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, 11:00:57 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Beach Boys Pile Up In California  (Read 63947 times)
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: September 30, 2014, 12:08:53 PM »

I know it's a popular expression and all, but can you actually embarrass yourself if you don't feel embarrassed about anything?
« Last Edit: September 30, 2014, 12:12:39 PM by rockandroll » Logged
lee
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 401



View Profile
« Reply #76 on: September 30, 2014, 12:41:28 PM »

I too don't think Al is embarrassing himself at all. I feel bad for him. He isn't allowed to be a part of the band he helped create and spent decades of his life with. Brian and Mike have their own things going on and don't seem too bothered with Al's feelings or situation. Brian will let him tag along for shows but he doesn't even get any input in the set lists. Al has the best voice of the bunch, seems to be more level headed (along with Dave) and would improve Brian or Mike's shows by being part of it. It's a real shame Mike and Al don't get along. Think of how much stronger the touring "Beach Boys" would be with an original BB member singing leads on songs like WIBN, YSGTM, H&V, Help Me Rhonda, etc.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #77 on: September 30, 2014, 12:43:20 PM »

When occasionally people start jumping on Al as if he’s the bad guy in all of this, I always point to the evidence. Or rather, lack of evidence. The guy is comically impotent when it comes to anything to do with inner-band politics, lawsuits, and so on. I don’t think it would be out of line to call the guy sometimes kind of sad. But all of these interviews where he randomly vents; it’s just a mixture of not having much if any actual power in the group situation, mixed with a bit of whininess, mixed with a bit of lack of smoothness when it comes to PR. He’s not a power player in any of these scenarios, even when he “joins forces” with Brian. Look at Al’s own interviews. He shows up for the gig, has no input into the setlist. He basically just does his bit of a “Beach Boys” show in Brian’s show, only he has seemingly even less input than he would have during the 90’s with the Beach Boys.

If Al would cram all of the content of his typical interviews into the smooth PR package that Mike offers in his interviews, he could make his points more effectively, no question.

But I totally disagree with the idea that Al should just keep it all to himself and discuss this stuff behind closed doors. It’s likely, I would imagine, he gets into this stuff in interviews because it gets him nowhere trying to discuss it behind closed doors. Since exiting the touring group in 1998, Al has given more entertaining, informative interviews about both the history of the group and its present political structure than he ever did in previous years. It’s human nature, they end up feeling more liberated after the exit whatever situation. Mike did the same thing after C50. It was only afterwards that we heard about the backing band being too big, not having enough input into the album, and so on. Yes, Al’s interviews often have a few “Wtf?” moments. But I’ll take a few of those moments and I would rather have to do a bit of deciphering rather than reading another “set end date” interview.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #78 on: September 30, 2014, 01:05:53 PM »

When occasionally people start jumping on Al as if he’s the bad guy in all of this, I always point to the evidence. Or rather, lack of evidence. The guy is comically impotent when it comes to anything to do with inner-band politics, lawsuits, and so on. I don’t think it would be out of line to call the guy sometimes kind of sad. But all of these interviews where he randomly vents; it’s just a mixture of not having much if any actual power in the group situation, mixed with a bit of whininess, mixed with a bit of lack of smoothness when it comes to PR. He’s not a power player in any of these scenarios, even when he “joins forces” with Brian. Look at Al’s own interviews. He shows up for the gig, has no input into the setlist. He basically just does his bit of a “Beach Boys” show in Brian’s show, only he has seemingly even less input than he would have during the 90’s with the Beach Boys.

If Al would cram all of the content of his typical interviews into the smooth PR package that Mike offers in his interviews, he could make his points more effectively, no question.

But I totally disagree with the idea that Al should just keep it all to himself and discuss this stuff behind closed doors. It’s likely, I would imagine, he gets into this stuff in interviews because it gets him nowhere trying to discuss it behind closed doors. Since exiting the touring group in 1998, Al has given more entertaining, informative interviews about both the history of the group and its present political structure than he ever did in previous years. It’s human nature, they end up feeling more liberated after the exit whatever situation. Mike did the same thing after C50. It was only afterwards that we heard about the backing band being too big, not having enough input into the album, and so on. Yes, Al’s interviews often have a few “Wtf?” moments. But I’ll take a few of those moments and I would rather have to do a bit of deciphering rather than reading another “set end date” interview.


Al's marginalization really proves that blood is thicker than water.
IMO, no way Al could have been treated the way he was at various points throughout the years if he'd been related by blood to the Wilsons or Loves. The 1998 outster couldn't have happened the way it did. Al's back would have been better covered by someone.
Logged
urbanite
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 863


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: September 30, 2014, 01:12:55 PM »

Al's marginalization really proves that blood is thicker than water.
IMO, no way Al could have been treated the way he was at various points throughout the years if he'd been related by blood to the Wilsons or Loves. The 1998 outster couldn't have happened the way it did. Al's back would have been better covered by someone.

