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, 11:23:36 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 10 ... 13 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Beach Boys Pile Up In California  (Read 63948 times)
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 722



View Profile
« Reply #100 on: September 30, 2014, 07:20:35 PM »

That would've been the ideal scenario but probably not a profitable one for BRI. I think the average person just sees "Beach Boys" and says "Oh, the band who did Fun, Fun, Fun. Yeah, I'll see them". I don't know how much name recognition these guys have apart from Brian (and it's positively frightening how few people..especially baby boomers.. even know who Brian is. Forget fans, social media and hipster blogs, when I deal with regular folks in day to day reality they haven't a clue who he is, they just know the name "The Beach Boys" and their pre-Pet Sounds hits. Maybe that's a symptom of baby boomers. Maybe it's changing and younger generations are figuring out who did what. Who knows?).   
 
This is way more common a problem with other 60's groups than just The Beach Boys. I mean, at least when you see "The Beach Boys" you're seeing two (and now sometimes three) members who made records in the 60's. When you see The Temptations or The Supremes play live, you're not even getting that.

Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #101 on: September 30, 2014, 08:07:00 PM »

I understand that, I do think perhaps some of it also relates to the differences between "civilians" and those people who are either musicians or more deeply invested in music as a part of their daily life. I think the more music-leaning people take the time to learn and know more about artists beyond the songs or the hits as background music, or music to dance to. Example(s):

Ask those same people who may be unsure of Brian Wilson who Tom Scholz is, or who Jeff Lynne is. And in the case of Tom Scholz, how many people know Boston and the hits from that first album? Then mention Scholz...who? And you say he's the guy who wrote and recorded 95% of those Boston songs in his Massachusetts basement, one of the top selling albums of all time...Oh! That guy!  Smiley  Or maybe not even that much recognition, but those same people have probably played air guitar to at least "More Than A Feeling" at some point in the past 35 years.  Grin

I don't like comparing, it's usually a case of apples and oranges, but what are the chances of Ringo or Paul doing a Beatles tour, what are the chances of a Rolling Stones tour without Mick and Keith (and Charlie) on stage, and what would fans think if Steven Tyler regularly toured as Aerosmith without Joe Perry? The Beach Boys are not only in that upper echelon of rock legacies with those groups, but they also influenced each of those groups through their music in the 60's. I don't know if there are legal restrictions or anything like that, but I'm pretty confident as someone already said that the individual Beatles going back to 1970 had agreed the band name would not be used to tour or play a show if the four of them could not be on stage. And it made things pretty simple, and also they have been touring and playing shows as individuals for 40+ years without any naming issues. Same with Mick and Keith regarding the Stones, I can't think of any time even when they were fighting like mad the suggestion that either man would take the Stones name and tour with it, with Charlie drumming. Fans of Aerosmith, the Stones, The Beatles...they'd be up in arms if a decision was made to license the band's name without those members all being involved. I'd imagine. Boston and ELO have had legal and personal squabbles of their own regarding who tours with the name, so who knows.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2014, 08:08:54 PM by guitarfool2002 » 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
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 722



View Profile
« Reply #102 on: September 30, 2014, 08:43:28 PM »

Well, that goes into a whole different area. WE know our rock history and WE place The Beach Boys in that upper tier. I'm not so sure the average joe does. They probably place them alongside The Turtles, Paul Revere and The Raiders, etc and groups of that ilk. I hate to say it, but I don't think most (older) people put The Beach Boys in the same category as The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc. 

That's a situation that will change as time goes on. Heck, it took about 25 years for Pet Sounds to receive all the accolades it rightly deserved in America (and the classic rock fans laughed at that notion at first..now they grudgingly go along with it).

Logged
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 722



View Profile
« Reply #103 on: September 30, 2014, 08:53:18 PM »

Another difference with The Beatles as solo performers is that they were consciously trying to get away from the "Beatles" name (hence Wings and The Plastic Ono Band). That only changed with Paul's tours beginning in the 1990's when he really went gung-ho on loading the show with Beatles songs. It was one of those situations where the fame and legacy of The Beatles just grew so huge that it was no use fighting it anymore.

