Stamos accused…

[Robbie Mac]

If I am in the role of bad-guy brianista, so be it. 

I don't think Brianistas are the bad guys at all, unlike most people here. However hating on Stamos is almost too easy. He isn't the cause of the brand's tackiness but he is seen (unfairly or not, YMMV) as it's symbol.

[Wirestone]

If anyone here ever wonders why we don't get cool archival releases-- just look at Stamos.

You lost me on that one.

The hate for this guy on stage supersedes all common sense. What can I say?

So exactly where did I mention hate? I say enough stuff that people can pick on, why make up new stuff?

Hate is a strong word. You dislike Stamos ON STAGE. Just in case you didn't get it the first time around. I didn't mean personally. Now, I think I'm done with this thread. Like most threads in here, nobody's mind is changed no matter what is said on either side of the debate. It's just another beat a dead horse thread. Goodnight, and sleep tight.

Well, you're quoting me directly and claiming there's hatred of Stamos. And for what it's worth, I don't see anyone here hating the guy. I see there being a few of us who don't think he should be onstage with the group.

As for the comment about archival releases, I apologize for somehow thinking that the popular perception of a group somehow affects what a record label releases. Wherever could I have gotten such a silly idea? I also shouldn't have believed that a group's perception of itself would somehow affect what it's interested in releasing, or the labels it chooses to release it on.

The fact is, the Pet Sounds and Smile boxes were about Brian's legend and the popular music press. They were prestige projects.

The '93 and '13 boxed sets were career-spanners that included the hits.

What are we left with? A couple of releases that were lousily promoted and sold poorly. Any other artist of the group's stature from the 60s has two-disc (or three- or four-disc) sets of their classic albums by now, collected into deluxe boxed sets and the like. The shoddy treatment of the catalogue is directly related to how the band is perceived by the public. And don't go telling me it's just about Capitol. The BBs own their stuff past a certain point and could choose to release every piece of tape they want. But even they don't. They choose not to respect themselves, and they choose not to respect their work.

And as I've said -- and as Andy said above, much more pithily -- Stamos isn't the cause of this. Not even remotely. But he's its most visible symbol.

[tpesky]

In fact, viewers are led to believe STAMOS WROTE THE SONG

Really? Not according the actual dialogue from the show.

http://youtu.be/Zt1whEyVGKE

Well I stand corrected on the fact his character says he didn't write it, my apologies. HOWEVER it is not clearly mentioned it was ever actually a BB song they recorded,Bruce just says you can have it ( apparently Bruce controls all rights at BRI)  and there still isn't  anything about Dennis Wilson there.

[KittyKat]

If anyone here ever wonders why we don't get cool archival releases-- just look at Stamos.

You lost me on that one.

The hate for this guy on stage supersedes all common sense. What can I say?

So exactly where did I mention hate? I say enough stuff that people can pick on, why make up new stuff?

Hate is a strong word. You dislike Stamos ON STAGE. Just in case you didn't get it the first time around. I didn't mean personally. Now, I think I'm done with this thread. Like most threads in here, nobody's mind is changed no matter what is said on either side of the debate. It's just another beat a dead horse thread. Goodnight, and sleep tight.

Well, you're quoting me directly and claiming there's hatred of Stamos. And for what it's worth, I don't see anyone here hating the guy. I see there being a few of us who don't think he should be onstage with the group.

As for the comment about archival releases, I apologize for somehow thinking that the popular perception of a group somehow affects what a record label releases. Wherever could I have gotten such a silly idea? I also shouldn't have believed that a group's perception of itself would somehow affect what it's interested in releasing, or the labels it chooses to release it on.

The fact is, the Pet Sounds and Smile boxes were about Brian's legend and the popular music press. They were prestige projects.

The '93 and '13 boxed sets were career-spanners that included the hits.

What are we left with? A couple of releases that were lousily promoted and sold poorly. Any other artist of the group's stature from the 60s has two-disc (or three- or four-disc) sets of their classic albums by now, collected into deluxe boxed sets and the like. The shoddy treatment of the catalogue is directly related to how the band is perceived by the public. And don't go telling me it's just about Capitol. The BBs own their stuff past a certain point and could choose to release every piece of tape they want. But even they don't. They choose not to respect themselves, and they choose not to respect their work.

