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, 10:49:37 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: How were the Beach Boys recieved in the late 60s/70s?  (Read 7816 times)
thechaplin
Smiley Smile Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 7


View Profile
« on: August 20, 2014, 07:40:33 PM »

I am nearly 40 years old, and own most BB albums (as well as most solo albums by Brian and of course POB by Denny). I got deeply into the BBs about 15 years while in college, after picking up a copy of the Sunflower/Surf's Up double album. That of course lead me to discover other later gems, such as Friends, Carl and the Passions, Love You (it's one of my favorites..), 20/20, etc. However, I must admit... as a kid, and even a pretty astute music fan in high school, I had no idea that the BBs had such a wonderful, prolific career in the late 60s and 70s. As a kid, I grew up listening to the BBs while riding in the car with my dad, or at home... you know, Surfin USA, California Girls, I Get Around, Surfer Girl, Help Me Rhonda, etc. And of course I was familair with Kokomo and the stuff they were doing on Full House with John Stamos. But again, it wasn't until college that I discovered the treasure chest of BBs material. I know MANY others my age now who had no idea that the BBs were even around in the 70s. In fact, I played Sunflower and Love You for a friend last weekend... he was totally blown away. So, I guess, as someone who wasnt around then, why is this music not as well known as the early stuff? Was it just not popular then? And if not... WHY?!
Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2014, 08:06:52 PM »

In their homeland in particular The Beach Boys were seen as uncool in the late 60s and very early 70s. Fred Vail has recounted the tale of taking Add Some Music to a radio station and being told that they couldn`t play it because The Beach Boys weren`t hip anymore. Outside America things were different with Cottonfields a big hit pretty much everywhere.

Why the hits then stopped pretty much everywhere is more debatable but probably comes down to a lack of really commercial singles...

Obviously the Brian`s Back campaign led to 15 Big Ones becoming a big hit but Love You was completely uncommercial and the record buying public probably realized that they`d been duped and weren`t going to fall for it again.
Logged
kookadams
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 656


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2014, 11:32:57 PM »

The Beach Boys were huge outside the US in the late 60s/early 70s cuz the American music consumers at that time had given up on rockNroll AND rockNroll wasnt a viable force anymore at that time but all the way up to 67 it was huge, go fig .
Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 22, 2014, 11:44:47 PM »

The Beach Boys were huge outside the US in the late 60s/early 70s cuz the American music consumers at that time had given up on rockNroll AND rockNroll wasnt a viable force anymore at that time but all the way up to 67 it was huge, go fig .

I don't know if you've listened to a lot of late 60's/early 70's Beach Boys albums, but they were hardly making rock and roll music during this period of their existence.
Logged
kookadams
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 656


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: August 22, 2014, 11:48:48 PM »

Smiley smile, wild honey, 20/20, sunflower ,surfs up and holland sound like rock to me, they sure werent country or bigband, ha/
Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2014, 12:03:27 AM »

Smiley smile, wild honey, 20/20, sunflower ,surfs up and holland sound like rock to me, they sure werent country or bigband, ha/

Smiley Smile = weirdo pop music
Wild Honey = soul/R&B
Friends = lush pop music
20/20 = an amalgam of styles, essentially pop/rock
Sunflower = pop
Surf's Up = an amalgam of styles, essentially pop/rock
CATP-ST = earthy pop/rock songs (more rock)
Holland = earthy pop/rock songs (more pop)

Out of these seven albums that spanned six years, only two can really be considered rock and roll songs: "All I Want to Do" and "Got to Know the Woman", and neither were particularly good. If the UK was looking for rock and roll in the Beach Boys, they sure had to wade through a lot of other music to get to it.
Logged
kookadams
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 656


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2014, 12:08:15 AM »

I see what ya mean....still rock tho.
Logged
Ian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1833


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2014, 04:11:01 AM »

This has been discussed many times. The problem wasn't the music itself it was that the beach boys clean cut, squeaky clean image was out of step with the times and the bbs waited much too long to rectify this. Although they really had nothing in common with them, they became associated with bubble gum pop music acts. Capitol in the states really hurt them by continuing to market them as a surf act as late as 1968. But the bbs really allowed bad packaging and outdated photos to be used for lp covers and publicity for a long time.
Logged
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2014, 07:01:29 AM »

This has been discussed many times. The problem wasn't the music itself it was that the beach boys clean cut, squeaky clean image was out of step with the times and the bbs waited much too long to rectify this. Although they really had nothing in common with them, they became associated with bubble gum pop music acts. Capitol in the states really hurt them by continuing to market them as a surf act as late as 1968. But the bbs really allowed bad packaging and outdated photos to be used for lp covers and publicity for a long time.