Logged
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 722



View Profile
« Reply #104 on: September 30, 2014, 09:17:33 PM »

My point, and I don't know if it's correct, is that BRI saw that "The Beach Boys" name could be used in a similar way the name Paul Revere and The Raiders, The Temptations or a myriad of other oldies acts used the name for touring purposes. That was nearly twenty years ago and, of course, the critical stature of The Beach Boys has risen substantially since then.
Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #105 on: October 01, 2014, 01:27:47 AM »


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).

I have mellowed on that subject over time. If you had asked me in 1998 then I would have said that The Beach Boys name should have been retired and I would have been pretty scornful of any band going on with only one original.

But like so many things it is not so black and white anymore. So many old bands go out without their original line-ups and there is obviously an audience for it. I was watching the 1980s Rewind Festival on TV a while ago and it was clear that the crowd don`t really care too much about whether some of the band members are ringers. They just enjoy the music and as it brings pleasure to so many then it would be churlish to be too against it.

Plus without using the band names, what is the alternative for most of these singers? I think we have seen with Al how tough it can be...

And finally I think there is a huge difference between a situation like The Beatles where the band ended at a specific point in time and a group like The Beach Boys that had a fluctuating line-up throughout its history anyway.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 02:12:21 AM by Nicko1234 » Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #106 on: October 01, 2014, 01:42:41 AM »

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.

I honestly think it was much more than that.

Over the past 18 months or so David and Al have both been billed as `ex Beach Boys` or `founding members of The Beach Boys` in promotional material for shows. But it certainly seems that the bookings that they`ve had and the tickets that they`ve sold don`t compare at all with how Al was doing as The Beach Boys Family and Friends.

It`s often said that many people don`t really have a clue who is onstage when Mike and Bruce go out as The Beach Boys and the same must certainly be true of the band Al was taking out at that time. There is no way when people saw that name that they would have immediately known that they were only going to see one Beach Boy.

And also using `The Beach Boys` right at the start of the name was obviously going to cause a lot more confusion (and get a lot more tickets sold) than `Al Jardine`s Beach Boys` or The Family and Friends of The Beach Boys` ever would.
Logged
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #107 on: October 01, 2014, 02:56:29 AM »

Mike’s show features seemingly an hour or more of non-Beach Boys singing leads.

By my rough reckoning, that's two-thirds of a standard GH show, or looked at another way, some 12 to 18 songs. Care to list said titles, with vocalists ?


OK, I'll answer my own question: Epsom 2014 setlist, non-BB lead vocals highlighted (feel free to correct).


Do It Again
Goin' to the Beach
Little Honda
Catch a Wave
Surfin' Safari
Surfer Girl
Why Do Fools Fall in Love
When I Grow Up (to Be a Man)
Darlin'
Don't Worry Baby

Little Deuce Coupe
409
I Get Around
Sloop John B
Wouldn't It Be Nice
Then He Kissed Me

California Girls
Pisces Brothers
God Only Knows
Good Vibrations
Cotton Fields

Kokomo
Help Me, Rhonda
Do You Wanna Dance?
Barbara Ann
Surfin' U.S.A.
Encore:
Wild Honey

Fun, Fun, Fun

9 out of 28, and they're not on average six and a half minutes long. Smiley
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 03:09:13 AM by The Legendary AGD » Logged

The four sweetest words in my vocabulary: "This poster is ignored".
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #108 on: October 01, 2014, 07:00:43 AM »

My point, and I don't know if it's correct, is that BRI saw that "The Beach Boys" name could be used in a similar way the name Paul Revere and The Raiders, The Temptations or a myriad of other oldies acts used the name for touring purposes. That was nearly twenty years ago and, of course, the critical stature of The Beach Boys has risen substantially since then.