Maybe, it depends on how much of a problem he was to deal with back then.  I know nothing about what lead to his ouster, but I read the interview with Mike Love where talked about a group meeting with Howard Bloomfield, the psychiatrist, to air things out, and other comments from posters that suggest he was difficult.  Sometimes people say enough and move on.     
Logged
Mikie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5887



View Profile
« Reply #80 on: September 30, 2014, 01:37:06 PM »

Al's marginalization really proves that blood is thicker than water.
IMO, no way Al could have been treated the way he was at various points throughout the years if he'd been related by blood to the Wilsons or Loves. The 1998 outster couldn't have happened the way it did. Al's back would have been better covered by someone.

Carl had Al's back. Unfortunately, he checked out.
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!!
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 5855


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: September 30, 2014, 02:20:54 PM »

Can't remember when or where but was it Dennis or Carl that said "We're unmanageable."?

Nothings changed. Sad
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #82 on: September 30, 2014, 02:53:25 PM »

Al's marginalization really proves that blood is thicker than water.
IMO, no way Al could have been treated the way he was at various points throughout the years if he'd been related by blood to the Wilsons or Loves. The 1998 outster couldn't have happened the way it did. Al's back would have been better covered by someone.

Carl had Al's back. Unfortunately, he checked out.

Exactly.
Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #83 on: September 30, 2014, 03:05:12 PM »

Maybe I've got my Eeyore head on too tight, but to my untutored mindset, Vegas, even these days means a shorter, meat & spuds GH setlist.
Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #84 on: September 30, 2014, 03:08:00 PM »

Al's marginalization really proves that blood is thicker than water.
IMO, no way Al could have been treated the way he was at various points throughout the years if he'd been related by blood to the Wilsons or Loves. The 1998 outster couldn't have happened the way it did. Al's back would have been better covered by someone.

Maybe, it depends on how much of a problem he was to deal with back then.  I know nothing about what lead to his ouster, but I read the interview with Mike Love where talked about a group meeting with Howard Bloomfield, the psychiatrist, to air things out, and other comments from posters that suggest he was difficult.  Sometimes people say enough and move on.     

If Al was a Wilson, no matter how big a problem he was to deal with at the time (short of drug use/drinking to a point of near death), and he wanted to still be in the band, he'd have stayed in the band. I cannot fathom otherwise. Unless I'm seeing this wrong, it's very tough to view the timing of Al's outster as anything but opportunistic, and using someone's death as a chess piece of sorts.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #85 on: September 30, 2014, 03:08:58 PM »

Maybe I've got my Eeyore head on too tight, but to my untutored mindset, Vegas, even these days means a shorter, meat & spuds GH setlist.

C'mon... I think they'd have at least found a way to include the rarely (if ever?) played "Desert Drive" in the setlist Wink
« Last Edit: September 30, 2014, 03:13:10 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #86 on: September 30, 2014, 03:15:31 PM »

Al's marginalization really proves that blood is thicker than water.
IMO, no way Al could have been treated the way he was at various points throughout the years if he'd been related by blood to the Wilsons or Loves. The 1998 outster couldn't have happened the way it did. Al's back would have been better covered by someone.

Carl had Al's back. Unfortunately, he checked out.

Exactly.

I guess that shows you how different Carl Wilson and his brother, Brian Wilson, feel about the situation. Carl Wilson did have Al's back, and I guess you're speculating that he would've had Al's back today. But Brian doesn't?

And Carl's heirs? I'm assuming that they were/are aware that Carl had Al's back? Is that not important to them going forward, carrying out Carl's wishes/philosophy in having Al's back? Would their vote(s) be the answer to that question?
« Last Edit: September 30, 2014, 03:22:28 PM by Sheriff John Stone » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #87 on: September 30, 2014, 03:24:28 PM »

Al's marginalization really proves that blood is thicker than water.
IMO, no way Al could have been treated the way he was at various points throughout the years if he'd been related by blood to the Wilsons or Loves. The 1998 outster couldn't have happened the way it did. Al's back would have been better covered by someone.

Carl had Al's back. Unfortunately, he checked out.

Exactly.

I guess that shows you how different Carl Wilson and his brother, Brian Wilson, feel about the situation. Carl Wilson did have Al's back, and I guess you're speculating that he would've had Al's back today. But Brian doesn't?

The power structure was different in 1997/1998 vs today, so it's pretty much a moot point. Apples and oranges. But Carl would most certainly have Al's back today if he were around, and of course the power structure and politics would differ greatly too.

