gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680597 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 09:50:43 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Why do The Beach Boys have anonymous bandmembers to the public at large?  (Read 12492 times)
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« on: November 14, 2013, 05:25:21 PM »

Why have the BBs, almost since their very inception, been a band whose members were not particularly identifiable to many (or perhaps most) fans?
Granted, Dennis in the early days was a sex symbol, and the band got tons of early attention just for that fact alone.

But the fact that Brian, the group’s “leader” could get away with leaving the touring group in ‘63, and just subbing in alternate people (with it seemingly not affecting the machine that was/is the BBs) strikes me as a unique situation, or at least an unusual situation amongst their band peers.

Of course, this situation seems to have benefited the band at many times throughout their history. The band being as anonymous (member-wise) as they have been throughout the years seems to have helped the M&B show keep the ball rolling as they have, since many people have reported audience members not even knowing (or caring) who the band onstage consisted of, as long as it was (and sorta kinda sounded like) The Beach Boys.

Also, the general masses seemed to have not really noticed (or cared) when Carl/Brian/Dennis missed shows in the late 70s/early 80s… I’m sure that *some* fans knew what was going on, but for a band as famous as the BBs, it just seems they have been able to weather bandmates not being present (and have many, if not most audience members not even notice) much more than most other bands of their stature. Even when their “lead singer” Mike Love took leaves of absence for being sick a few times throughout the years, and the band kept chugging on, seemingly unblemished, or unbeknownst to many of the general public. I can’t think of many (if any) huge bands where the lead singer could miss chunks of shows without it being a huge, huge deal.

Ultimately, I wonder this: Why did a band like The Beatles (just to use an example), grow into an entity where each member was super well known, and it would’ve been a huge deal if any one of them missed a show, versus the Beach Boys, whose members seem almost anonymous to the public at large since their inception? Is it because the BB members were just much more boring by comparison, and didn’t make as big an impression to the average fan? Does this say something about BB fans too? Not superfans, but average fans.  I'm sure that latter-day Mike is glad that this unique situation isn't that much of a "problem" for the M&B show.

Particularly after recently reading The Beach Boys in Concert, I just find this phenomenon to be bizarre, and worthy of pondering from time to time.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2013, 05:29:57 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Marcella
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 401


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2013, 05:38:54 PM »

Good topic--no real answers here. Part of me says its because they aren't 4 "strangers" who united to form a great group (a la The Beatles) but rather a close knit band of brothers (literally), a cousin, and their close friend (Al) or neighborhood friend (Dave). Yet another part of me thinks that would make them MORE recognizable as individuals since you would think of the brothers individually and wonder why was one missing (why no Brian? why no Carl? why no Dennis? etc) 

Most music fans now think of the Beatles as Brian Wilson + others a la Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, yet, as you already mentioned, most who attend an M & B show aren't really too perturbed by the absence of Brian. No way a Bruce Springsteen & the E Street Band could be pulled off with no Boss.

Basically I dunno but I wanted to comment anyway, it's a good topic
Logged
Kurosawa
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2013, 05:56:24 PM »

Well, the only guy with looks and sex appeal (Dennis) was stuck behind the drums. The most important member musically (Brian) was not a particularly good or charismatic live performer. The one with the most charisma (Mike) was also the least talented musically and was a balding dork and was ugly. Al Jardine looks like a midget elf; Carl was a fat kid.

The only bands where all the members personas mattered much was the Beatles and to a lesser extent, the Who. The Stones don't matter to most people past Mick and Keith, all people cared about with the Kinks was the Davies brothers, and the only Pink Floyd member that people care much about is Syd, and that's because he crashed and burned so fast. I guess Roger Waters managed to be belligerent enough with the others that people sort of know and care who he is, sorta.