   Best of The Beach Boys Vol 3 was a truly substandard compilation in the U.S. "Frosty the Snowman"Huh  Consider the next year's seminal Stones' comp Through the Past, Darkly (Big Hits Vol 2) and be struck by how poorly The Beach Boys were being marketed by Capitol Records.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2014, 07:33:09 AM »

The Beach Boys were huge outside the US in the late 60s/early 70s cuz the American music consumers at that time had given up on rockNroll AND rockNroll wasnt a viable force anymore at that time but all the way up to 67 it was huge, go fig .

Quote
Smiley smile, wild honey, 20/20, sunflower ,surfs up and holland sound like rock to me, they sure werent country or bigband, ha/

I genuinely do not understand your claim here. On the one hand, you seem to be saying that the reason why The Beach Boys were successful in Europe post-67 is because American audiences abandoned "rockNroll" whereas European audience hadn't. Yet, as I demonstrated to you in another thread, there were PLENTY of big-selling hits in the U.S. post-1967 that could be easily characterized as "rockNroll." And, certainly, if you are going to characterize Smiley Smile as rock and not, say, psychedelia, then the vast majority of songs on the Billboard charts in the late 60s would have fit the bill.

Again, it is quite simply untrue to say that Beach Boys-style music (certainly the kind of music that they were making in the late 60s) was not "a viable force" in the U.S. Indeed, someone like Burt Bacharach had two top 10 songs in 1968, including a #1 song. Friends, meanwhile, charted at 126. Now I noticed that you conveniently left Friends off the list. So am I to assume from that that you don't consider that "rockNroll" - in that case, shouldn't it have been more successful than Wild Honey and 20/20 rather than less? In reality, though, Friends did what many other Beach Boys records did in the late 60s/early 70s: bad in the US, good in the UK. And, either way, it's not as if music that was like Friends that was produced by other artists didn't do well in the US. The problem, for American audiences, was not simply the music that was being played (that's demonstrated by reviewing the charts) but who was playing it.

I also don't understand how in the same breath you can condemn Beatles albums like Sgt. Pepper and The White Album for abandoning the rock and roll aesthetic that they were so good at until 1966, and praise albums like Smiley Smile and Sunflower because they "sound like rock to me." How is something like Smiley Smile rock while The White Album isn't?

Also, wouldn't you say that some of what The Beach Boys were doing was country? What do you make of Cottonfields which charted at #103 in the US but #5 in the UK and #1 in many other places?

My belief is that you are trying to create a narrative in order to explain why The Beach Boys were unsuccessful in the US but successful in Europe. But the narrative is false and, as a result, you are forced into making contradictory claims. It is NOT true that US audiences were closed off to rock music after 1967 but since you are offering that as your premise then you are forced to characterize "rock music" that was successful as being "not rock music but psychedelia or production-pieces and you are likewise forced to characterize albums like Smiley Smile as "rock".
« Last Edit: August 23, 2014, 07:49:32 AM by rockandroll » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 23, 2014, 10:08:29 AM »

This has been discussed many times. The problem wasn't the music itself it was that the beach boys clean cut, squeaky clean image was out of step with the times and the bbs waited much too long to rectify this. Although they really had nothing in common with them, they became associated with bubble gum pop music acts. Capitol in the states really hurt them by continuing to market them as a surf act as late as 1968. But the bbs really allowed bad packaging and outdated photos to be used for lp covers and publicity for a long time.

I'd like to add two comments and questions to consider with this, one of them I might take some heat for.

1. The Beach Boys were whistleblowers who exposed a hidden business practice that Capitol Records was taking advantage of to the tune of potentially millions of dollars which they were not paying to the artists who should have gotten a portion of that money. This was brought out in the 1967 lawsuit that led to both a $250,000 settlement for the band *and* the setup of Brother Records, which on paper would have given the band somewhat of an autonomy to make their own decisions while still remaining in Capitol's marketing and distribution chain.

