Stamos accused…

[Ang Jones]

He is absolutely emblematic of a band that does not take itself or its music or its fans or its legacy at all seriously. And if the band doesn't care about these things, other folks won't either.

I would prefer to agree with the above. Of course the Beach Boys have been successful for many years but the current incarnation of the band is successful as a touring outfit playing mainly old hits. It's popular but the band hardly present themselves 'seriously' IMO.

[filledeplage]

He is absolutely emblematic of a band that does not take itself or its music or its fans or its legacy at all seriously. And if the band doesn't care about these things, other folks won't either.

I would prefer to agree with the above. Of course the Beach Boys have been successful for many years but the current incarnation of the band is successful as a touring outfit playing mainly old hits. It's popular but the band hardly present themselves 'seriously' IMO.

And that statement of Wirestone, in my opinion is beyond absurd.  MIC is as serious as it gets and in my view the absolute jewel in their creative crown.  That is the legacy alongside Pet Sounds Sessions, Smile Sessions, and the circa 1993 box set. 

MIC, especially, is pretty Dennis and Carl "heavy" with lead vocals.  What better tribute to both of them? MIC is the real deal.

The Touring Band have made a tough job (traveling, being jet lagged, etc.)look easy because they have mastered "keeping it light" while performing 40 plus songs as an average.  The shows are fun, and engaging every one, including those who were "under included." And after a 30 year association with the Touring Band, Stamos hardly could muddy the waters if he wanted to.

But that said, that "I wanted to be Dennis Wilson" comment is interesting.  I doubt he meant having to bear all the inner turmoil that Dennis suffered, which appears to have driven his need to "self-medicate."  Or be carried off the stage, blind drunk. (Yes, I saw that. I'm sorry to say that I did, and it still bothers me to even think about it.)

But contrasted to that, was the sober Dennis who tossed his drumsticks out to screaming teenaged girls.  And that brazenly bad boy attitude, sweaty flying hair with girls throwing their phone numbers onstage to him as the other side of the coin. And the live audience going nuts when he came out front to do a lead.

That high-functioning, viscerally-creative Dennis or capturing that free and creative spirit, that essentially "self-taught" guy that Dennis was, is certainly one to aspire to be. Stamos apparently is able to see "only the best" of Dennis and perhaps desires to "emulate" that. It is doubtful that he would wish to be smite with the disabling addiction.  Stamos took that good aspect and gave it wings when he covered "Forever." Not one time, have I ever heard him say that he (Stamos) wrote it.

And still Stamos gets dissed.  I guess it is still true that "no good deed goes unpunished."

So I guess we must respectfully disagree.

[Ang Jones]

I agree that the MIC album is an excellent representation of THE Beach Boys' career. I don't think it represents the current incarnation of the band however.

Mike and Bruce's Beach Boys offer a show that is popular and entertaining but is not representative of the whole career of the band. It is stereotypical and IMO does not take itself seriously.

[filledeplage]

I agree that the MIC album is an excellent representation of THE Beach Boys' career. I don't think it represents the current incarnation of the band however.

Mike and Bruce's Beach Boys offer a show that is popular and entertaining but is not representative of the whole career of the band. It is stereotypical and IMO does not take itself seriously.

Is the Touring Band supposed to become anachronistic? They've grown with the times. How does one cram 53 years into 2 hours?

The 1960's shows were about 13 songs. Even in 1967, that didn't represent their whole career up to that point in time. They do around forty. I'd say that is progress. 

[drbeachboy]

I agree that the MIC album is an excellent representation of THE Beach Boys' career. I don't think it represents the current incarnation of the band however.

Mike and Bruce's Beach Boys offer a show that is popular and entertaining but is not representative of the whole career of the band. It is stereotypical and IMO does not take itself seriously.

Neither does Brian the past few years. When pay to see you, you give them what they want. In most cases that is the hits.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I agree that the MIC album is an excellent representation of THE Beach Boys' career. I don't think it represents the current incarnation of the band however.

This may come as something of a shock to you, so you might want to sit down... but MiC isn't supposed to represent the current incarnation of The Beach Boys: it's a comprehensive overview of their career 1961-2012, as you've already stated. Thus you've entirely invalidated whatever abstruse point you were trying to make.

