed after Pet Sounds, certainly commercially, they became known by the general public almost exclusively for their "fun in the sun" lyrics of 62-65, often at the expense of the brilliant music itself. The band name itself is even tied to this idea. Basically, Mike Love and the band have decided to cash in on the beach novelty, while allowing the perception of being an oldies band to live on.

So how could the band put a stop to this? There's not much to do, honestly. Although one thing would be discontinue Mike's ridiculous county fair version of the band, which cheapens the image. But back to the point. If you de-emphasize the hits and beach image at shows, it would tick off a lot of fans. Basically, from the mid-60s through the 70s the band needed to publicly reinvent itself. That would have alleviated this conundrum. They, of course, did do this to a large extent and released some good songs. But it wasn't done effectively enough and wasn't mainstream enough for the band to ever diversify its image in the public perception. So now they will forever be in the "oldies band" category due to their unique circumstances.

Your post is right on the money-couldn't have said it better. I know, I was there, including Carnegie Hall where they screamed for the oldies but appreciated the new stuff as well. Me? I loved the new material.

[drbeachboy]

I've always interpreted the "oldies act" moniker being applied to them not so much for playing hits, but for the image they have fostered (particularly Mike Love) over the years.

Here's what is both a blessing and curse for the Beach Boys: their image is completely intertwined with surfing, cars and the beach. One one hand, that gives them powerful branding and nostalgia that people continue to appreciate, especially in the summer. Conversely, it also pigeon-holes them as a nostalgia act which tries to replicate the sound and image of the early 1960s beach life. For some people this comes across as hopelessly outdated. I think when people see the band image and setlist, they think of it being very much of a time period. Someone like Paul McCartney plays a bunch of hits, but his songs/image don't seem as locked into a certain time period as the Beach Boys songs/image do.

Brian wanted to shatter the "beach brand" in 1966 with Pet Sounds and Smile. As he said sometime in the 2000s, "we raped" that topic. There was literally no more to write about cars, surfing and the beach. But because the band kind of crashed after Pet Sounds, certainly commercially, they became known by the general public almost exclusively for their "fun in the sun" lyrics of 62-65, often at the expense of the brilliant music itself. The band name itself is even tied to this idea. Basically, Mike Love and the band have decided to cash in on the beach novelty, while allowing the perception of being an oldies band to live on.

So how could the band put a stop to this? There's not much to do, honestly. Although one thing would be discontinue Mike's ridiculous county fair version of the band, which cheapens the image. But back to the point. If you de-emphasize the hits and beach image at shows, it would tick off a lot of fans. Basically, from the mid-60s through the 70s the band needed to publicly reinvent itself. That would have alleviated this conundrum. They, of course, did do this to a large extent and released some good songs. But it wasn't done effectively enough and wasn't mainstream enough for the band to ever diversify its image in the public perception. So now they will forever be in the "oldies band" category due to their unique circumstances.

Your post is right on the money-couldn't have said it better. I know, I was there, including Carnegie Hall where they screamed for the oldies but appreciated the new stuff as well. Me? I loved the new material.

While you are quite correct for 1971-1972, things changed quite a bit after Endless Summer was released and the nostalgia craze swept the country, and that got off the ground after the release of American Graffiti. The audience dynamic changed with the 1974 concerts, because now all they wanted were the old hits. Mike & Carl often had to tell the crowds to hold off on requests and that they play the oldies later in the show. Eventually they gave in and gave their audience what they wanted to hear.

[oldsurferdude]

I've always interpreted the "oldies act" moniker being applied to them not so much for playing hits, but for the image they have fostered (particularly Mike Love) over the years.

Here's what is both a blessing and curse for the Beach Boys: their image is completely intertwined with surfing, cars and the beach. One one hand, that gives them powerful branding and nostalgia that people continue to appreciate, especially in the summer. Conversely, it also pigeon-holes them as a nostalgia act which tries to replicate the sound and image of the early 1960s beach life. For some people this comes across as hopelessly outdated. I think when people see the band image and setlist, they think of it being very much of a time period. Someone like Paul McCartney plays a bunch of hits, but his songs/image don't seem as locked into a certain time period as the Beach Boys songs/image do.

Brian wanted to shatter the "beach brand" in 1966 with Pet Sounds and Smile. As he said sometime in the 2000s, "we raped" that topic. There was literally no more to write about cars, surfing and the beach. But because the band kind of crashed after Pet Sounds, certainly commercially, they became known by the general public almost exclusively for their "fun in the sun" lyrics of 62-65, often at the expense of the brilliant music itself. The band name itself is even tied to this idea. Basically, Mike Love and the band have decided to cash in on the beach novelty, while allowing the perception of being an oldies band to live on.