Well, that goes into a whole different area. WE know our rock history and WE place The Beach Boys in that upper tier. I'm not so sure the average joe does. They probably place them alongside The Turtles, Paul Revere and The Raiders, etc and groups of that ilk. I hate to say it, but I don't think most (older) people put The Beach Boys in the same category as The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc. 

That's a situation that will change as time goes on. Heck, it took about 25 years for Pet Sounds to receive all the accolades it rightly deserved in America (and the classic rock fans laughed at that notion at first..now they grudgingly go along with it).


I think you may have touched on one of the underlying points that some of us may feel when reading a lot of these discussions, or maybe it's just something that occurred to me in the moment.

Consider how many times I've heard the points made about "carrying the torch", "protecting the legacy", "promoting the spirit of the band", whatever the case when these naming and license issues have come up.

Now, consider if we accept it is true that the "average Joe" types are considering the Beach Boys as of 2014 in the same category as Paul Revere and The Raiders, The Turtles, The Temptations, whoever else...but basically bands who play the traveling jukebox circuit and haven't done much of anything of note musically or otherwise for the better part of four decades...

Is that a good end result to tally up and point to as a marketing or public relations success after 15 years (give or take) of this legacy building and standard-bearing and protecting and all of the rest?

I'd say if the average Joes are putting the Beach Boys not much higher in status or even in terms of legacy or place in history alongside freakin' Paul Revere or any of the others, then something hasn't worked or isn't working.

Contrast that with Pet Sounds' constant and regular appearance on "best of" lists, critical praise, the whole Smile saga from Brian's tour to the box set, the many musicians who name-check the music, the success of the C50 tour, again critically and in terms of public opinion it was a goldmine of a success...

...and we're putting the Beach Boys in terms of public perception and opinion alongside touring "name" bands who haven't done much if anything as a band for 40+ years except play oldies shows?

Seriously, something hasn't worked to "carry the torch" in terms of preserving the band's legacy and reputation as things exist today if that's the case.



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
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #109 on: October 01, 2014, 07:53:41 AM »

Please excuse the stream-of-consciousness below:

I don't know. On the one hand one can say that the majority of casual fans only know about the early hits and don't know if who they are seeing on stage are the original Beach Boys or not. On the other hand, though, The Beach Boys have always been a much bigger draw when Brian Wilson is part of the band.

I was just thinking that, say, at a Stones show, most people would probably notice if Keith wasn't there. And at a Who show, most people would probably notice if Pete wasn't there. When the Beatles did that one brief part of the 1964 tour without Ringo, people definitely took notice. These are bands that cultivated interest in not only the songs but the people. So I'm wondering - maybe the Beach Boys haven't done that? But then I think, of course they have. At least to an extent. If they hadn't, the Brian is Back campaign would have never been the kind of success that it was.

Of course, the fact is, there are plenty of people you can find who say that they like music, that they even like "old music" but they still wouldn't be able to give you the full names of all four Beatles. I don't know what the point is there, but something tells me it's relevant.
Logged
Cyncie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 714



View Profile
« Reply #110 on: October 01, 2014, 08:10:03 AM »

As I've said before, general fans of music know that they like a group but don't necessarily obsess over the members. They dig the music but member's lives and bios aren't important to how they enjoy it.  That's the reason Mike can go out there with just Bruce and the Beach Boys name and sell out small venues all over America. It's the name and the music people are responding to, not the actual people on stage. Mike loves the fact that his shows are sell outs, but it's the Beach Boys name and the music that sells in these venues, not the name tags on the people playing it.

But, when you get to the level of the larger venues with the big promoters involved, it becomes much more important to have as much authenticity as possible, which means more of the real deal in the performing line up. They want to sell tickets, not only to the casual fan, but to the band geeks like us who know details about each and every member and every bass line they ever played, and to individuals in the music industry who make or break the big ticket shows with concert reviews and industry buzz. That's a different playing field than the one Mike's happy in.