[Andrew G. Doe]

He is absolutely emblematic of a band that does not take itself or its music or its fans or its legacy at all seriously. And if the band doesn't care about these things, other folks won't either.

I would prefer to agree with the above. Of course the Beach Boys have been successful for many years but the current incarnation of the band is successful as a touring outfit playing mainly old hits. It's popular but the band hardly present themselves 'seriously' IMO.

Having witnessed Mike's band both soundchecking and going through that days setlist, I beg to differ: they do take themselves, and the music they're playing, very seriously. Plus, it's pretty hard to present yourself "seriously" when singing the likes of "Surfin' USA", "Help Me, Rhonda" or even "Good Vibrations".

[the captain]

One of the worst developments in pop/rock music was the idea that it should be--or even that it was better when it was--serious.

[The Cincinnati Kid]

One of the worst developments in pop/rock music was the idea that it should be--or even that it was better when it was--serious.

Exactly

[Robbie Mac]

He is absolutely emblematic of a band that does not take itself or its music or its fans or its legacy at all seriously. And if the band doesn't care about these things, other folks won't either.

I would prefer to agree with the above. Of course the Beach Boys have been successful for many years but the current incarnation of the band is successful as a touring outfit playing mainly old hits. It's popular but the band hardly present themselves 'seriously' IMO.

And that statement of Wirestone, in my opinion is beyond absurd.  MIC is as serious as it gets and in my view the absolute jewel in their creative crown.  That is the legacy alongside Pet Sounds Sessions, Smile Sessions, and the circa 1993 box set. 

MIC, especially, is pretty Dennis and Carl "heavy" with lead vocals.  What better tribute to both of them? MIC is the real deal.

The Touring Band have made a tough job (traveling, being jet lagged, etc.)look easy because they have mastered "keeping it light" while performing 40 plus songs as an average.  The shows are fun, and engaging every one, including those who were "under included." And after a 30 year association with the Touring Band, Stamos hardly could muddy the waters if he wanted to.

But that said, that "I wanted to be Dennis Wilson" comment is interesting.  I doubt he meant having to bear all the inner turmoil that Dennis suffered, which appears to have driven his need to "self-medicate."  Or be carried off the stage, blind drunk. (Yes, I saw that. I'm sorry to say that I did, and it still bothers me to even think about it.)

But contrasted to that, was the sober Dennis who tossed his drumsticks out to screaming teenaged girls.  And that brazenly bad boy attitude, sweaty flying hair with girls throwing their phone numbers onstage to him as the other side of the coin. And the live audience going nuts when he came out front to do a lead.

That high-functioning, viscerally-creative Dennis or capturing that free and creative spirit, that essentially "self-taught" guy that Dennis was, is certainly one to aspire to be. Stamos apparently is able to see "only the best" of Dennis and perhaps desires to "emulate" that. It is doubtful that he would wish to be smite with the disabling addiction.  Stamos took that good aspect and gave it wings when he covered "Forever." Not one time, have I ever heard him say that he (Stamos) wrote it.

And still Stamos gets dissed.  I guess it is still true that "no good deed goes unpunished."

So I guess we must respectfully disagree.

I am really disheartened to see  a great writer, fan, and historian like Clay Wirestone being called "patently absurd" by people who should know better.


Taking your legacy and brand seriously does not mean that your art can't be fun. The Beatles protect their brand name very heavily and take their legacy seriously but at the same time the products that do get released  whether it be CDS or video games or merch exude a certain jovial fun.

The same care was never taken with the Beach Boys brand and it has suffered for it. The brand has been successful but that is in spite of BRI's ineptitude not because of any stroke of "brilliance". Like I said, Stamos isn't the cause of this, hut he is it's most prominent symbol of a brand that still markets itself like it is still the 1980's and a band that has no clue that generations of hip music makers look to its most ambitious music as inspiration.

[guitarfool2002]

One of the worst developments in pop/rock music was the idea that it should be--or even that it was better when it was--serious.

I'll always disagree with the sentiment, no matter how it's worded. The question is - why?

Have you ever seen the "Inside Pop" broadcast, first aired on CBS in April 1967? If not, please check it out and consider what one of the underlying themes was that ran throughout the full hour.