And as I've said -- and as Andy said above, much more pithily -- Stamos isn't the cause of this. Not even remotely. But he's its most visible symbol.

I'm trying to figure out who these '60s bands are with double or triple or quadruple releases of single albums, in deluxe box sets, are. The Kinks -- and, the Kinks? Because that certainly isn't true of the Beatles. All single disc release only, which took decades to remaster. Oh, sure, they were initially released in one boxed set, but you could still get the single discs, and no extra material. The Beatles outtakes have only been officially released once, on the Anthology sets, and you know there are hours of tapes that have never been released. The Rolling Stones? A few albums have boxed sets, but not all.   Most are still the original single disc releases. But considering the Beatles are most closely matched in terms of type of material and being of the same label, I don't think the Beach Boys have been treated in an inferior fashion to the Beatles. They have had all their albums remastered, twice, and released, twice, which is one more remastering than the Beatles had. How many times has "Pet Sounds" been remastered and released? I have at least three different CD copies of it (not including the boxed set), including one with a fuzzy cover, and one that was done after the fuzzy cover. There has been multiple Beach Boys boxed sets done, including MIC (which has a substantial amount of unreleased material), The Pet Sounds Sessions, The Smile Sessions, and the four disc boxed set that included the first official releases of some of the Smile material, not just the greatest hit. There's "Made in Hawthorne" and "Endless Harmony" sets.  The Beach Boys catalog has been treated with as much or more respect by EMI/Capitol than they have treated the Beatles. As for any additional unreleased material, that's not just Mike Love's call, but also Al Jardine, Brian Wilson, and the estate of Carl Wilson's decision to make.  So, you can't blame it on the touring Beach Boys, because they're represented by only one vote.

[Robbie Mac]

The Kinks, the Who, the Monkees.

[alf wiedersehen]

King Crimson, the Mothers of Invention, and the Velvet Underground.

[KittyKat]

None of them are the Beatles.  The Beatles are many times bigger than any of those acts, and they haven't done it. What's wrong with them?

And it still doesn't make it understandable why John Stamos has anything to do with it. Or why Al Jardine, Carl Wilson's family, and Brian Wilson haven't banded together to release all those oh-so-important unreleased tracks. People get angry over the weirdest targets.

[The Shift]

Jethro Tull's back catalogue is being reworked in deluxe packages as is Led Zeppelin's.

Let's not forget either that when the two-fers originally did the rounds they were regarded as ground-breaking and the value represented by two albums plus bonus tracks in each package was welcomed.

It might seem we're being short-changed nowadays by comparison with other old acts but that wasn't always the case.

[alf wiedersehen]

None of them are the Beatles.  The Beatles are many times bigger than any of those acts, and they haven't done it. What's wrong with them?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Beatles.

And it still doesn't make it understandable why John Stamos has anything to do with it.

Well, that's weird because you're the one that somehow thinks it has something to do with John Stamos:

All of the archival releases have come since Stamos started appearing with the band in1985.   Coincidence?

[Nicko1234]

Well, you're quoting me directly and claiming there's hatred of Stamos. And for what it's worth, I don't see anyone here hating the guy. I see there being a few of us who don't think he should be onstage with the group.

As for the comment about archival releases, I apologize for somehow thinking that the popular perception of a group somehow affects what a record label releases. Wherever could I have gotten such a silly idea? I also shouldn't have believed that a group's perception of itself would somehow affect what it's interested in releasing, or the labels it chooses to release it on.

The fact is, the Pet Sounds and Smile boxes were about Brian's legend and the popular music press. They were prestige projects.

The '93 and '13 boxed sets were career-spanners that included the hits.

What are we left with? A couple of releases that were lousily promoted and sold poorly. Any other artist of the group's stature from the 60s has two-disc (or three- or four-disc) sets of their classic albums by now, collected into deluxe boxed sets and the like. The shoddy treatment of the catalogue is directly related to how the band is perceived by the public. And don't go telling me it's just about Capitol. The BBs own their stuff past a certain point and could choose to release every piece of tape they want. But even they don't. They choose not to respect themselves, and they choose not to respect their work.