So how could the band put a stop to this? There's not much to do, honestly. Although one thing would be discontinue Mike's ridiculous county fair version of the band, which cheapens the image. But back to the point. If you de-emphasize the hits and beach image at shows, it would tick off a lot of fans. Basically, from the mid-60s through the 70s the band needed to publicly reinvent itself. That would have alleviated this conundrum. They, of course, did do this to a large extent and released some good songs. But it wasn't done effectively enough and wasn't mainstream enough for the band to ever diversify its image in the public perception. So now they will forever be in the "oldies band" category due to their unique circumstances.

Your post is right on the money-couldn't have said it better. I know, I was there, including Carnegie Hall where they screamed for the oldies but appreciated the new stuff as well. Me? I loved the new material.
[/quote

[oldsurferdude]

I've always interpreted the "oldies act" moniker being applied to them not so much for playing hits, but for the image they have fostered (particularly Mike Love) over the years.

Here's what is both a blessing and curse for the Beach Boys: their image is completely intertwined with surfing, cars and the beach. One one hand, that gives them powerful branding and nostalgia that people continue to appreciate, especially in the summer. Conversely, it also pigeon-holes them as a nostalgia act which tries to replicate the sound and image of the early 1960s beach life. For some people this comes across as hopelessly outdated. I think when people see the band image and setlist, they think of it being very much of a time period. Someone like Paul McCartney plays a bunch of hits, but his songs/image don't seem as locked into a certain time period as the Beach Boys songs/image do.

Brian wanted to shatter the "beach brand" in 1966 with Pet Sounds and Smile. As he said sometime in the 2000s, "we raped" that topic. There was literally no more to write about cars, surfing and the beach. But because the band kind of crashed after Pet Sounds, certainly commercially, they became known by the general public almost exclusively for their "fun in the sun" lyrics of 62-65, often at the expense of the brilliant music itself. The band name itself is even tied to this idea. Basically, Mike Love and the band have decided to cash in on the beach novelty, while allowing the perception of being an oldies band to live on.

So how could the band put a stop to this? There's not much to do, honestly. Although one thing would be discontinue Mike's ridiculous county fair version of the band, which cheapens the image. But back to the point. If you de-emphasize the hits and beach image at shows, it would tick off a lot of fans. Basically, from the mid-60s through the 70s the band needed to publicly reinvent itself. That would have alleviated this conundrum. They, of course, did do this to a large extent and released some good songs. But it wasn't done effectively enough and wasn't mainstream enough for the band to ever diversify its image in the public perception. So now they will forever be in the "oldies band" category due to their unique circumstances.

Your post is right on the money-couldn't have said it better. I know, I was there, including Carnegie Hall where they screamed for the oldies but appreciated the new stuff as well. Me? I loved the new material.

While you are quite correct for 1971-1972, things changed quite a bit after Endless Summer was released and the nostalgia craze swept the country, and that got off the ground after the release of American Graffiti. The audience dynamic changed with the 1974 concerts, because now all they wanted were the old hits. Mike & Carl often had to tell the crowds to hold off on requests and that they play the oldies later in the show. Eventually they gave in and gave their audience what they wanted to hear.

Define "old hits". Saw them quite a few times in 67, 68, 69. They were screaming for the "old" stuff back then so what really changed? They played new stuff after 74 quite a bit.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Brian wanted to shatter the "beach brand" in 1966 with Pet Sounds and Smile. As he said sometime in the 2000s, "we raped" that topic. There was literally no more to write about cars, surfing and the beach.

Um... you listening to the same music as I've been since 1975 ? The ONLY year the band mined the surf/cars/beach theme to exhaustion was 1963: by 1964 Brian was moving on and by 1965 he'd entirely moved on. Thus:

Surfin' Safari - 3 surf/1 car/1 beach

Surfin' USA - 6/1/1
Surfer Girl - 5/2/1
Little Deuce Coupe - 0/10/0

Shut Down Volune 2 - 0/2/1
All Summer Long - 1/2/1
Christmas Album - 0/1/0
Concert - 0/4/1 (note, on a live album, no surfin' songs)

Today ! - 0/0/0
SD (&SN !!) - 0/0/0
Party ! - 0/1/0

[drbeachboy]

I've always interpreted the "oldies act" moniker being applied to them not so much for playing hits, but for the image they have fostered (particularly Mike Love) over the years.

Here's what is both a blessing and curse for the Beach Boys: their image is completely intertwined with surfing, cars and the beach. One one hand, that gives them powerful branding and nostalgia that people continue to appreciate, especially in the summer. Conversely, it also pigeon-holes them as a nostalgia act which tries to replicate the sound and image of the early 1960s beach life. For some people this comes across as hopelessly outdated. I think when people see the band image and setlist, they think of it being very much of a time period. Someone like Paul McCartney plays a bunch of hits, but his songs/image don't seem as locked into a certain time period as the Beach Boys songs/image do.