But consider the implications of that: The Beach Boys got the money, they got Brother Records, but they also cost Capitol money, they exposed a not-so-honest business practice which was only discovered through a deep financial audit, and what we don't hear is how many other artists may have followed up on the same thing regarding their own books...to the tune of saying "The Beach Boys got ripped off, hey...did they do that to us too?". I know Allen Klein for one used a very similar tactic to win clients for himself by having a team of lawyers and accountants go over an artist's books and find money that he could win back for that artist, and it was usually something like the breakage/returns case that the Beach Boys won after suing Capitol. And Capitol had also not paid Brian Wilson certain producers' royalties and credits which he was due.

Capitol I'm sure wasn't too happy with this whole scene, and it could add an element to why certain marketing and business decisions were less than they could or should have been regarding the band post-lawsuit in 67, at least in the US. There may have been a price to be paid for blowing the whistle on a major label. Just a thought.

2. As of 2014 there is and has been a lot of pride from certain band members regarding contributions to certain now-classic songs like California Girls, I Get Around, etc. Consider if and when during this time period being discussed in this topic there was a lot of criticism and negative commentary if not outright disdain towards The Beach Boys music, suggesting it was "out of step", "corny", "naive", "lightweight pop", "bubblegum"...whatever the lingo of the times may have been, compared to whatever artists and music was being considered relevant, important, "having a message", whatever the case...

...Where were those band members then to step up and take more ownership and pride of that classic music in face of the criticism? Or did they and I'm just not recalling the quotes or interviews where they did?

Because it seems like a lot of the so-called hip and relevant folks were really coming down hard on the music, playing the out of touch card, yet how often did someone active in the band step up and say "You know what? These are great records, we're proud of them, and I'm/we were proud to be a part of them. The music holds up, simple as that. Next question."

The reaction...songs like "Student Demonstration Time", for me one of the most ham-fisted attempts at relevancy and trying to have a "message song" that any major artist has ever done.

Then when fans began to rethink and rediscover the 60's classics like California Girls, I Get Around, Good Vibrations...and they started to sell again...now the narrative changed to "I'm/we are so proud to have been a part of creating that music", "I can remember writing that one in the backseat of a car driving to the studio", whatever the case. That is still the message.

Where was the pride when the band's music was being destroyed by the hip and relevant folks? Again I can't recall any specific times when it was said, but maybe I wish the band had taken a more bold stance and challenged the criticism by saying something as simple as "These are damn good records, and we're proud to have them as part of our catalog."

Those few years were rough.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
kookadams
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 656


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: August 23, 2014, 11:39:02 AM »

Guitarfool2002, all I gotta say is amen!
Logged
Emdeeh
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2980



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 23, 2014, 12:54:19 PM »

The reaction...songs like "Student Demonstration Time", for me one of the most ham-fisted attempts at relevancy and trying to have a "message song" that any major artist has ever done.

Ironically, if they had done "Riot in Cellblock 9" instead of SDT, it would have been more relevant at the time -- see Attica for an example.
Logged
smilethebeachboysloveyou
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 628



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 23, 2014, 01:11:43 PM »

1. The Beach Boys were whistleblowers who exposed a hidden business practice that Capitol Records was taking advantage of to the tune of potentially millions of dollars which they were not paying to the artists who should have gotten a portion of that money. This was brought out in the 1967 lawsuit that led to both a $250,000 settlement for the band *and* the setup of Brother Records, which on paper would have given the band somewhat of an autonomy to make their own decisions while still remaining in Capitol's marketing and distribution chain.

But consider the implications of that: The Beach Boys got the money, they got Brother Records, but they also cost Capitol money, they exposed a not-so-honest business practice which was only discovered through a deep financial audit, and what we don't hear is how many other artists may have followed up on the same thing regarding their own books...to the tune of saying "The Beach Boys got ripped off, hey...did they do that to us too?". I know Allen Klein for one used a very similar tactic to win clients for himself by having a team of lawyers and accountants go over an artist's books and find money that he could win back for that artist, and it was usually something like the breakage/returns case that the Beach Boys won after suing Capitol. And Capitol had also not paid Brian Wilson certain producers' royalties and credits which he was due.