I think Brian has Al's back to a degree these days, by having Al tour with him. It's both throwing Al a bone, as well as (presumably) helping to do some patching up of a friendship that has surely been strained through the years due to circumstance. Brian benefits too of course since it adds more legitimacy to his current live show. But it's an act (at least partially) of camaraderie, as I see it.

I don't believe that Al would want to be back in the M&B BBs if he wasn't wanted. Clearly he wants to be a BB again on some level, but why would Al want to be entering into a situation (even if Brian somehow had the ability to snap his finger and make it happen) where Mike has the level of control that he currently has?
« Last Edit: September 30, 2014, 03:46:04 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #88 on: September 30, 2014, 03:46:40 PM »


Some fans might be off-put if some of the Python guys wanted to do more gigs and one guy didn't, while simultaneously going back out and booking shows as Monty Python. That's a different scenario than an announced "farewell" tour.

Well the first part of that was the case for some time (Michael Palin being the holdout).

The second part is different of course and does separate The Beach Boys from other groups. But if Mike were out there as Mike Love and the Endless Summer Band then would it really make people that much happier?
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #89 on: September 30, 2014, 03:48:17 PM »


Some fans might be off-put if some of the Python guys wanted to do more gigs and one guy didn't, while simultaneously going back out and booking shows as Monty Python. That's a different scenario than an announced "farewell" tour.

Well the first part of that was the case for some time (Michael Palin being the holdout).

The second part is different of course and does separate The Beach Boys from other groups. But if Mike were out there as Mike Love and the Endless Summer Band then would it really make people that much happier?

In a word: Yes.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: September 30, 2014, 03:48:50 PM »

But if Mike were out there as Mike Love and the Endless Summer Band then would it really make people that much happier?

I can't speak for other people, but I know that I'd respect that a hell of a lot more.
Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #91 on: September 30, 2014, 03:56:18 PM »

That`s  interesting and I can understand the logic.

Personally I can`t attach to much importance to the brand name though. It is a business and has been for a long time.

Mike playing far fewer gigs and much crappier venues under his own name wouldn`t really add anything imo.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #92 on: September 30, 2014, 04:06:23 PM »

That`s  interesting and I can understand the logic.

Personally I can`t attach to much importance to the brand name though. It is a business and has been for a long time.

Mike playing far fewer gigs and much crappier venues under his own name wouldn`t really add anything imo.

Out of curiosity: do you have an issue with any given famous band using the band name if there's only 1 original band member still in the band, or would that situation never bother you ever under any circumstances? Or it would that depend on the band, circumstance, and importance of the band member? Would Ringo or Pete Best touring as The Beatles be a problem? (Not saying that this is the same situation, only trying to understand the logic).
Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #93 on: September 30, 2014, 04:19:51 PM »

That`s  interesting and I can understand the logic.

Personally I can`t attach to much importance to the brand name though. It is a business and has been for a long time.

Mike playing far fewer gigs and much crappier venues under his own name wouldn`t really add anything imo.

Out of curiosity: do you have an issue with any given famous band using the band name if there's only 1 original band member still in the band, or would that situation never bother you ever under any circumstances?

I'd rather that question be asked to the people who have a vote in the matter. I would love to hear their answer. Actually I wouldn't....
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: September 30, 2014, 04:19:51 PM »

It is a business and has been for a long time.

It's more than that though. The name has a symbolic value. I don't refer to The Beach Boys as my second favourite business.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #95 on: September 30, 2014, 04:23:52 PM »

That`s  interesting and I can understand the logic.

Personally I can`t attach to much importance to the brand name though. It is a business and has been for a long time.

Mike playing far fewer gigs and much crappier venues under his own name wouldn`t really add anything imo.

Out of curiosity: do you have an issue with any given famous band using the band name if there's only 1 original band member still in the band, or would that situation never bother you ever under any circumstances?


I'd rather that question be asked to the people who have a vote in the matter. I would love to hear their answer. Actually I wouldn't....

I'd wager Mike that if posed the question on a general level (not pertaining to the BBs), and answering truthfully, would say, using The Beatles as an example, that Paul has the right to tour as The Beatles if he wants to, but that Ringo doesn't. It has to be someone intrinsically responsible for a chunk of the hits. Which I can understand that logic, but not necessarily agree with. It's a case by case basis for me. The bigger and more legendary/iconic the band, the lamer a situation like that becomes, IMO.
Logged
Howie Edelson
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 672


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: September 30, 2014, 04:25:56 PM »

A Las Vegas setlist is generally 80 minutes.
That's a LOT of 2:40 minute songs packed in and leaves plenty of room for variation.