I think Jon and Howie are right. C50 meant that the Beach Boys could have graduated up to that level of participation in the industry, but it didn't happen. And yes, I think it's a shame.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 08:24:47 AM by Cyncie » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: October 01, 2014, 08:22:05 AM »

Mike loves the fact that his shows are sell outs, but it's the Beach Boys name and the music that sells in these venues, not the people playing it.

That's true to an extent but I think people realize what they are getting more than you give them credit for here. People show up in droves for some Beatles tribute bands, particularly the well advertised and more "legitimate" ones, but the audience also knows that what they are seeing is not the real deal. But they go anyway because, like you suggest, it's more about the experience and the music than anything else. But I would wager that that same audience would be, for the most part, more excited to see a real Beatle in person or a more authentic show.
Logged
Cyncie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 714



View Profile
« Reply #112 on: October 01, 2014, 08:30:20 AM »

Mike loves the fact that his shows are sell outs, but it's the Beach Boys name and the music that sells in these venues, not the people playing it.

That's true to an extent but I think people realize what they are getting more than you give them credit for here. People show up in droves for some Beatles tribute bands, particularly the well advertised and more "legitimate" ones, but the audience also knows that what they are seeing is not the real deal. But they go anyway because, like you suggest, it's more about the experience and the music than anything else. But I would wager that that same audience would be, for the most part, more excited to see a real Beatle in person or a more authentic show.

I agree. It never fails to amaze me how many women will scream over an Elvis impersonator as if he's the real deal, knowing that this is just some guy from Poughkeepsie with a wig.  And,  of course Mike's group has more cachet than any tribute band and he gets to capitalize on that. But, the difference between the oldies jukebox circuit and Madison Square Garden seems to be directly related to how "authentic" the group is. And, in the case of the Beach Boys, I'm guessing that means the inclusion of one Brian Wilson. And, there's the rub, it would seem.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 08:48:34 AM by Cyncie » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #113 on: October 01, 2014, 08:31:28 AM »

Rockandroll and Cyncie, the points are well made, and I can't disagree with them. Those are coming from more specifically the issues of live performance and presentation, and where I was thinking was also taking that further into the legacy and image areas, specifically public perception. To hear that many "civilians" I'll call them tend to think of the Beach Boys as lumped in with any number of 60's bands who are specifically "oldies circuit" acts is perhaps true but no less disappointing.

And I come back to the point that this would be the case after hearing for over a decade the stuff about carrying the torch, protecting the brand, maintaining the legacy, whatever other variant of that notion which has been used.

To your points, on personalities within bands and the fans' connections with them, consider how strong of a reaction you'd get in an informal poll by mentioning the names "Brian Wilson" and "Mike Love" and asking for thoughts and opinions from those being polled. I'd say there are, in fact, two distinct and rather strong personalities within the "Beach Boys" brand that draw fans into the saga as personalities and as personal stories, too.
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
Cyncie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 714



View Profile
« Reply #114 on: October 01, 2014, 08:45:33 AM »

Rockandroll and Cyncie, the points are well made, and I can't disagree with them. Those are coming from more specifically the issues of live performance and presentation, and where I was thinking was also taking that further into the legacy and image areas, specifically public perception. To hear that many "civilians" I'll call them tend to think of the Beach Boys as lumped in with any number of 60's bands who are specifically "oldies circuit" acts is perhaps true but no less disappointing.

And I come back to the point that this would be the case after hearing for over a decade the stuff about carrying the torch, protecting the brand, maintaining the legacy, whatever other variant of that notion which has been used.

To your points, on personalities within bands and the fans' connections with them, consider how strong of a reaction you'd get in an informal poll by mentioning the names "Brian Wilson" and "Mike Love" and asking for thoughts and opinions from those being polled. I'd say there are, in fact, two distinct and rather strong personalities within the "Beach Boys" brand that draw fans into the saga as personalities and as personal stories, too.