And as I've said -- and as Andy said above, much more pithily -- Stamos isn't the cause of this. Not even remotely. But he's its most visible symbol.

Nah, Stamos isn`t a symbol of this at all. He`s not connected to it in any way shape or form.

[Custom Machine]

After slogging thru 18 pages of this, I feel compelled to add my 2 centavos worth.

Dislike of Stamos and/or his years of professing his love for the music of the Beach Boys baffles me.  In a number of cases I'm thinking maybe it's jealousy - guys thinking, "Man, why can't I be up there on stage doing what Stamos is doing?"

So in John Stamos we have a well known and very personable actor, with tremendous appeal to females, who has given the Beach Boys a huge amount of exposure to younger fans, and who loves the band to the extent that he's said playing with the Beach Boys has been the highlight of his career, and some people are bitching about it?

As a long time fan of the Beach Boys who has great appreciation for much of their more esoteric stuff, and who has seen the band and it's offshoots in concert for almost 48 years, I have absolutely no issue with John Stamos appearing with the touring Beach Boys, both today's Mike & Bruce version and the Carl, Mike, Al, and Bruce version prior to that.  It's not like he's on stage for the entire concert, and I'd say Stamos' appearance at those concerts adds to the overall sense of fun and enjoyment of the show for the majority of fans there.  For the C50 shows, though, I'd say having Stamos playing with the reunited band was a mistake, and I'm glad he was no longer onstage at the three C50 shows I saw.  It woulda been fine if he introduced the band, but it was so cool to have Brian, Mike, Al, David, and Bruce reunited and all playing together again that, from my point of view, also having Stamos on stage for those historic concerts would have been an distraction.

As I've stated a number of times previously on this board, Dennis' Forever has been my favorite Beach Boys song since the day I first heard it on Sunflower almost 44 years ago.  John Stamos has been responsible for exposing Dennis' song to countless new fans, and many have become familiar with and purchased Dennis and the Beach Boys original recording of Forever as a result of their initial exposure to the song via John Stamos, either thru watching Full House (and it countless reruns) or hearing Stamos sing it at Mike and Bruce shows.  And he has mentioned "the great Dennis Wilson" every time I have heard him sing it.

[Robbie Mac]

"What are we left with? A couple of releases that were lousily promoted and sold poorly. Any other artist of the group's stature from the 60s has two-disc (or three- or four-disc) sets of their classic albums by now, collected into deluxe boxed sets and the like. The shoddy treatment of the catalogue is directly related to how the band is perceived by the public. And don't go telling me it's just about Capitol. The BBs own their stuff past a certain point and could choose to release every piece of tape they want. But even they don't. They choose not to respect themselves, and they choose not to respect their work."

To drive the point home, I'd like to buy a copy of the Complete Friends Outakes from Beach Boys Central

Oh wait, I can't.

[Lowbacca]

I love the "Classmates to Spouses" article feat. Mr. & Mrs. Johnston.

[Robbie Mac]

Well, you're quoting me directly and claiming there's hatred of Stamos. And for what it's worth, I don't see anyone here hating the guy. I see there being a few of us who don't think he should be onstage with the group.

As for the comment about archival releases, I apologize for somehow thinking that the popular perception of a group somehow affects what a record label releases. Wherever could I have gotten such a silly idea? I also shouldn't have believed that a group's perception of itself would somehow affect what it's interested in releasing, or the labels it chooses to release it on.

The fact is, the Pet Sounds and Smile boxes were about Brian's legend and the popular music press. They were prestige projects.

The '93 and '13 boxed sets were career-spanners that included the hits.

What are we left with? A couple of releases that were lousily promoted and sold poorly. Any other artist of the group's stature from the 60s has two-disc (or three- or four-disc) sets of their classic albums by now, collected into deluxe boxed sets and the like. The shoddy treatment of the catalogue is directly related to how the band is perceived by the public. And don't go telling me it's just about Capitol. The BBs own their stuff past a certain point and could choose to release every piece of tape they want. But even they don't. They choose not to respect themselves, and they choose not to respect their work.

And as I've said -- and as Andy said above, much more pithily -- Stamos isn't the cause of this. Not even remotely. But he's its most visible symbol.