Related specifically to the Beach Boys - Where does that leave songs from the "early days", 1962 and 1963, which were and are still pretty "serious" in their themes and even their delivery? "In My Room", "Warmth Of The Sun", "The Lonely Sea" to name one which could be one of the most emotionally 'heavy' songs they ever recorded, and this when Brian was still in his teens, basically.

Are those songs fun? Are they old-time switchblade and leather jacket 50's swaggering and delinquent rock-and-roll that was as much of an ideal as anything real? Should they not have been part of the band's legacy in favor of all fun and sun, all the time?

So serious songs in pop and rock were at least a major part of even the Beach Boys' musical universe as early as the first releases.

And consider the issue of rock/pop and getting taken as serious - whatever the sentiment - the music was part of a much larger social and generational groundswell that was happening in the mid-60's, post-Beatlemania. The music was a vehicle, perhaps the most valuable vehicle they had to reach millions of people through "pop" music and pop culture. This notion was unique to that era because the fight was on for not only respect, but also validation and the notion that what we have to say is important enough to listen.

And that our music is just as fucking good and intelligent and valid as the 200 year old stuff we're learning in school. And sometimes it is, in fact, meant to be taken seriously.  

[guitarfool2002]

One of the worst developments in pop/rock music was the idea that it should be--or even that it was better when it was--serious.

Exactly

Should we make a list with all of the pre-1964 songs that were labeled "pop" but which actually dealt with serious topics in the lyrics? I mean, apart from "The Lonely Sea" and "In My Room" and the other early BB's tunes I just mentioned in the post. Or how about those that have...HORRORS...string and woodwind based orchestral arrangements that were adapted from the "serious" music.

And when, exactly, did this "development" happen? Approximate year would be fine.

[ESQ Editor]

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.

Yeah…a rock star…even to go so far as to be envious of Dennis' writing ability.  Have any of us — even briefly — thought, "I wish I had a voice like Carl's," or…I wish I could write a song like, "Cabin Essence" (using my example here).

Stamo's comment does NOT mean his desire is to REPLACE Dennis.  The guy plays the drums, so it is natural for him to marvel @ Dennis' style.  The way this post is loosely thrown out here is to suggest that John Stamos — in between yogurt commercials — has been developing a long term plot (with his mentor Mike Love) to s-l-o-w-l-y remove the memory of Dennis Wilson from the Beach Boys.    Sure…why not?  Better watch out…the next BB greatest hist compilation will include the John Stamos version of "Forever."    

What a JOKE!!

The greatest problem with this message board (and all the others…and the main reason I hardly post) is too many people take too many liberties in trying to be right about something, so they don't think through what they're typing.  If you removed all of the misconception / misleading / uninformed posts, this thread would be two pages long.

The number of posts in this thread (alone) where the lines have been blurred between actuality and opinion is alarming.

[ESQ Editor]

Here's a question (please don't answer AGD):
Which member of The Beach Boys is primarily responsible for initiating the group's changing back to oldies act in 1974?

Don't guess… Oh, and it wasn't John Stamos.

[ESQ Editor]

He is absolutely emblematic of a band that does not take itself or its music or its fans or its legacy at all seriously. And if the band doesn't care about these things, other folks won't either.

I would prefer to agree with the above. Of course the Beach Boys have been successful for many years but the current incarnation of the band is successful as a touring outfit playing mainly old hits. It's popular but the band hardly present themselves 'seriously' IMO.

And that statement of Wirestone, in my opinion is beyond absurd.  MIC is as serious as it gets and in my view the absolute jewel in their creative crown.  That is the legacy alongside Pet Sounds Sessions, Smile Sessions, and the circa 1993 box set. 

MIC, especially, is pretty Dennis and Carl "heavy" with lead vocals.  What better tribute to both of them? MIC is the real deal.

The Touring Band have made a tough job (traveling, being jet lagged, etc.)look easy because they have mastered "keeping it light" while performing 40 plus songs as an average.  The shows are fun, and engaging every one, including those who were "under included." And after a 30 year association with the Touring Band, Stamos hardly could muddy the waters if he wanted to.

But that said, that "I wanted to be Dennis Wilson" comment is interesting.  I doubt he meant having to bear all the inner turmoil that Dennis suffered, which appears to have driven his need to "self-medicate."  Or be carried off the stage, blind drunk. (Yes, I saw that. I'm sorry to say that I did, and it still bothers me to even think about it.)