Brian wanted to shatter the "beach brand" in 1966 with Pet Sounds and Smile. As he said sometime in the 2000s, "we raped" that topic. There was literally no more to write about cars, surfing and the beach. But because the band kind of crashed after Pet Sounds, certainly commercially, they became known by the general public almost exclusively for their "fun in the sun" lyrics of 62-65, often at the expense of the brilliant music itself. The band name itself is even tied to this idea. Basically, Mike Love and the band have decided to cash in on the beach novelty, while allowing the perception of being an oldies band to live on.

So how could the band put a stop to this? There's not much to do, honestly. Although one thing would be discontinue Mike's ridiculous county fair version of the band, which cheapens the image. But back to the point. If you de-emphasize the hits and beach image at shows, it would tick off a lot of fans. Basically, from the mid-60s through the 70s the band needed to publicly reinvent itself. That would have alleviated this conundrum. They, of course, did do this to a large extent and released some good songs. But it wasn't done effectively enough and wasn't mainstream enough for the band to ever diversify its image in the public perception. So now they will forever be in the "oldies band" category due to their unique circumstances.

Your post is right on the money-couldn't have said it better. I know, I was there, including Carnegie Hall where they screamed for the oldies but appreciated the new stuff as well. Me? I loved the new material.

While you are quite correct for 1971-1972, things changed quite a bit after Endless Summer was released and the nostalgia craze swept the country, and that got off the ground after the release of American Graffiti. The audience dynamic changed with the 1974 concerts, because now all they wanted were the old hits. Mike & Carl often had to tell the crowds to hold off on requests and that they play the oldies later in the show. Eventually they gave in and gave their audience what they wanted to hear.

Define "old hits". Saw them quite a few times in 67, 68, 69. They were screaming for the "old" stuff back then so what really changed? They played new stuff after 74 quite a bit.

I should have said prior to 1974 Mike & Carl  would do that stuff, but from 74 onward, they gave in to what the audiences wanted to hear; the oldies. Define old hits? By 1974, I'd day anything pre-1967, but really even pre-1970 would be considered an oldie. So, in essence all of their hits.

[adamghost]

They were still doing pretty eclectic set lists, with lots of new material, well into '76 and '77.  I would say '77-'78 is when the worm finally turned for good.

[Sheriff John Stone]

They also delved into L.A. (Light Album). In concert they performed "Good Timin", "Lady Lynda", and "Shortenin' Bread". But what was really interesting were the chances they took with TV appearances, choosing "Sumahama" for American Bandstand, and "Here Comes The Night" and "Angel Come Home" for The Midnight Special.

[MBE]

Reading Ian and Jon's book I thought this would be a good topic to revive.

Really going through it I would have to say 1974 marked the switch from being current to being nostalgia.

1961 to 1972 I think they are a vital contemporary band. You could say that they should have made more LP cuts a regular part of the set in the 1966-69 era, but they were very sharp in the sixties, and in the early seventies they were playing dream sets almost.
 
They didn't go for the oldies exactly, but the 1973 sets already slightly less adventurous. Dennis in particular seems to have begun to sing his own songs less.

1974 is the turning point, and it seems the loss of the Flame members was a trigger.  The sets got more retro after Blondie was gone, but not overwhelmingly so until Ricky was gone. From then on (yes after Endless Summer) I think they basically sold themselves as an oldies band. I can't deny them doing a lot of cool things on stage through the end of the seventies, but the main purpose was to present old hits.

1974-75 is frustrating because a contemporary sounding album at that point could have bridged the gap of old and new for good.

[Jonathan Blum]

One of the big things to bear in mind is the definition of what was considered "the hits" shifted pretty significantly.  The three big hits collections starting with "Endless Summer" canonized a bunch of tracks which weren't actually hit singles at the time, like "Catch A Wave".

In a typical setlist in '73, on Eric's site, 7 out of the 22 songs were from the Greatest Hits volumes available at that point.  By a typical setlist from 1980, it was something like 16 out of 25...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

[SonicVolcano]

I thought they were pretty adventurous in the early seventies:

Surf's Up has 10 tracks and 9 of them have been played live.
So Tough has 8 tracks and 7 of them have been played live.
Holland has 9 tracks (not counting the fairy tale) and 7 of them have been played live.

Note: Tree has been played only once (Long Beach 1971, Brian plays organ). Also one known occasion where they played He Come Down (Luxembourg 1972) and Big Sur (Hartford 1973). I heard a rumour that they also played Beaks of Eagles once or twice.

Of course, these 'deep cuts' have always been combined with their hits. A song like Rhonda changed drastically and really became a rocker in the early seventies, and with various members doing lead vocals (Carl, Al and Dennis).

Plus, they also played unreleased tracks like Lady, I've Got A Friend, Barbara and did an awesome medley of Wonderful and Don't Worry Bill.