Capitol I'm sure wasn't too happy with this whole scene, and it could add an element to why certain marketing and business decisions were less than they could or should have been regarding the band post-lawsuit in 67, at least in the US. There may have been a price to be paid for blowing the whistle on a major label. Just a thought.

Interesting theory.  The one thing I would caution about is that even though the lawsuit cost Capitol Records money, the fact that The Beach Boys' records stopped selling as well as they did earlier in the decade also cut back on the company's profits.  It would take a lot of spite on the part of Capitol to sabotage one of their own band's careers (which is not to say that that isn't what happened).  On the other hand, it's possible that the lawsuit irreparably damaged their relationship so that the band and Capitol weren't able to coordinate an updating of the band's image as well as they might have had they been on better terms.
Logged
Dave in KC
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 630


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 23, 2014, 01:21:14 PM »

WMMS-FM in Cleveland started playing SDT in July 1971. Known as one of the most respected rock stations of that era, I don't believe they thought the song a sour attempt. Of course, Kent State U being close by may have played into their decision. Just the guitar work on that song alone makes it a winner. It certainly helped Surf's Up popularity.
Logged
alf wiedersehen
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2178


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2014, 01:26:33 PM »

People don't like it now, so when they look back, they project their own views of the songs onto other people and say "everyone must have hated it" - and they didn't.
Logged
SenorPotatoHead
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 272



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2014, 05:41:12 PM »

Smiley smile, wild honey, 20/20, sunflower ,surfs up and holland sound like rock to me, they sure werent country or bigband, ha/

Smiley Smile = weirdo pop music
Wild Honey = soul/R&B
Friends = lush pop music
20/20 = an amalgam of styles, essentially pop/rock
Sunflower = pop
Surf's Up = an amalgam of styles, essentially pop/rock
CATP-ST = earthy pop/rock songs (more rock)
Holland = earthy pop/rock songs (more pop)

Out of these seven albums that spanned six years, only two can really be considered rock and roll songs: "All I Want to Do" and "Got to Know the Woman", and neither were particularly good. If the UK was looking for rock and roll in the Beach Boys, they sure had to wade through a lot of other music to get to it.

They were never a rock band though.  not in the sense of the types of rock bands which inhabited the late 60's and early 70's.    But there was plenty of pop that was successful and well thought of  during these years - lighter sounds or whatever.   The music wasn't the problem, as has been stated, it was all perception and a seeming inability to over come that.   I also think Warners made a mistake in micro managing the groups albums. 
Logged
clack
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 537


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2014, 06:01:35 PM »

Two different questions being conflated here. 1) Why did it take them until 1971 to cross over to the counter-culture FM radio audience? 2) Why did they stop having AM radio hits in the US circa 1969?

The answer to question 1 is well understood, I believe. As to why they were abandoned by top 40 pop radio after 'Do It Again',  I've never seen a convincing explanation. 'Hipness' or the lack of same wouldn't be a concern while the Carpenters, say,  or the Archies were topping the charts.
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2014, 07:18:23 PM »

Quote
As of 2014 there is and has been a lot of pride from certain band members regarding contributions to certain now-classic songs like California Girls, I Get Around, etc. Consider if and when during this time period being discussed in this topic there was a lot of criticism and negative commentary if not outright disdain towards The Beach Boys music, suggesting it was "out of step", "corny", "naive", "lightweight pop", "bubblegum"...whatever the lingo of the times may have been, compared to whatever artists and music was being considered relevant, important, "having a message", whatever the case...

...Where were those band members then to step up and take more ownership and pride of that classic music in face of the criticism? Or did they and I'm just not recalling the quotes or interviews where they did?

Here's another paradox. At a certain point (BEFORE Endless Summer!), the fans in attendance at their shows would respond with indifference to much of the then-new material yet respond ravenously to the 'classics', much to the consternation of the band members...INCLUDING Mike. (the excellent In Concert book has quite a bit of contemporary dialog concerning this). Image was outdated, and hurt record sales.  Concertgoers wanted the oldies, against the wishes of the band. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And yeah...why WAS the band considered to be too out of touch when Sunflower came out, considering some of the other stuff that was selling well in 1970?
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 23, 2014, 07:41:50 PM »

And yeah...why WAS the band considered to be too out of touch when Sunflower came out, considering some of the other stuff that was selling well in 1970?