Nah, Stamos isn`t a symbol of this at all. He`s not connected to it in any way shape or form.

How?

[Nicko1234]

Well, you're quoting me directly and claiming there's hatred of Stamos. And for what it's worth, I don't see anyone here hating the guy. I see there being a few of us who don't think he should be onstage with the group.

As for the comment about archival releases, I apologize for somehow thinking that the popular perception of a group somehow affects what a record label releases. Wherever could I have gotten such a silly idea? I also shouldn't have believed that a group's perception of itself would somehow affect what it's interested in releasing, or the labels it chooses to release it on.

The fact is, the Pet Sounds and Smile boxes were about Brian's legend and the popular music press. They were prestige projects.

The '93 and '13 boxed sets were career-spanners that included the hits.

What are we left with? A couple of releases that were lousily promoted and sold poorly. Any other artist of the group's stature from the 60s has two-disc (or three- or four-disc) sets of their classic albums by now, collected into deluxe boxed sets and the like. The shoddy treatment of the catalogue is directly related to how the band is perceived by the public. And don't go telling me it's just about Capitol. The BBs own their stuff past a certain point and could choose to release every piece of tape they want. But even they don't. They choose not to respect themselves, and they choose not to respect their work.

And as I've said -- and as Andy said above, much more pithily -- Stamos isn't the cause of this. Not even remotely. But he's its most visible symbol.

Nah, Stamos isn`t a symbol of this at all. He`s not connected to it in any way shape or form.

How?

It is utterly ludicrous.

[Mike's Beard]

Mike Love, the man who lets Stamos play with them, was reportedly the most vocal in getting unreleased Dennis stuff on MIC. The above comments just fall flat when examined.

[Robbie Mac]

Well, you're quoting me directly and claiming there's hatred of Stamos. And for what it's worth, I don't see anyone here hating the guy. I see there being a few of us who don't think he should be onstage with the group.

As for the comment about archival releases, I apologize for somehow thinking that the popular perception of a group somehow affects what a record label releases. Wherever could I have gotten such a silly idea? I also shouldn't have believed that a group's perception of itself would somehow affect what it's interested in releasing, or the labels it chooses to release it on.

The fact is, the Pet Sounds and Smile boxes were about Brian's legend and the popular music press. They were prestige projects.

The '93 and '13 boxed sets were career-spanners that included the hits.

What are we left with? A couple of releases that were lousily promoted and sold poorly. Any other artist of the group's stature from the 60s has two-disc (or three- or four-disc) sets of their classic albums by now, collected into deluxe boxed sets and the like. The shoddy treatment of the catalogue is directly related to how the band is perceived by the public. And don't go telling me it's just about Capitol. The BBs own their stuff past a certain point and could choose to release every piece of tape they want. But even they don't. They choose not to respect themselves, and they choose not to respect their work.

And as I've said -- and as Andy said above, much more pithily -- Stamos isn't the cause of this. Not even remotely. But he's its most visible symbol.

Nah, Stamos isn`t a symbol of this at all. He`s not connected to it in any way shape or form.

How?

It is utterly ludicrous.

Again, how?

[Ang Jones]

Mike Love, the man who lets Stamos play with them, was reportedly the most vocal in getting unreleased Dennis stuff on MIC. The above comments just fall flat when examined.

I'm glad that Mike did press for having unreleased Dennis songs on the MIC album. Mike's relationship with Dennis wasn't always good and so perhaps he was trying to make up for that. But whatever Mike's reasons, it benefitted Dennis' fans. However this fact is a totally separate issue to having John Stamos on stage with the Beach Boys.  Personal opinion but guest celebrities based just on looks and their being fans seems to trivialise a concert. Unless the celebrity can actually improve upon the band's performance or add something substantial it's just cosmetic.

I wouldn't like Brian introducing celebrities to his show just based on fame and looks either. IMO it cheapens a show - the people on stage should be there because of their musical excellence and relevance to the band.  I've heard John Stamos - his voice is OK but it doesn't sound particularly like the typical Beach Boys' vocals. Both bands have members who could sound as good or better.

[Lowbacca]

What this thread looks like to any 'normal' human being stumbling across it:

[Rocker]

I have no doubt whatsoever that John Stamos is a lovely guy. What he did for the guy in the wheelchair, and Ethan, proves that to me. I just wish he wasn't up there, trying too hard to be Dennis.