But contrasted to that, was the sober Dennis who tossed his drumsticks out to screaming teenaged girls.  And that brazenly bad boy attitude, sweaty flying hair with girls throwing their phone numbers onstage to him as the other side of the coin. And the live audience going nuts when he came out front to do a lead.

That high-functioning, viscerally-creative Dennis or capturing that free and creative spirit, that essentially "self-taught" guy that Dennis was, is certainly one to aspire to be. Stamos apparently is able to see "only the best" of Dennis and perhaps desires to "emulate" that. It is doubtful that he would wish to be smite with the disabling addiction.  Stamos took that good aspect and gave it wings when he covered "Forever." Not one time, have I ever heard him say that he (Stamos) wrote it.

And still Stamos gets dissed.  I guess it is still true that "no good deed goes unpunished."

So I guess we must respectfully disagree.

Well said.

[the captain]

One of the worst developments in pop/rock music was the idea that it should be--or even that it was better when it was--serious.

I'll always disagree with the sentiment, no matter how it's worded. The question is - why?

I don't mind being disagreed with. (Also, yes, I've seen the "Inside Pop" show. It was painful for the most part, though it was fun to see the BW segment.)

Here is why I said what I said: because the idea that serious pop music, or pop music with aims above entertainment, is somehow superior to pure entertainment, leads to a kind of self-importance and pretentiousness that turns me off. Let's be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a place for serious music, be it pop or otherwise. What I'm saying is that the idea that pop music should be serious is wrong. That a concept album is better than a collection of pure pop is wrong. That having consequential subject matter is better than disposable enjoyment is wrong. They are different things. They sometimes intersect, other times not. There is a place for them both and no need to pretend one is more admirable an achievement.

[Cam Mott]

Here's a question (please don't answer AGD):
Which member of The Beach Boys is primarily responsible for initiating the group's changing back to oldies act in 1974?

Don't guess… Oh, and it wasn't John Stamos.

Carl?

[Cam Mott]

One of the worst developments in pop/rock music was the idea that it should be--or even that it was better when it was--serious.

Exactly

Should we make a list with all of the pre-1964 songs that were labeled "pop" but which actually dealt with serious topics in the lyrics? I mean, apart from "The Lonely Sea" and "In My Room" and the other early BB's tunes I just mentioned in the post. Or how about those that have...HORRORS...string and woodwind based orchestral arrangements that were adapted from the "serious" music.

And when, exactly, did this "development" happen? Approximate year would be fine.

1965/66?

[guitarfool2002]

One of the worst developments in pop/rock music was the idea that it should be--or even that it was better when it was--serious.

I'll always disagree with the sentiment, no matter how it's worded. The question is - why?

I don't mind being disagreed with. (Also, yes, I've seen the "Inside Pop" show. It was painful for the most part, though it was fun to see the BW segment.)

Here is why I said what I said: because the idea that serious pop music, or pop music with aims above entertainment, is somehow superior to pure entertainment, leads to a kind of self-importance and pretentiousness that turns me off. Let's be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a place for serious music, be it pop or otherwise. What I'm saying is that the idea that pop music should be serious is wrong. That a concept album is better than a collection of pure pop is wrong. That having consequential subject matter is better than disposable enjoyment is wrong. They are different things. They sometimes intersect, other times not. There is a place for them both and no need to pretend one is more admirable an achievement.

And what I'm suggesting is that the Beach Boys are a band who as far back as 1962 were able to combine both the serious and the fun in ways that allowed them to coexist, and coexist to the point where the same band can have two distinct groups of fans being enthusiastic about the music for separate and distinct reasons. This still exists today.

What I do think may have caused difficulty for the band in general is when that simple point got twisted into thinking fans would want to see something like the "Summer Of Love" video as it appeared in the Baywatch TV show.

In that case, it's almost dismissing entirely what perhaps a lot of the group's fan base would want in terms of seeing a new offering from one of their favorite bands.

I thought the band in 2012 struck a nice balance between the fun and the "serious" on "That's Why God Made The Radio", understanding that the people most likely to buy the album were not going to want to hear a full album of suites and multi-movement concept songs, nor would they want another Kokomo retread or "Summer Of Love".

And in that way, they struck that balance...hell, they even struck a near-perfect balance with the setlists the anniversary tour gave the fans by featuring both the crowd singalong classic hits and the heavier album cuts...and it still upset me to see Mike for one lamenting that there wasn't a commercial hit single or in other ways downing the album project.