I think it has been somewhat answered in this thread, but I have my own theory which is that The Beach Boys were in an awkward position. For years they were successful almost as a novelty act or a bubblegum band. In retrospect, we can see that they were always more than that, but I think that that accounted for a great deal of their fan base. Then they started making more serious music, but serious music fans would have written the band off because of their early songs, while fans of their earlier songs may not have appreciated the more serious turn.

On the other hand, in England, the Beach Boys weren't as pegged in the same way. They had had some previous hits but up until Sloop John B., Beach Boys songs always did far better chart wise in the US than they did in England. Of the songs that did chart, Surfin' USA, When I Grow Up, Dance Dance Dance, Help Me Rhonda, and California Girls all failed to crack the top 20. Only I Get Around was a Top 10 hit from that period. By the time Pet Sounds came out, the band simply didn't have the same kind of legacy in the UK as they did in the US and therefore were more easily appreciated by more serious fans.

That doesn't quite explain how, say, The Beach Boys did far better even in Canada throughout that period when Canada had access to all the early hits too. But it's a start.
Logged
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 722



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2014, 08:42:19 PM »

This has been discussed many times. The problem wasn't the music itself it was that the beach boys clean cut, squeaky clean image was out of step with the times and the bbs waited much too long to rectify this. Although they really had nothing in common with them, they became associated with bubble gum pop music acts. Capitol in the states really hurt them by continuing to market them as a surf act as late as 1968. But the bbs really allowed bad packaging and outdated photos to be used for lp covers and publicity for a long time.

I'd like to add two comments and questions to consider with this, one of them I might take some heat for.

1. The Beach Boys were whistleblowers who exposed a hidden business practice that Capitol Records was taking advantage of to the tune of potentially millions of dollars which they were not paying to the artists who should have gotten a portion of that money. This was brought out in the 1967 lawsuit that led to both a $250,000 settlement for the band *and* the setup of Brother Records, which on paper would have given the band somewhat of an autonomy to make their own decisions while still remaining in Capitol's marketing and distribution chain.

But consider the implications of that: The Beach Boys got the money, they got Brother Records, but they also cost Capitol money, they exposed a not-so-honest business practice which was only discovered through a deep financial audit, and what we don't hear is how many other artists may have followed up on the same thing regarding their own books...to the tune of saying "The Beach Boys got ripped off, hey...did they do that to us too?". I know Allen Klein for one used a very similar tactic to win clients for himself by having a team of lawyers and accountants go over an artist's books and find money that he could win back for that artist, and it was usually something like the breakage/returns case that the Beach Boys won after suing Capitol. And Capitol had also not paid Brian Wilson certain producers' royalties and credits which he was due.

Capitol I'm sure wasn't too happy with this whole scene, and it could add an element to why certain marketing and business decisions were less than they could or should have been regarding the band post-lawsuit in 67, at least in the US. There may have been a price to be paid for blowing the whistle on a major label. Just a thought.

2. As of 2014 there is and has been a lot of pride from certain band members regarding contributions to certain now-classic songs like California Girls, I Get Around, etc. Consider if and when during this time period being discussed in this topic there was a lot of criticism and negative commentary if not outright disdain towards The Beach Boys music, suggesting it was "out of step", "corny", "naive", "lightweight pop", "bubblegum"...whatever the lingo of the times may have been, compared to whatever artists and music was being considered relevant, important, "having a message", whatever the case...

...Where were those band members then to step up and take more ownership and pride of that classic music in face of the criticism? Or did they and I'm just not recalling the quotes or interviews where they did?

Because it seems like a lot of the so-called hip and relevant folks were really coming down hard on the music, playing the out of touch card, yet how often did someone active in the band step up and say "You know what? These are great records, we're proud of them, and I'm/we were proud to be a part of them. The music holds up, simple as that. Next question."

