Why was the band more popular in Britain than America in the late 60s/early 70s?

[Mikie]

Those RS reviews weren't as bad as i was honestly expecting.

I don't think so either.

But Rolling Stone founder Wenner had issues and so did his "followers":

Jann Wenner had little love for the Beach Boys, and made no secret of the fact he thought Brian Wilson was mediocre and overrated. In his very first RS column, entitled "Rock and Roll Music," Wenner criticized Wilson for daring to believe he was as talented as the Beatles:

"His promotion men started to tell him and his audience that he was a "genius" and on a par with Lennon and McCartney. That's cool, cause we're all just folks, but no one is John Lennon except John Lennon and no one is Paul McCartney except Paul McCartney and the Beach Boys (let alone Chad and Jeremy) are not the Beatles...The Beach Boys are just one prominent example of a group that has gotten hung up in trying to catch the Beatles. It is a pointless pursuit. A lot of people talked about it but the Beatles have so far been the only group to come up with a fully orchestrated and interiorly (sic) cohesive smyphonic (sic) or operatic piece."

Of course, Paul McCartney himself later remarked that Pet Sounds was one of his favorite records, and a major influence on Sgt. Peppers: "It was Pet Sounds that blew me out of the water. I love the album so much. I've just bought my kids each a copy of it for their education in life...to me, it certainly is a total, classic record that is unbeatable in many ways...I've often played Pet Sounds and cried."

Ralph J. Gleason, Jann Wenner's mentor and co-founder of Rolling Stone, was also incredulous of Brian Wilson's purported "genius." In his 1/20/68 "Perspectives" column, for example, he wrote that "[t]he Beach Boys, when they were a reflection of an actuality of American society (i.e. Southern California hot rod, surfing and beer-bust fraternity culture), made music that had validity and interest. When they went past that, they were forced inexorably to go into electronic and this excursion, for them, is of limited scope, good as the vibrations were." He was even more blunt in his 2/24/68 column: "With the Beach Boys the necessity of recharging the batteries led to a lot of pretentious nonsense aided and abetted by the flacks calling Brian Wilson a genius. The Beach Boys are a logical extension of Pat Boone and Ricky Nelson (as well as Paul Anka). They look like and perform like summer resort boozers, Fort Lauderdale weekend collegians. They sound like that, too."

In retrospect the fact that anyone - let alone Gleason, the respected, nearly twenty-year veteran jazz critic for the San Francisco Chronicle - could think "Surfin' Safari" or "409" had more "validity," and a broader scope than "God Only Knows" or "Good Vibrations" (or that Brian Wilson was the "logical extension of Pat Boone"!), is almost unbelievable.

[drbeachboy]

Mikie, great post! From what articles or books were the quoted portions from?

[Smile4ever]

In retrospect the fact that anyone - let alone Gleason, the respected, nearly twenty-year veteran jazz critic for the San Francisco Chronicle - could think "Surfin' Safari" or "409" had more "validity," and a broader scope than "God Only Knows" or "Good Vibrations" (or that Brian Wilson was the "logical extension of Pat Boone"!), is almost unbelievable.

WOW. No kidding. That is absolutely mind-boggling.

[Mikie]

It sure is. Rolling Stone ran an article by Wenner unfairly describing The Beach Boys as “just one prominent example of a group that had gotten hung up trying to catch The Beatles.”

[Mikie]

Mikie, great post! From what articles or books were the quoted portions from?

Doc, there's other real good stuff here too.  Rolling Stone's 500 Worst Reviews of All Time:

http://rateyourmusic.com/list/schmidtt/rolling_stones_500_worst_reviews_of_all_time__work_in_progress_

[Disney Boy (1985)]

Getting back to the original question, surely the obvious answer is that us Limeys have just got much better taste and superior artistic judgement!  

[clack]

The Zombies, on the other hand, were much more successful in the US than they were in the UK.

But really, 1967 was a watershed year in the US for so many previously-huge bands. The Dave Clark Five and Herman's Hermits, like the Beach Boys, hung on for a few years in the UK top 40 after beginning to tank in the US singles chart.

They just went out of fashion. New times, new bands.

[GhostyTMRS]

Rolling Stone was the bible for hipsters in the U.S. at the time. Nothing else has done more damage to The Beach Boys' reputation than that rag, who had a generation of devotees blindly believing everything that spewed forth from Wenner and co.
I still see it resonating today, especially with some boomers who came of age in the late 60's. You could play "Pet Sounds" and "The Smile Sessions" a million times over for them and they'll still say it's all about surfing and doo-wop and that its stupid (of course they're wrong about equating surfing music and doo-wop with stupidity too).