Of course anyone who is a big fan of a band cares about all the members. But the public at large don't care.
Logged

Member of the Anaheim Azusa and Cucamonga sewing circle book review and timing association (the double-ACASSN).
bluesno1fann
Guest
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2013, 06:10:31 PM »

The Stones don't matter to most people past Mick and Keith
Correction: Mick and Brian
Logged
Freddie French-Pounce
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1571


A.K.A. mrmoustachioto


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2013, 06:18:27 PM »

The Stones don't matter to most people past Mick and Keith
Correction: Mick and Brian

I'd say Keith is the most recognisable member.
Logged

Check out the Mono/Stereo Mix Breakdown podcast Mixology here: https://mixology.podbean.com/
bluesno1fann
Guest
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2013, 06:19:25 PM »

The Stones don't matter to most people past Mick and Keith
Correction: Mick and Brian

I'd say Keith is the most recognisable member.
Back at their height in the 60's, it was Mick and Brian. Only now it's Mick and Keith, and that's because Brian's dead. Still, Brian is quite popular to fans, albeit not so much the casual fans
Logged
wantsomecorn
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 580



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2013, 06:29:52 PM »

The Stones don't matter to most people past Mick and Keith
Correction: Mick and Brian

I'd say Keith is the most recognisable member.
Back at their height in the 60's, it was Mick and Brian. Only now it's Mick and Keith, and that's because Brian's dead. Still, Brian is quite popular to fans, albeit not so much the casual fans
As someone who knew jack about the Stones until the last couple of months, I knew: Jagger and Richards, other Mick, "the guy that burned out" (Brian something-or-other), "their bassist who I think quit", and "they probably have a drummer".

And I agree with Kurosawa, how many bands do you know that you can name everyone in without being a huge fan of them?
Logged

On our way through this "backstage" maze, Bruce joined up with the group and said hello, singing "It Never Rains in Southern California" and joking with some of the older ladies. I'm not sure if they knew he was a Beach Boy or simply an enthusiastic elderly gay gentleman.
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3932


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2013, 11:11:23 PM »

It didn't hurt that the Beatles starred in a couple successful movies. All the kids saw those back in the day, so it would be hard to walk out of the theater and not be able to tell Paul from John, George from Ringo. The same reason is why the individual Monkees became so well known. If the Beach Boys had done a couple films in their 60's heyday, everyone would have known that Mike was the one with the receding hairline; Dennis was the blonde surfer; Brian was the tallest Beach Boy, and cute in sort of a shy wallflower way; Carl may have been chubby, but girls swooned when he sang. And Al was the short one.
Logged
Shane
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 620



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2013, 11:19:13 PM »

Simple.  It's because the MUSIC is the star of the show.   Grin
Logged
Micha
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3133



View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2013, 01:56:16 AM »

It didn't hurt that the Beatles starred in a couple successful movies. All the kids saw those back in the day, so it would be hard to walk out of the theater and not be able to tell Paul from John, George from Ringo. The same reason is why the individual Monkees became so well known. If the Beach Boys had done a couple films in their 60's heyday, everyone would have known that Mike was the one with the receding hairline; Dennis was the blonde surfer; Brian was the tallest Beach Boy, and cute in sort of a shy wallflower way; Carl may have been chubby, but girls swooned when he sang. And Al was the short one.

I think you hit the spot!


Still, Brian is quite popular to fans, albeit not so much the casual fans

In this thread, it's about the view of the casual fan.
Logged

Ceterum censeo SMiLEBrianum OSDumque esse excludendos banno.
bluesno1fann
Guest
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2013, 01:59:58 AM »

It didn't hurt that the Beatles starred in a couple successful movies. All the kids saw those back in the day, so it would be hard to walk out of the theater and not be able to tell Paul from John, George from Ringo. The same reason is why the individual Monkees became so well known. If the Beach Boys had done a couple films in their 60's heyday, everyone would have known that Mike was the one with the receding hairline; Dennis was the blonde surfer; Brian was the tallest Beach Boy, and cute in sort of a shy wallflower way; Carl may have been chubby, but girls swooned when he sang. And Al was the short one.