I agree that the Beach Boys should not be relegated to "oldies" status. They should be on the level of the Beatles and the Stones. Classic musicians as opposed to "oldies," which has a negative connotation. The oldies groups had some hits. Legacy groups shaped the music. The Beach Boys are a legacy group, even if they don't act like it. In my opinion, Mike's band just continues to shove the group into the oldies category, while C50 proved that they could hold their own with the big guys. It amazes me and disappoints me that the band is satisfied with this status quo.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #115 on: October 01, 2014, 08:50:29 AM »

So it doesn't get lost in my own stream-of-consciousness thinking, I wanted to separate this point that is current and also applicable *as of this week* in the music biz.

Anyone watch Jimmy Fallon's show? Just this week, he had Tony Bennett as a musical guest. Bennett has a brand new album featuring Lady Gaga. To introduce Bennett, they actually ran a video of Gaga introducing Tony's performance and saying sorry she couldn't be there, or whatever.

And Tony, bless his heart, came out and for one of the first times it looked to me like he was showing his age, physically. BUT...he starts up with a jazz ballad, accompanied by his guitarist, then the full combo. The voice was still there, the smooth phrasing backed by a terrific small jazz combo. The ballad ends, the guitarist walks back behind the piano. Then Tony launches into his uptempo swinger, Duke's "It Don't Mean A Thing", and *kills* it.

So there is a guy in his 80's, right? Fronting a jazz combo dressed for what the old-school musicians would call a "society gig", basically doing exactly what Tony Bennett has done for 50+ years.

Fallon's audience...they're not of Tony's generation. The Roots are the house band, Fallon is my age and has that same kind of humor and the same references. He also draws the college-age and 20-something demo, obviously, and the "Twitter generation".

Lady Gaga...enough said. Her fan base is massive and massively loyal to her and whatever she does.

Pair Gaga with Tony Bennett...on paper, would that work? We'll see.

But Tony, the ol' professional came out on that stage and killed 'em doing something not at all different than he did in the supper clubs of the 1950's, in fact it's exactly the same, and the younger audiences ate it up.



***Point being, how did Tony Bennett go from living in near-obscurity throughout the 70's and 80's at least in the minds of "young" listeners to becoming the "King Of Hip", "The King Of Class", whatever hyperbole you'd want to attach? The man has done absolutely *nothing* different in his stage show than he was doing 50-60 years ago, yet he got discovered and rediscovered by new audiences, and they embraced the hell out of him and his music. He's in a class of his own, as far as someone under 40 willing to buy product from a musician in his 80's...not just buy it, but enjoy it.

How did he do that? How did *they* do that, basically transforming the image and perception of this musician while the musician himself changed nothing? I know who did it, and how they did it, and it was genius from a marketing angle...but I'm asking here to consider how did they pull it off to the point in 2014 where pairing Tony with Lady Gaga isn't laughed off the shelves?

And consider comparing and contrasting that kind of marketing where the artist's stature and public perception improved considerably enough to make both new albums and live shows marketable and popular, versus where the past few decades of the Beach Boys saga has led that perception to have folks lumping them in with oldies-circuit acts.

C50 for the Beach Boys was Tony Bennett's "MTV Unplugged", it was that pivotal moment where the follow-up was crucial to maintaining that momentum and wider fan interest...and even that has now led to fractured versions of the band playing the same state on the same day, and all this talk about protecting the brand and carrying the torch, or whatever.

Just food for thought. It just happened to hit me as I watched Tony Bennett killing it on Fallon's show this week. The Beach Boys did the *same thing* for Fallon in 2012 when the curtain was raised and all original members sang a capella "In My Room", they killed it too. Then it was gone. And we're debating ever since.  Smiley
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
Howie Edelson
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 672


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: October 01, 2014, 08:55:08 AM »

And there's a noticeable difference between the audience in Mike and Brian's shows in the U.S.