They've been so thoroughly brainwashed by Wenner and crew that it's almost supernatural in retrospect. The gospel made it clear to these dopes. The Beatles were gods and The Beach Boys don't even have the right to shine their shoes.      

[JohnMill]

Kind of makes you wish that Mike Love had struck out at Jann Wenner instead of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones at the HOF induction ceremony doesn't it?  That would've been awesome in my view.  I haven't purchased a copy of "Rolling Stone" magazine since the nineties. 

[Shady]

I was pretty disgusted to see Rolling Stone recently posted a "best summer songs" list and The Beach Boys only came in at number 4 with California Girls.

Also, that was the only Beach Boys song that made that list. If The Beatles did summers songs they would occupy the entire top 10.

[Gertie J.]

whats up shady? DON'T YOU LIKE DA BEATLES, THE GREATEST BAND OF ALL TIME?!??!!!?!!?!??!

[Shady]

whats up shady? DON'T YOU LIKE DA BEATLES, THE GREATEST BAND OF ALL TIME?!??!!!?!!?!??!

Oh..... The Beatles.

Of course I do, they never made a bad song and they're so cute

[Alan Smith]

whats up shady? DON'T YOU LIKE DA BEATLES, THE GREATEST BAND OF ALL TIME?!??!!!?!!?!??!

Oh..... The Beatles.

Of course I do, they never made a bad song and they're so cute

 

[Alex]

Kind of makes you wish that Mike Love had struck out at Jann Wenner instead of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones at the HOF induction ceremony doesn't it?  That would've been awesome in my view.  I haven't purchased a copy of "Rolling Stone" magazine since the nineties. 

I read it mainly for the political articles/investigative reporting. I could do without them constantly kissing the asses of the same 10 or so classic/big rock acts and their treating of crappy top 40 pop singers as serious artists. Have the Boys ever even made the cover of RS besides the "Brian in the blue bathrobe" pic from '76?

[Mikie]

Yes, the October 26, 1971 issue of Rolling Stone. First of a two part article on them.

[Alan Smith]

Well, just from the perspective of someone who lived through it all, I don't think it's a matter of better taste. I think American music became somewhat cynical in the aftermath of the "Summer of Love's" failure to revolutionize the world. Youth culture tended to drift toward more angry, heavy rock. Angry and edgy was in, peace and love were out.

True, and from the point of the original q (UK success vs US relative failure), something even simpler: your late-60s generation was being sent off to the Far East as cannon fodder, whereas we Brits, as Robyn Hitchcock so eloquently said, were sitting in country gardens drinking tea, eating cucumber sandwiches and listening to Syd Barrett and Traffic.

Agreed - I think the polarisations in taste, style, outlook are attributable to the Fight against Communism, the realities of the Vietnam War and the in-fighting and cultural and economic responses it caused back home. And if you weren't demonstrably taking sides, or appealing to either mood, you got left behind.

As for the Brits, perhaps they were still recovering from being smashed to hell in WW2, and were looking for respite.

[hypehat]

That doesn't quite explain the mellow sounds of yr James Taylors, yr CSN(y), yr Y's, Joni Mitchells and Laurel Canyon dudes and dudettes who sold a tonne during the time. Saying 'it was all rock' excludes the major sound of The Beach Boys' backyard!

Carl lived in Laurel Canyon in the early 70's, from what I understand - it would have been quite something if he dropped into the songwriting culture there more often, seeing as he was starting to explore his artistic side anyway.

[JohnMill]

Kind of makes you wish that Mike Love had struck out at Jann Wenner instead of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones at the HOF induction ceremony doesn't it?  That would've been awesome in my view.  I haven't purchased a copy of "Rolling Stone" magazine since the nineties. 

I read it mainly for the political articles/investigative reporting. I could do without them constantly kissing the asses of the same 10 or so classic/big rock acts and their treating of crappy top 40 pop singers as serious artists. Have the Boys ever even made the cover of RS besides the "Brian in the blue bathrobe" pic from '76?

This really gets to me as well or putting non-music celebrities on the cover.  I may have mentioned this the last time we as a forum discussed this but one of my musical heroes, Tom Petty once said that when he made his first RS cover in 1980 it was the hugest honor for him because back then as a musician making the cover of RS magazine indicated that you really had made it or done something special.  The reason being because back then only the best artists were selected for the cover of "Rolling Stone".  Unfortunately that is no longer the case.

I saw someone try to make the argument the other day that Taylor Swift belongs in the same category as The Beatles and other artists of their ilk because she's sold a lot of records and by category I don't mean as groupings of artists who have sold a lot of records but artists who deserve legendary status.  It is what it is I suppose.