I think you hit the spot!


Still, Brian is quite popular to fans, albeit not so much the casual fans

In this thread, it's about the view of the casual fan.
Well, Casual fan in the 1960's when the Stones were at their best. But I guess not now
Logged
Alan Smith
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2089


I'm still here bitches and I know everything. –A


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2013, 04:21:33 AM »

Why have the BBs, almost since their very inception, been a band whose members were not particularly identifiable to many (or perhaps most) fans?...



Since their inception?...

I'd love to get some input from some of the back in the actual day fans who come here - being born in old '71, it was before my time;  but I don't get the impression our boys were publicly unindentifiable back in the day.

Listen to the cheers for tiny Al Jardine getting up to sing Runaway in Chicago '65; check out the personalised back-cover liners on Summer Days; behold the news coverage of one Carl Wilson, arrested for resisting the draft - this was a band whose members and personalities were as out there and publicly known as the Beatles.

Now, the Beatles - those jammy blighters who stopped touring and then broke up for good or bad - weren't subject to the commercial and artistic struggles that those "classic" or enduring bands who kept going (BB's, The Who, The Kinks) suffered due to the myriad changes in musical fashion from '66 onwards. 

The Beatles have an accutely defined legacy, and an appointed caretaker to protect the grail; as opposed to the BB's who to this day remain a (cough) dynamic entity willing to (umm) compete in contempory "markets".

I think due to recent band self-reflection (at least during C50), the input of Alan Boyd and Mark Linett, and the support of the broader fan and historian community, the lack of band awareness that may have plagued the 80's,90's, early 2000's is behind us and the band's public history and awareness is restablished.

At the end of the day, any further BB full or partial live, studio or repackaged efforts, is ultimately about the music - and I think the latter day Mike's and Brian's and Al's and Bruce's and Dave's are aware of what they're up to.

*PS, not having a go, good pub topic  Beer

Logged

ESQ - Subscribe Now!!!

A new Beach Boys forum is here! http://beachboys.boards.net/
Cyncie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 714



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2013, 05:48:02 AM »

I don't think, growing up as a regular music fan in the 60's and 70's , that I knew the names of all the band members of any band I liked. I listened to the radio, bought the records, but didn't necessarily "follow" the band. And yet, I knew all of the Beatles. It all comes down to what sells and awareness is a matter of publicity level and hype. You really couldn't escape the Beatles. I really think they were the exception rather than the rule for me and most of my friends.

Bands were generally whole entities. But, "Hard Days Night," "Help" and "Yellow Submarine" plus Tiger Beat and other teen mags fueled the Beatlemania engine and created sort of manufactured public personas for the individual Beatles: Paul was the cute one, Lennon was the rebel, George was the mystic and Ringo was the lovable dork. Most bands didn't get that kind of PR. Aside from some of the key members, you didn't get so many teen idols from most bands.

It's funny that Brian, the shyest of the boys, has emerged as the current media darling. I guess, in the long run, the public loves a comeback story.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2013, 06:16:59 AM »

I don't think, growing up as a regular music fan in the 60's and 70's , that I knew the names of all the band members of any band I liked. I listened to the radio, bought the records, but didn't necessarily "follow" the band. And yet, I knew all of the Beatles. It all comes down to what sells and awareness is a matter of publicity level and hype. You really couldn't escape the Beatles. I really think they were the exception rather than the rule for me and most of my friends.

Bands were generally whole entities. But, "Hard Days Night," "Help" and "Yellow Submarine" plus Tiger Beat and other teen mags fueled the Beatlemania engine and created sort of manufactured public personas for the individual Beatles: Paul was the cute one, Lennon was the rebel, George was the mystic and Ringo was the lovable dork. Most bands didn't get that kind of PR. Aside from some of the key members, you didn't get so many teen idols from most bands.