That's like saying, "Jeff Foskett is trying to hard to be Carl Wilson."     Don't we know better than to make these types of comparisons?

From ALL the concert footage I have seen, etc., I have never seen John Stamos TRYING to be anyone (other than himself), which is where I think most of us are having a problem.  As I mentioned in my first post, he seems a bit uncomfortable when he sings "Forever" when he is front and center…and I believe it is because he knows there will NEVER be a day when he fills the void left by Dennis.  He told me as much.  Stamos LOVES THE BEACH BOYS.

AGD, the misconceptions are here:
•  he plays the drums
•  he sings "Forever" on stage
•  he's the one the girls are screaming for

These 3 things are the only thing John Stamos and Dennis Wilson have in common.  Period.  He didn't write "Forever," his drumming style is not the same either. 

"I always wanted to be Dennis Wilson."
- John Stamos, actor

http://www.bignoisenow.com/billyhinsche.html



Somewhere there's an interview with Mike and he also says that Stamos was wanting to be Dennis and also planned to play Dennis in the "An american family" series.
Just for completeness.

[Nicko1234]

Well, you're quoting me directly and claiming there's hatred of Stamos. And for what it's worth, I don't see anyone here hating the guy. I see there being a few of us who don't think he should be onstage with the group.

As for the comment about archival releases, I apologize for somehow thinking that the popular perception of a group somehow affects what a record label releases. Wherever could I have gotten such a silly idea? I also shouldn't have believed that a group's perception of itself would somehow affect what it's interested in releasing, or the labels it chooses to release it on.

The fact is, the Pet Sounds and Smile boxes were about Brian's legend and the popular music press. They were prestige projects.

The '93 and '13 boxed sets were career-spanners that included the hits.

What are we left with? A couple of releases that were lousily promoted and sold poorly. Any other artist of the group's stature from the 60s has two-disc (or three- or four-disc) sets of their classic albums by now, collected into deluxe boxed sets and the like. The shoddy treatment of the catalogue is directly related to how the band is perceived by the public. And don't go telling me it's just about Capitol. The BBs own their stuff past a certain point and could choose to release every piece of tape they want. But even they don't. They choose not to respect themselves, and they choose not to respect their work.

And as I've said -- and as Andy said above, much more pithily -- Stamos isn't the cause of this. Not even remotely. But he's its most visible symbol.

Nah, Stamos isn`t a symbol of this at all. He`s not connected to it in any way shape or form.

How?

It is utterly ludicrous.

Again, how?

Because the Beach Boys releases are entirely symbiotic between the record label, the group and the record buying public. That`s been the case since the 60s.

[Cam Mott]

So no one agrees that the legacy/brand has apparently achieved a lofty level long ago that even the decades of public depravities of the Boys themselves hasn't been able to impugn?

[the captain]

So no one agrees that the legacy/brand has apparently achieved a lofty level long ago that even the decades of public depravities of the Boys themselves hasn't been able to impugn?

I more or less would agree with that, with legacy and brand dually defined as commercial success and as artistic success. The public has waxed and waned in both cases over the years, but generally speaking, they have been commercially successful (be it with new releases or best-ofs and re-releases) since the early '60s, and they have been considered artistic successes (be it with new releases or rediscovery/re-evaluation of previously released material) since the mid-60s. They are still wildly successful by any reasonable measure, and thus yes, by definition, they were able to overcome their own assorted lunacies and drama. The troubles and squabbles typically get mentioned, but it isn't ever as a sad story, but rather as something that has been overcome, or that is a minor facet of the big picture.

[leggo of my ego]

What this thread looks like to any 'normal' human being stumbling across it:

So the thread looks like we would like to execute Stamos.

Sorry, I dont hardly agree.

[leggo of my ego]

So,  as far as I'm concerned, if the Mike and Bruce show wants to let Stamos play rock idol, so be it. It annoys me, and I'd skip paying good money to see him; but if they're having fun and the soccer moms enjoy screaming for Stamos, I wish them well.

Bravo. Well Worded.

I will hopefully agree and maybe we wont be labeled as "haters"