[hypehat]

I'd bet you my collection of Mike Love baseball caps that some guy about your age said that when Tom Petty made the cover in 1980....

[BeHereInTheMorning]

Glad to see that I'm not alone in my disgust of Rolling Stone.

I, too, think that Mike should have started in on Wenner, perhaps at the point where he sort of went off on Woody Guthrie. I think it would have made the speech a bit less of a mess. Maybe something like this:

"Now, that Jan Winner or whatever, you know, the guy from Rolling Stone? Boy, I wish The Beach Boys had mentors, money like him when we were starting out. When the Wilsons, my mother's family, I'm first cousin to Brian, Carl and the late Dennis, the surfer of the group, when they first came to California, they were Kansas dustbowl Swedes who didn't have enough money to rent or buy a house, they had to live in tents on the beach in Huntington Beach, California. Sure, we in the Beach Boys have had our interstescene squabbles and such but we earned everything that we have tonight. Me and Brian wrote "Surfin'" twenty-seven years ago and we only got better from there. Our songs, our harmonies will live forever. I was pumping gas for a living before that endless harmony saved me."

Probably would have changed the perception of his speech.

I liked the magazine when I was a kid. Then, my tastes changed, expanded, broadened. If one's music collection begins and ends with greatest hits albums and the radio dial, it's the right magazine for you.

[Alan Smith]

That doesn't quite explain the mellow sounds of yr James Taylors, yr CSN(y), yr Y's, Joni Mitchells and Laurel Canyon dudes and dudettes who sold a tonne during the time. Saying 'it was all rock' excludes the major sound of The Beach Boys' backyard!

Carl lived in Laurel Canyon in the early 70's, from what I understand - it would have been quite something if he dropped into the songwriting culture there more often, seeing as he was starting to explore his artistic side anyway.

Fair call, although you could argue those dudes were emerging/newish on the scene (James and Joni) and had some folkie cred behind them when they did break, as opposed to the perception of the BB background (hence the polarising jive from above).  

I know the CSNY guys had been kicking around in various "pop" bands in the early '60s scene, but they managed to take a different tack post these bands; noting that Buffalo Springfield got a rep for a pretty good protest song with "For what it's worth".  

Love your thoughts about Carl getting more involved in the broader LA scene - that live rendition of Rock and Roll Woman always blows me away.

[JohnMill]

I'd bet you my collection of Mike Love baseball caps that some guy about your age said that when Tom Petty made the cover in 1980....

Yeah but as much as I love Tom Petty he doesn't belong in that category either (at least in my opinion).  It's an old argument about how you can turn things around and say for instance how the general public in 1964 didn't take The Beatles seriously and they ended up being arguably the greatest band in history.  But that argument has never washed with me because The Beatles to me were the exception, not the rule.  More times that not the artist never lives up to the hype.  The select few who do in my opinion do deserve that legendary status that is ascribed to them.  Now who belongs in that category is subjective obviously but a good jumping off point would be the first couple of induction classes of the RNR HOF in my opinion.  You can cherry pick a few artists from other eras after that but in all honesty if we are to try and be objective only a select few are honestly deserving of such an honor.

[Rocky Raccoon]

EDIT: Nothing.

[clack]

The early 70's saw a credibility revival for some other artists who in the late 60's were regarded as irrelevant : Carole King, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder. The Beach Boys weren't alone.

And credit is due Rolling Stone -- and Time magazine -- with leading the way for the Beach Boy revival in 1971.

For all the weight given it, the wilderness years era was brief : 1968-1970. By 1971 they were back on the map again.

[hypehat]

And speaking of 70's LA and The Beach Boys' backyard, the sound of Sunflower is very idiosyncratic, but possibly the wrong sort of idiosyncratic? It's no folky strummy CSN, it's lavish and twee and sugary. It wouldn't be unfair to equate The Beach Boys with people like Randy Newman or Gram Parsons on the label - they shift enough copies of Sweet Baby James & Ladies Of The Canyon to cover these interesting experiments that don't sell well.

People like Randy never exactly chased the zeitgeist (and Gram always thought it passed him by, I think) but what's sad about The Beach Boys is that it could have been cool for them to settle into the post-Holland era as that sort of artist, rather than chasing past glories*. It takes a certain kind of bloody-mindedness, I think that's the word, for them to stubbornly cling to the idea that Brian Wrote The Hits when they had Dennis, Carl, Blondie & Ricky also able to write quality material. Brian no longer had to be the Goose That Laid The Golden Egg!

*memory declining in my dotage, but was there any motive to 'Brian's Back!' in the group along the lines of 'Brian is getting worse and worse in LA, maybe the road will straighten him out'? Because drugs are so hard to find on tour with a 70's rock band...