It's funny that Brian, the shyest of the boys, has emerged as the current media darling. I guess, in the long run, the public loves a comeback story.
They were hardly "anonymous." During that era, not unlike baseball cards, which were originally "cigarette cards" used to stiffen cigarette packs, post the Civil War era, when the cigarette roller machine was invented. This was as a result of no more slaves to pack tobacco products. (Just for background.)

Bubble gum replaced tobacco products for these collector cards, and there were Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beach Boys and Dave Clark Five in bubble gum packs.  And the ladies knew who the band members were.  We swapped these cards. Tiger Beat magazine, and the rest, of these magazines targeted to  teeny bopper and pre-teen crowd were marketed heavily as these guys appeared on black and white TV on Ed Sullivan and other variety shows. 

Oh, we knew who the band members were.  They were never anonymous.  LOL
Logged
LostArt
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 914



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2013, 06:27:10 AM »

The Beatles were more popular than Jesus.  Lennon was right in a way.  Look at Billboard #1 songs for the years 1964 and 1965. 

I Want To Hold Your Hand...#1 from Jan 26 to March 14, 1964
She Loves You...#1 from March 15 to March 28, 1964
Can't Buy Me Love...#1 from March 29 to May 2, 1964
Love Me Do...#1 from May 24 to May 30, 1964

I Get Around...#1 from June 28 to July 11, 1964

A Hard Day's Night...#1 from July 26 to August 8, 1964
I Feel Fine...#1 from December 20, 1964 to January 9, 1965
Eight Days A Week...#1 from March 7 to March 20, 1965
Ticket To Ride...#1 from May16 to May 22, 1965

Help Me Rhonda...#1 from May 23 to June 5, 1965

Help...#1 from August 29 to September 18, 1965
Yesterday...#1 from October 3 to October 30, 1965

The Billboard chart for the week of April 24, 1964 had records by The Beatles in the top 5 positions.  You'll never see anything like that again.  The Beatles blew everybody away during that timeframe, and a string of hits like that has never been duplicated (and never will).  Unless you were around in those days, you cannot begin to imagine the hype...TV, movies, cartoons, bubble gum cards, and non-stop radio play.  It's no wonder everyone knew their names.  I don't think the general public knew the names of all of the members of any other band in those days (except, you know, Peter, Paul, and Mary or Simon and Garfunkel). 

Logged
donald
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2485



View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 15, 2013, 08:20:05 AM »

No surprise.  Even amongst hard core Beachboys fans, Zeppo Wilson remained a little known figure for many decades until his contributions were revealed through diligent research by prominent posters at this very site.

(see the special thread discussing his often unappreciated and behind the scenes contributions)
Logged
Billf
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 15, 2013, 09:31:12 PM »

Evidence of how fungible the members of the Beach Boys were is that they had no problem issuing an album in 1965, Summer Days, in the midst of their hot streak, without Al on the cover. Yeah, I know about him stricken with the "flu bug." i find it interesting that they took photos during the cover sessions on the boat with Bruce. Can you imagine the Beatles putting out an album at the time without George on the cover? I think the anonymous nature of the group members was a function of Murry's light touch as manager. The emphasis was on the Wilson brothers, his kids. Also, the plain truth is that, unlike the four Beatles, the five Beach Boys were not each dynamic, likable personalities. Didnt make much of an impression on fans.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 09:35:46 PM by Billf » Logged
Phoenix
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1212



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2013, 12:33:48 AM »

The only bands where all the members personas mattered much was the Beatles and to a lesser extent, the Who.

Kiss
the Monkees
the Bee Gees
Led Zeppelin (with John Paul Jones as the other guy)
Abba
the Eagles (almost)
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
Logged
bluesno1fann
Guest
« Reply #18 on: November 16, 2013, 12:44:43 AM »

The only bands where all the members personas mattered much was the Beatles and to a lesser extent, the Who.