The balance was pretty close at that time, too bad it got messed up.

[the captain]

guitarfool2002, I guess my response is that I don't believe in a "perfect balance," either, because it requires some objectively perfect listener. There are always a multitude of tastes--and more so for bands with longer and more varied histories--and so that "perfect balance" isn't perfect for people who want only hits, or only early 70s environmentalism, or late 60s whimsy, or romantic mid 60s balance, or late 70s synth, or whatever else. One man's perfect balance is another's milquetoast, please-nobody compromise.  

Edit -- I should add that last sentence isn't my position. I actually agree that there was a pretty good setlist for C50, a solid attempt at pleasing various fan-factions.

[guitarfool2002]

One of the worst developments in pop/rock music was the idea that it should be--or even that it was better when it was--serious.

Exactly

Should we make a list with all of the pre-1964 songs that were labeled "pop" but which actually dealt with serious topics in the lyrics? I mean, apart from "The Lonely Sea" and "In My Room" and the other early BB's tunes I just mentioned in the post. Or how about those that have...HORRORS...string and woodwind based orchestral arrangements that were adapted from the "serious" music.

And when, exactly, did this "development" happen? Approximate year would be fine.

1965/66?

I meant when the music itself first started getting labeled "serious"...and it was a rhetorical question. Just as there were many "serious" critics trying to dismiss rock and pop outright, finding batshit crazy intellectual ways to dismiss it, you'd also have "serious" critics even in the UK in 1963 finding ways to praise the music of the Beatles using the standards they were most likely to apply to a Philharmonic recording or a new album from a quote serious artist.

The musicians - most of them, anyway - took their music very serious, and I think as much as they didn't care what the high-minded critics would think, don't you feel that they wanted their contributions to the music and art world to be recognized and heard by those who were simply out to dismiss and denigrate it because of what genre it was rather than what the music actually sounded like?

In other words, if the musicians didn't take themselves and the music seriously, who else would? There was something very subversive about having groups of kids who had the negative image already at play by things as ridiculous and petty as the clothes they wore or their haircuts when those groups of long-haired kids showed everyone they could play...REALLY play their instruments, they could write songs using the same structures and techniques as the 'serious" musicians and their styles whether classical or jazz, and most of all that they were not an image or a joke. They actually were *valid* as musicians and writers.

That in the 60's was a massive development. Rock and pop could not be written off as some tried in the 50's, it went beyond and reached higher. (more ways than one...   )

[The Cincinnati Kid]

One of the worst developments in pop/rock music was the idea that it should be--or even that it was better when it was--serious.

Exactly

Should we make a list with all of the pre-1964 songs that were labeled "pop" but which actually dealt with serious topics in the lyrics? I mean, apart from "The Lonely Sea" and "In My Room" and the other early BB's tunes I just mentioned in the post. Or how about those that have...HORRORS...string and woodwind based orchestral arrangements that were adapted from the "serious" music.

And when, exactly, did this "development" happen? Approximate year would be fine.

I wasn't suggesting that the BBs had no serious songs pre-1964.  I like both serious and "non serious" songs anyway.  When I was agreeing with him I assumed he was talking about the reason why the BBs are viewed differently than a band like the Beatles.  For example whenever the BBs are mentioned in the news, I can't recall any song other than Surfin' USA being played in the clip.  People today look at them as a fun in the sun band with a bunch of songs that some may view as cheesy.  They never get credit for Surf's Up, H&V, etc.  And they aren't taken seriously as a result.

[drbeachboy]

One of the worst developments in pop/rock music was the idea that it should be--or even that it was better when it was--serious.

I'll always disagree with the sentiment, no matter how it's worded. The question is - why?

I don't mind being disagreed with. (Also, yes, I've seen the "Inside Pop" show. It was painful for the most part, though it was fun to see the BW segment.)

Here is why I said what I said: because the idea that serious pop music, or pop music with aims above entertainment, is somehow superior to pure entertainment, leads to a kind of self-importance and pretentiousness that turns me off. Let's be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a place for serious music, be it pop or otherwise. What I'm saying is that the idea that pop music should be serious is wrong. That a concept album is better than a collection of pure pop is wrong. That having consequential subject matter is better than disposable enjoyment is wrong. They are different things. They sometimes intersect, other times not. There is a place for them both and no need to pretend one is more admirable an achievement.