Brian's shows have always seemed younger, hipper -- sometimes geekier -- perhaps more into the history of music, and on average 30 to 50 years old -- at times overly forgiving of Brian's shortcomings.
Mike shows have always shocked me at how old the core audience is; bad hips, white hair -- absolutely no care to who's singing the song -- "I gotta  beer and a chair and it's all good." There's also that element of group homes, bikers, which I've often caught at Mike's -- but not Brian's -- concerts.

I catch plenty of classic acts in concert, I've yet to EVER see one older than at Mike's show.

It's interesting that it's essentially the same show and an absolute night and day scenario in terms of the cut of who's showing up.
The 50th bridged that gap a bit -- it was an older crowd than unusually found at BW's shows, but there was still a youthful element that must've been shocking to Mike.
And . . . . . . . . . there were people with pens there writing about what they saw and heard.
Logged
Jon Stebbins
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2635


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: October 01, 2014, 09:24:39 AM »

And there's a noticeable difference between the audience in Mike and Brian's shows in the U.S.

Brian's shows have always seemed younger, hipper -- sometimes geekier -- perhaps more into the history of music, and on average 30 to 50 years old -- at times overly forgiving of Brian's shortcomings.
Mike shows have always shocked me at how old the core audience is; bad hips, white hair -- absolutely no care to who's singing the song -- "I gotta  beer and a chair and it's all good." There's also that element of group homes, bikers, which I've often caught at Mike's -- but not Brian's -- concerts.

I catch plenty of classic acts in concert, I've yet to EVER see one older than at Mike's show.

It's interesting that it's essentially the same show and an absolute night and day scenario in terms of the cut of who's showing up.
The 50th bridged that gap a bit -- it was an older crowd than unusually found at BW's shows, but there was still a youthful element that must've been shocking to Mike.
And . . . . . . . . . there were people with pens there writing about what they saw and heard.
I've gotta concur that at least here in California there is a distinct difference in the audience at a Mike show as opposed to a Brian show. I've seen each act at a California winery within the last two months. Mike's crowd looked wealthier, older, more baby boomers, more Hawaiian shirts, more car guys, more senior citizens, and more families with little kids. Kind of like a theme park crowd. Brian's had a smaller cross section of all of the same, but an added third or so of hipster types, musicos, 30 year olds with tattoos, techies and nerds. Mike's house was full, Brian's was not. mike's audience swayed and danced and was happy, Brian's audience literally freaked out with energy, kinetic, with a constant stream of young people going up to the stage edge to take selfies with the band behind them. It's an interesting difference. Mike's audience looks more well heeled and into the "event", Brian's audience looks more varied culturally and more music obsessed. These are total generalizations and anecdotal, but semi in line with Howie's observation.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 09:25:41 AM by Jon Stebbins » Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #118 on: October 01, 2014, 09:28:46 AM »

And there's a noticeable difference between the audience in Mike and Brian's shows in the U.S.

Brian's shows have always seemed younger, hipper -- sometimes geekier -- perhaps more into the history of music, and on average 30 to 50 years old -- at times overly forgiving of Brian's shortcomings.
Mike shows have always shocked me at how old the core audience is; bad hips, white hair -- absolutely no care to who's singing the song -- "I gotta  beer and a chair and it's all good." There's also that element of group homes, bikers, which I've often caught at Mike's -- but not Brian's -- concerts.

I catch plenty of classic acts in concert, I've yet to EVER see one older than at Mike's show.