But you're also talking to a guy that considers sidemen singing rarities a wasted opportunity.
Whether it was Jeff singing "Don't Worry Baby," Totten on "Besty," Bennett on "Sailor," or Darian on "Darlin'" -- it's a cheat to me.
Too Westbury oldies show in my opinion. I'd rather a shorter show than that.

Bandmember can't take the lead? Toss it.
Logged
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #97 on: September 30, 2014, 05:45:51 PM »

A Las Vegas setlist is generally 80 minutes.
That's a LOT of 2:40 minute songs packed in and leaves plenty of room for variation.

But you're also talking to a guy that considers sidemen singing rarities a wasted opportunity.
Whether it was Jeff singing "Don't Worry Baby," Totten on "Besty," Bennett on "Sailor," or Darian on "Darlin'" -- it's a cheat to me.
Too Westbury oldies show in my opinion. I'd rather a shorter show than that.

Bandmember can't take the lead? Toss it.

Well that kills every ballad that Brian ever sang lead on. There is no way that they could get away with not having someone else sing falsetto. Geez, even when Carl was alive Jeff or Matt were doing leads. Age has a way of causing these changes in lead singers. Back in the 80's I was so happy when they added Jeff. They finally had someone that made the live versions sound closer to the recorded versions. I am totally convinced that we fans are never happy no matter what they do. Also, I prefer rock bands that come to me, not me having to travel to Vegas when I want to see them. Last time I was in Vegas they still had dinner shows and you had to have a tie and jacket to get inside. Wink
« Last Edit: September 30, 2014, 05:47:07 PM by drbeachboy » Logged

The Brianista Prayer

Oh Brian
Thou Art In Hawthorne,
Harmonied Be Thy name
Your Kingdom Come,
Your Steak Well Done,
On Stage As It Is In Studio,
Give Us This Day, Our Shortenin' Bread
And Forgive Us Our Bootlegs,
As We Also Have Forgiven Our Wife And Managers,
And Lead Us Not Into Kokomo,
But Deliver Us From Mike Love.
Amen.  ---hypehat
ToneBender631
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 172


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: September 30, 2014, 06:08:16 PM »


Too Westbury oldies show in my opinion. I'd rather a shorter show than that.


As a Long Islander, that line alone justified this entire thread. Thanks, Howie! Smiley
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #99 on: September 30, 2014, 06:55:53 PM »

Just stepping in to suggest bringing Carl into this is a bit of a red herring from the get-go, as none of the issues being brought up would even have been issues if it were not for Carl's passing, and the naming issue would not have come up if it were still the Beach Boys of the mid-90's. Issues over content, performance, image...things like the dancers and other stuff that may have riled up some fans - Those I'm sure were discussed but perhaps not brought to a vote. As soon as Carl passed, all of what is still being debated here got magnified 1000 times larger, as the "Beach Boys" had effectively ceased to exist and the issue of using the band's name as a marketing tool became a focal point.

Rewind it back to those years: I'm also of the opinion that the awarding of rights to the name itself as a marketing tool has caused more problems than it was worth, or perhaps than it has been good for regarding the general state of affairs.

What if...the consensus was among surviving members that *no one* should be able to carry the name to promote and book shows or albums unless all surviving members were involved? Any individual member could, though, use their status as a founding member in promoting their own shows. This would be as simple as adding "original member of the Beach Boys" or "founding member of the Beach Boys" to the billing of a show, without giving anyone the full name "The Beach Boys".

That is, what I think, what Al was doing with billing his "Family And Friends" tour as he did. He is and was a Beach Boy, I still cannot see what the hell was wrong in principle with him using Beach Boys in the billing because he was not saying he was The Beach Boys.

And Mike, then, would have equal access to bill any show he wished to stage with using the Beach Boys in the billing, without calling the show The Beach Boys. Heck, any member given authorization could have booked shows that way, if they wanted.

Look what happened, though, and we're still devoting page after page to it. I'm just thinking, despite all the votes and agreements that set up the current way, look at how equitable and how fair across the board removing the "Beach Boys" as a name to own or buy into would have been, and all surviving members could use it the same way across the board to bill themselves and their touring shows, if they so chose.

And if all surviving members were in fact to join forces to tour, as in C50 in 2012, there would be a provision that *THIS* is the "Beach Boys" and will tour and be billed as such. No confusion - All surviving members on stage, on tour...that is The Beach Boys. Simple as that. And when that ended, it could be back to those surviving members using the tag line "Founding member of", or "Original member of" alongside their own name(s) to bill the shows. It would also prevent a sax player who played with them in 1977 from touring as a Beach Boys member decades later...that's when the BRI hammer would come down.

Sounds simple, right? Perhaps too simple to have worked in the past 15+ years or so.
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
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.567 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!