And what I'm suggesting is that the Beach Boys are a band who as far back as 1962 were able to combine both the serious and the fun in ways that allowed them to coexist, and coexist to the point where the same band can have two distinct groups of fans being enthusiastic about the music for separate and distinct reasons. This still exists today.

What I do think may have caused difficulty for the band in general is when that simple point got twisted into thinking fans would want to see something like the "Summer Of Love" video as it appeared in the Baywatch TV show.

In that case, it's almost dismissing entirely what perhaps a lot of the group's fan base would want in terms of seeing a new offering from one of their favorite bands.

I thought the band in 2012 struck a nice balance between the fun and the "serious" on "That's Why God Made The Radio", understanding that the people most likely to buy the album were not going to want to hear a full album of suites and multi-movement concept songs, nor would they want another Kokomo retread or "Summer Of Love".

And in that way, they struck that balance...hell, they even struck a near-perfect balance with the setlists the anniversary tour gave the fans by featuring both the crowd singalong classic hits and the heavier album cuts...and it still upset me to see Mike for one lamenting that there wasn't a commercial hit single or in other ways downing the album project.

The balance was pretty close at that time, too bad it got messed up.

I agree that Mike needs to get over having the hit record mentality. Good Timin' was the last Top 40 hit from an album and before that was Rock and Roll Music and before that I Can Hear Music. They have gone many, many years without a hit from an album. Weird that both Brian and Mike still think way when their style of music is nowhere near what makes a hit today. Maybe they need to go Country.

[Ang Jones]

I agree that the MIC album is an excellent representation of THE Beach Boys' career. I don't think it represents the current incarnation of the band however.

This may come as something of a shock to you, so you might want to sit down... but MiC isn't supposed to represent the current incarnation of The Beach Boys: it's a comprehensive overview of their career 1961-2012, as you've already stated. Thus you've entirely invalidated whatever abstruse point you were trying to make.

It was fille de plage who wrote "MIC is as serious as it gets and in my view the absolute jewel in their creative crown."  This was in reply to my comment "Of course the Beach Boys have been successful for many years but the current incarnation of the band is successful as a touring outfit playing mainly old hits. It's popular but the band hardly present themselves 'seriously' IMO."

As M&B's BBs are not allowed as I understand it to record new material under the name 'the Beach Boys' obviously MIC has nothing to do with them as a band although Mike and Bruce were  both part of The Beach Boys in an earlier incarnation.

I don't dispute that M&B's band are hard working and take their job seriously. I do dispute that the version of the Beach Boys they present shows the music at its best. Even though in some shows Brian does a similar set, there isn't the same carnival atmosphere of beach balls being thrown around. Someone recently commented on FB how good it was to hear the quiet bit of GV without Mike talking over it. THAT kind of taking it seriously.

[drbeachboy]

I agree that the MIC album is an excellent representation of THE Beach Boys' career. I don't think it represents the current incarnation of the band however.

This may come as something of a shock to you, so you might want to sit down... but MiC isn't supposed to represent the current incarnation of The Beach Boys: it's a comprehensive overview of their career 1961-2012, as you've already stated. Thus you've entirely invalidated whatever abstruse point you were trying to make.

It was fille de plage who wrote "MIC is as serious as it gets and in my view the absolute jewel in their creative crown."  This was in reply to my comment "Of course the Beach Boys have been successful for many years but the current incarnation of the band is successful as a touring outfit playing mainly old hits. It's popular but the band hardly present themselves 'seriously' IMO."

As M&B's BBs are not allowed as I understand it to record new material under the name 'the Beach Boys' obviously MIC has nothing to do with them.

I don't dispute that M&B's band are hard working and take their job seriously. I do dispute that the version of the Beach Boys they present shows the music at its best. Even though in some shows Brian does a similar set, there isn't the same carnival atmosphere of beach balls being thrown around. Someone recently commented on FB how good it was to hear the quiet bit of GV without Mike talking over it. THAT kind of taking it seriously.

Even in 1974 I saw beach balls being thrown in the audience. That just as the oldies set was becoming more prominent. Plus, how do beach balls at a concert dummy down a band's performance?