It's interesting that it's essentially the same show and an absolute night and day scenario in terms of the cut of who's showing up.
The 50th bridged that gap a bit -- it was an older crowd than unusually found at BW's shows, but there was still a youthful element that must've been shocking to Mike.
And . . . . . . . . . there were people with pens there writing about what they saw and heard.
I've gotta concur that at least here in California there is a distinct difference in the audience at a Mike show as opposed to a Brian show. I've seen each act at a California winery within the last two months. Mike's crowd looked wealthier, older, more baby boomers, more Hawaiian shirts, more car guys, more senior citizens, and more families with little kids. Kind of like a theme park crowd. Brian's had a smaller cross section of all of the same, but an added third or so of hipster types, musicos, 30 year olds with tattoos, techies and nerds. Mike's house was full, Brian's was not. mike's audience swayed and danced and was happy, Brian's audience literally freaked out with energy, kinetic, with a constant stream of young people going up to the stage edge to take selfies with the band behind them. It's an interesting difference. Mike's audience looks more well heeled and into the "event", Brian's audience looks more varied culturally and more music obsessed. These are total generalizations and anecdotal, but semi in line with Howie's observation.

The C50 show I attended was indeed a rather odd mixture of nerdy, hipster-types like those you often see at Brian gigs, and the white haired dudes in Hawaiian shirts that probably gravitate more towards Mike shows.

I took my companion to C50 and warned her that this would be an “old” crowd, as she hadn’t been to BB/Brian shows before. Sure enough, the following year on the Brian/Beck tour, the audience skewed noticeably younger, and it was probably the Brian fans skewing younger than the Beck fans.

Venues also probably play a bit of a role. When I see Brian at an upscale winery with season ticket holders and whatnot, there are more old, Hawaiian-shirt clad couples sipping their wine and probably not knowing who wrote or sang what for the Beach Boys. When I see Brian at a theater in the city, it skews younger with more of the indie/hipster nerds in attendance. I can’t imagine, on top of other probably much more notable factors, Mike enjoyed some of these audiences with the hipster types who cheer ten times louder for Brian than for him. I’ve heard/seen some recordings of, for instance, the Bonnaroo Festival gig they did for C50 in 2012, and it’s no coincidence that “Heroes and Villains” is one of the most warmly-received songs (hipsters into “Smile”), while something like “It’s OK” sounds like the audience is falling asleep (on the recordings I’ve heard; the wild festival crowd is pretty silent).

I’m still convinced, while not the main factor, a not insignificant factor in Mike disliking elements of C50 was simply Brian being introduced last to the largest applause, night after night. I don’t think for a second that it doesn’t at least cross his mind that he’s been schlepping around touring for all these years and Brian *still* gets the most adulation.
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/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #119 on: October 01, 2014, 09:38:13 AM »

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.


I may not be precisely addressing the points brought up in relation to Carl and the current trademark/licensing set up. But from the evidence at hand, Carl *did* play some level of a role in where things are at now.

Again, turning to the Stebbins/Marks book and Carlin’s book, and other inteviews and sources, it appears the move toward the current setup of Mike’s production company running the tour, employing the musicians, and then licensing use of the BB name began in the 90’s while Carl was still alive. I don’t know if they literally were already issuing a “license” to anybody prior to Carl’s death. But it appears as though Al saw where this setup was going and how that could allow for a huge, seemingly insurmountable power shift in their setup, and Carl did not side with Al and did not contest what was going on. We don’t know Carl’s intentions (just resigned to Mike running the group, or honestly thought it was a good idea, or didn’t see or believe in Al’s theoretical doomsday scenario), but Al was pretty much going it alone even when Carl was still alive. It also appears as though, however you view the validity of what happened in subsequent years, and despite Al being utterly impotent in doing anything about it, Al apparently predicted/knew what was going to happen. Again, whether justified or not, it helps explain why, especially in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, he seemed rather disenfranchised and pot-stirring in interviews about it. The description in the Stebbins/Marks book of Al questioning David Marks about his reintroduction into the band is stark and a bit more poignant in relation to the demise of his position in the band once you’re able to fill in more blanks about what had been going on, what Al knew, and what ended up happening. 
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/
Mikie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5887



View Profile
« Reply #120 on: October 01, 2014, 10:43:48 AM »

And there's a noticeable difference between the audience in Mike and Brian's shows in the U.S.