[MBE]

Yeah the early seventies shows are the ones I wish I could have been at most.

[phirnis]

They didn't go for the oldies exactly, but the 1973 sets already slightly less adventurous. Dennis in particular seems to have begun to sing his own songs less.

That is a very intriguing detail I think. Do we know why they dropped DW's songs? Was it his own decision perhaps? Always found it weird that in later years his signature song would become a cover version.

[Cam Mott]

Their sets have always been mostly old with a few new songs. When there was no new material they couldn't put it in the setlist. On the other hand, when the "new" release is a comp, the "new" songs are old.  I don't know is on third.

[MBE]

They didn't go for the oldies exactly, but the 1973 sets already slightly less adventurous. Dennis in particular seems to have begun to sing his own songs less.

That is a very intriguing detail I think. Do we know why they dropped DW's songs? Was it his own decision perhaps? Always found it weird that in later years his signature song would become a cover version.

Hard to understand why Dennis sang less of his own songs in 1973. I have thought about it but I have no answer other than the songs he did before then got phased out for one of two possible reasons. Maybe the albums his leads were on didn't sell enough, or because several of his live showcases did not come out officially.

YASB was co-written by him so it wasn't really a cover.

[phirnis]

Ah, right, I forgot he contributed some writing to YASB. He must've been really proud of that I figure.

Speaking about the songs of his that didn't come out officially, I really like how the BB would "preview" that kind of material in the early 70s at their concerts, it's very unusual for a group like this to do that I think. Do we know if the audience usually enjoyed what they heard in these cases?

By the way, too bad "It's About Time" disappeared from the set lists as well.

[MBE]

Ah, right, I forgot he contributed some writing to YASB. He must've been really proud of that I figure.

Speaking about the songs of his that didn't come out officially, I really like how the BB would "preview" that kind of material in the early 70s at their concerts, it's very unusual for a group like this to do that I think. Do we know if the audience usually enjoyed what they heard in these cases?

By the way, too bad "It's About Time" disappeared from the set lists as well.

I am sure he was proud. Only With You should have stayed through 1973 too. Only one 1972 performance that I know of.

[Nicko1234]

Hard to understand why Dennis sang less of his own songs in 1973. I have thought about it but I have no answer other than the songs he did before then got phased out for one of two possible reasons. Maybe the albums his leads were on didn't sell enough, or because several of his live showcases did not come out officially.

YASB was co-written by him so it wasn't really a cover.

Sorry to state the obvious here but couldn`t that be partly down to the fact they were promoting the more recent stuff and he didn`t sing anything on Holland. Also his two songs from CATP are not really commercial.

Not saying those are the only reasons though.

[smilethebeachboysloveyou]

1974 is the turning point, and it seems the loss of the Flame members was a trigger.  The sets got more retro after Blondie was gone, but not overwhelmingly so until Ricky was gone. From then on (yes after Endless Summer) I think they basically sold themselves as an oldies band. I can't deny them doing a lot of cool things on stage through the end of the seventies, but the main purpose was to present old hits.

Could it also be the absence of new material?  1974 is the first year that the band didn't release at least one studio album of new material since the release of Surfin' Safari, so could it be that absent a new album whose songs to promote, they began to return to their hits?  It probably wasn't the only reason, but it might have been a reason.

[SonicVolcano]

By the way, too bad "It's About Time" disappeared from the set lists as well.

I'm really glad we're getting a live version from 1973 on the MIC box set! I love that song.

[MBE]

Hard to understand why Dennis sang less of his own songs in 1973. I have thought about it but I have no answer other than the songs he did before then got phased out for one of two possible reasons. Maybe the albums his leads were on didn't sell enough, or because several of his live showcases did not come out officially.

YASB was co-written by him so it wasn't really a cover.

Sorry to state the obvious here but couldn`t that be partly down to the fact they were promoting the more recent stuff and he didn`t sing anything on Holland. Also his two songs from CATP are not really commercial.

Not saying those are the only reasons though.

The lack of leads on Holland and Surf's Up hurt Dennis as far as singing new stuff, agreed.

[MBE]

1974 is the turning point, and it seems the loss of the Flame members was a trigger.  The sets got more retro after Blondie was gone, but not overwhelmingly so until Ricky was gone. From then on (yes after Endless Summer) I think they basically sold themselves as an oldies band. I can't deny them doing a lot of cool things on stage through the end of the seventies, but the main purpose was to present old hits.

Could it also be the absence of new material?  1974 is the first year that the band didn't release at least one studio album of new material since the release of Surfin' Safari, so could it be that absent a new album whose songs to promote, they began to return to their hits?  It probably wasn't the only reason, but it might have been a reason.

They could have decided to bring back songs from all eras in 1974, and they tried at first. Not making that album then in 1974 really cost the band some hard earned success with new work.