The reaction...songs like "Student Demonstration Time", for me one of the most ham-fisted attempts at relevancy and trying to have a "message song" that any major artist has ever done.

Then when fans began to rethink and rediscover the 60's classics like California Girls, I Get Around, Good Vibrations...and they started to sell again...now the narrative changed to "I'm/we are so proud to have been a part of creating that music", "I can remember writing that one in the backseat of a car driving to the studio", whatever the case. That is still the message.

Where was the pride when the band's music was being destroyed by the hip and relevant folks? Again I can't recall any specific times when it was said, but maybe I wish the band had taken a more bold stance and challenged the criticism by saying something as simple as "These are damn good records, and we're proud to have them as part of our catalog."

Those few years were rough.

1. This is true. Capitol was unhappy and weren't going out of their way to promote an act that was giving them so much trouble.

2. If a band member had stepped up and defended those songs he would've been thought of as even "less cool" than the songs themselves. I'm not a boomer but I talk to a lot of music fans who were teens during that era. The Beach Boys (and the old songs) were seen as establishment shills or music for jocks. A lot of that could've changed, of course, had SMiLE come out and the band played Monterey. As one friend of mine put it "The Beach Boys were The Beatles for morons". That's an incendiary statement on THIS board (and a none too subtle insult directed at me for sure) but not a rare notion in 1969.
Logged
clack
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 537


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2014, 08:58:58 PM »

The Dave Clark 5 and Herman's Hermits were as big as the Beach Boys, and were dropped from US radio playlists at about the same time as the BB(while  all 3 continued to have UK hits through 1970).

Were there radio industry newsletters at the time, advising programmers which recording acts were past their sell by date?
Logged
Dave in KC
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 630


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 23, 2014, 09:01:13 PM »

Quote
As of 2014 there is and has been a lot of pride from certain band members regarding contributions to certain now-classic songs like California Girls, I Get Around, etc. Consider if and when during this time period being discussed in this topic there was a lot of criticism and negative commentary if not outright disdain towards The Beach Boys music, suggesting it was "out of step", "corny", "naive", "lightweight pop", "bubblegum"...whatever the lingo of the times may have been, compared to whatever artists and music was being considered relevant, important, "having a message", whatever the case...

...Where were those band members then to step up and take more ownership and pride of that classic music in face of the criticism? Or did they and I'm just not recalling the quotes or interviews where they did?

Here's another paradox. At a certain point (BEFORE Endless Summer!), the fans in attendance at their shows would respond with indifference to much of the then-new material yet respond ravenously to the 'classics', much to the consternation of the band members...INCLUDING Mike. (the excellent In Concert book has quite a bit of contemporary dialog concerning this). Image was outdated, and hurt record sales.  Concertgoers wanted the oldies, against the wishes of the band. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And yeah...why WAS the band considered to be too out of touch when Sunflower came out, considering some of the other stuff that was selling well in 1970?

Saint Louis 1971, Arena Annex. After playing new music and the fans rejecting it and shouting out song names, Bruce grabbed the mic and said, "I'm getting really pissed off at you people for not respecting our new music. Stop shouting for old songs." I've told this story here before.
Logged
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 722



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 23, 2014, 09:05:27 PM »

The Dave Clark 5 and Herman's Hermits were as big as the Beach Boys, and were dropped from US radio playlists at about the same time as the BB(while  all 3 continued to have UK hits through 1970).

Were there radio industry newsletters at the time, advising programmers which recording acts were past their sell by date?

That's a good question. I would think it was just in the culture. kind of like "That's the old stuff we used to dig, now it's all about Canned Heat/Woodstock/blues boogie/etc.". Come to think of it, The Beatles weren't running around extolling the virtues of "Love Me Do" in the late 60's either, but they had successfully made the transition to an FM rock act in the states (regardless of what anyone thinks of Sgt. Pepper onwards in 2014).  
Logged
MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 757



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2014, 06:28:51 AM »

Saint Louis 1971, Arena Annex. After playing new music and the fans rejecting it and shouting out song names, Bruce grabbed the mic and said, "I'm getting really pissed off at you people for not respecting our new music. Stop shouting for old songs." 
Yikes! For the Beach Boys in particular, that seems a bit... off-brand.   LOL

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 1.069 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!