Kiss
the Monkees
the Bee Gees
Led Zeppelin (with John Paul Jones as the other guy)
Abba
the Eagles (almost)
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
With Kiss I think the drummer is the other guy. I'm not a Kiss fan, but I know just Gene, Paul and Ace.
With ABBA I seriously don't think so. Other than that, I think you're right
Logged
Don Malcolm
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 1108



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2013, 08:19:07 AM »

LostArt nailed it perfectly. That's why they called it "Beatlemania!". But fille de plage is also right--the fans of the BBs knew who the "boys" were.

My theory is that Ringo was the one who made the mnemonic work...John, Paul, George and Ringo had the perfect oddball euphony to stick in the minds of people from seven to seventy.

Maybe if Dennis had changed his name to Zeppo... but that's another story--and another can of worms!!  3D
Logged
Mikie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5887



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2013, 08:36:06 AM »

No surprise.  Even amongst hard core Beachboys fans, Zeppo Wilson remained a little known figure for many decades until his contributions were revealed through diligent research by prominent posters at this very site.

(see the special thread discussing his often unappreciated and behind the scenes contributions)

Well, you forgot about Art Haack.
Logged

I, I love the colorful clothes she wears, and she's already working on my brain. I only looked in her eyes, but I picked up something I just can't explain. I, I bet I know what she’s like, and I can feel how right she’d be for me. It’s weird how she comes in so strong, and I wonder what she’s picking up from me. I hope it’s good, good, good, good vibrations, yeah!!
RubberSoul13
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1297


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2013, 08:41:16 AM »

I think it was essentially done to themselves. I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet but, look back to when AL was filling in for Brian in 1963.

Filling in is not in the vocabulary for Beatles concerts. It happened once with Jimmy Nichol filling in for Ringo and got SERIOUS press attention and dissapoint amongst fans.

The Beach Boys had disposable personalities and fairly average traits. With the exception of Mike and Brian's voices...none of the others exactly stuck out in the very early days.

But I think this lack of proper self-promotion is to be expected. From 1955-1962 The Beatles were undergoing countless name and lineup changes. They had seven years to get their sh*t together. The Beach Boys didn't really have that. They were launched into stardom of the music scene whether they liked it or not, and look what it did to Brian. I'd say constantly replacing Brian has made them anonymous.

But in recent years, I would also blame the advent of the backing band as early as 1967. Having a backing band would be a joke to The Beatles. They had Billy Preston on the rooftop in '69 and made everyone quite aware of it. "Get Back/Don't Let Me Down" The Beatles with Billy Preston.

I think the public has not cared to distinguish backing band members from original band members...and I don't blame them! A true rock BANd should not need another BAND to back them up!!!
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2013, 12:38:29 PM »

Evidence of how fungible the members of the Beach Boys were is that they had no problem issuing an album in 1965, Summer Days, in the midst of their hot streak, without Al on the cover. Yeah, I know about him stricken with the "flu bug." i find it interesting that they took photos during the cover sessions on the boat with Bruce. Can you imagine the Beatles putting out an album at the time without George on the cover? I think the anonymous nature of the group members was a function of Murry's light touch as manager. The emphasis was on the Wilson brothers, his kids. Also, the plain truth is that, unlike the four Beatles, the five Beach Boys were not each dynamic, likable personalities. Didnt make much of an impression on fans.
Fungible is probably not a term I'd assign to them. Fungible generally connotes some commodity such as grain, or money. One dollar bill is the same as the next.  They have pretty distinct personalities, and talents.  Who knows why the cover was released without Al? The Beatles didn't do the hands-on work that the BB's did.  Bands often wore "uniforms" to distinguish them from other bands, and even the Beatles had a "suit" phase, and they seemed to move away from that contemporaneously.  If I remember, one of the Beatles wore a white suit on Abbey Road, a while after the BB's had been wearing those suits, likely the influence of Carnaby St.  

And, I beg to differ. With the exception of Carl, who was really a kid, in the early days, in the shadow of the older guys by about six years, and they all had a personality, especially Mike and Dennis.  Al was a folkie, with that laid-back folkie personality.  And Brian didn't seem to have a hard time telling an emcee of a TV show, what they were working on and what inspired whatever song they were going to sing.  Some stuff is hard to find on YouTube, but there is enough to see differences among them.  They didn't get the "from without" press, as much as the Beatles, except they were around longer.  They had a "sound" that was cohesive, but that doesn't mean they had no personalities off-stage.   Wink
Logged
clack
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 537


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2013, 01:13:55 PM »

Evidence of how fungible the members of the Beach Boys were is that they had no problem issuing an album in 1965, Summer Days, in the midst of their hot streak, without Al on the cover. Yeah, I know about him stricken with the "flu bug." i find it interesting that they took photos during the cover sessions on the boat with Bruce. Can you imagine the Beatles putting out an album at the time without George on the cover? I think the anonymous nature of the group members was a function of Murry's light touch as manager. The emphasis was on the Wilson brothers, his kids. Also, the plain truth is that, unlike the four Beatles, the five Beach Boys were not each dynamic, likable personalities. Didnt make much of an impression on fans.
Fungible is probably not a term I'd assign to them. Fungible generally connotes some commodity such as grain, or money. One dollar bill is the same as the next.  They have pretty distinct personalities, and talents.  Who knows why the cover was released without Al? The Beatles didn't do the hands-on work that the BB's did.  Bands often wore "uniforms" to distinguish them from other bands, and even the Beatles had a "suit" phase, and they seemed to move away from that contemporaneously.  If I remember, one of the Beatles wore a white suit on Abbey Road, a while after the BB's had been wearing those suits, likely the influence of Carnaby St.  

And, I beg to differ. With the exception of Carl, who was really a kid, in the early days, in the shadow of the older guys by about six years, and they all had a personality, especially Mike and Dennis.  Al was a folkie, with that laid-back folkie personality.  And Brian didn't seem to have a hard time telling an emcee of a TV show, what they were working on and what inspired whatever song they were going to sing.  Some stuff is hard to find on YouTube, but there is enough to see differences among them.  They didn't get the "from without" press, as much as the Beatles, except they were around longer.  They had a "sound" that was cohesive, but that doesn't mean they had no personalities off-stage.   Wink
Well, we know that they had personalities. But why would the general public care? Did they care about the personalities of the members of the Dave Clark 5? Tommy James and the Shondells? The Four Tops?

It took until the late 60's/early 70's before there was enough of an active rock press to publicize the individual members of rock groups, and by then, for the Beach Boys, it was 9/10 Brian the genius, 1/10 Dennis and his Manson connection. And by the 80's the Beach Boys might have as well been the Andrews Sisters -- an overall name, and the music attached to that name. No one cared whether Mike was going through a divorce, or whether Al had an opinion about Walter Mondale.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: November 16, 2013, 01:29:42 PM »

People have made good points In this thread, especially concerning how other bands of the time similarly weren't super well known for their individual members.

But I think my original point of this thread was, the fact that the Beach Boys seem to have been the biggest and most high-profile band that I can think of of their era, to be as anonymous as they were/are.

From Brian be easily able to slip in and out of the band at will in the early days, to Al Jardine's nonappearance on the Summer Days album cover, to their lead singer Mike Love missing some concerts and having it not be any kind of big deal whatsoever in the media, to Mike and Bruce playing hundreds of shows without many audience members really noticing or caring who is onstage. I think this band is a league of their own for being as famous as they are, and as iconic as they are, to have been able to "get away with" this type of anonymity. And I guess I am searching for an answer for why this is, because it is such a bizarre situation.

I'm sure that the band is keenly aware of this themselves and they clearly have taken advantage of this over the years, because truthfully it benefits them to be able to use the band name at will without all members. It certainly may not benefit the brand name of the band in the big picture, from a quality control standpoint, but it has certainly provided short-term "benefits" and cash for the band over the years many, many times.
Logged
gfx
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.678 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!