Brian's shows have always seemed younger, hipper -- sometimes geekier -- perhaps more into the history of music, and on average 30 to 50 years old -- at times overly forgiving of Brian's shortcomings.
Mike shows have always shocked me at how old the core audience is; bad hips, white hair -- absolutely no care to who's singing the song -- "I gotta  beer and a chair and it's all good." There's also that element of group homes, bikers, which I've often caught at Mike's -- but not Brian's -- concerts.

I catch plenty of classic acts in concert, I've yet to EVER see one older than at Mike's show.

It's interesting that it's essentially the same show and an absolute night and day scenario in terms of the cut of who's showing up.
The 50th bridged that gap a bit -- it was an older crowd than unusually found at BW's shows, but there was still a youthful element that must've been shocking to Mike.
And . . . . . . . . . there were people with pens there writing about what they saw and heard.
I've gotta concur that at least here in California there is a distinct difference in the audience at a Mike show as opposed to a Brian show. I've seen each act at a California winery within the last two months. Mike's crowd looked wealthier, older, more baby boomers, more Hawaiian shirts, more car guys, more senior citizens, and more families with little kids. Kind of like a theme park crowd. Brian's had a smaller cross section of all of the same, but an added third or so of hipster types, musicos, 30 year olds with tattoos, techies and nerds. Mike's house was full, Brian's was not. mike's audience swayed and danced and was happy, Brian's audience literally freaked out with energy, kinetic, with a constant stream of young people going up to the stage edge to take selfies with the band behind them. It's an interesting difference. Mike's audience looks more well heeled and into the "event", Brian's audience looks more varied culturally and more music obsessed. These are total generalizations and anecdotal, but semi in line with Howie's observation.

See? The Beach Boys name obviously draws a larger crowd! Also, you have your Silicon Valley/Bay Area crowd pack not one but TWO winery venues in close proximity to where they live plus Tahoe to see two original members and supporting musicians, where you have two other ex-members of said group and supporting musicians playing a small winery in Bumfuct, California where you have to drive a pretty good distance to get there and back.
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!!
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #121 on: October 01, 2014, 11:02:17 AM »


I may not be precisely addressing the points brought up in relation to Carl and the current trademark/licensing set up. But from the evidence at hand, Carl *did* play some level of a role in where things are at now.

Again, turning to the Stebbins/Marks book and Carlin’s book, and other inteviews and sources, it appears the move toward the current setup of Mike’s production company running the tour, employing the musicians, and then licensing use of the BB name began in the 90’s while Carl was still alive. I don’t know if they literally were already issuing a “license” to anybody prior to Carl’s death. But it appears as though Al saw where this setup was going and how that could allow for a huge, seemingly insurmountable power shift in their setup, and Carl did not side with Al and did not contest what was going on. We don’t know Carl’s intentions (just resigned to Mike running the group, or honestly thought it was a good idea, or didn’t see or believe in Al’s theoretical doomsday scenario), but Al was pretty much going it alone even when Carl was still alive. It also appears as though, however you view the validity of what happened in subsequent years, and despite Al being utterly impotent in doing anything about it, Al apparently predicted/knew what was going to happen. Again, whether justified or not, it helps explain why, especially in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, he seemed rather disenfranchised and pot-stirring in interviews about it. The description in the Stebbins/Marks book of Al questioning David Marks about his reintroduction into the band is stark and a bit more poignant in relation to the demise of his position in the band once you’re able to fill in more blanks about what had been going on, what Al knew, and what ended up happening. 


Another possibility is that he had something bigger to deal with: although his cancer was officially announced in spring 1997, I saw him twice  in early 1996 and he looked awful, sounded very 'off': as a friend stated at the time, "Carl just looks... wrong". Those who know him better are of the opinion that he knew something was very wrong by summer 1995.
Logged

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

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #122 on: October 01, 2014, 11:27:37 AM »


I may not be precisely addressing the points brought up in relation to Carl and the current trademark/licensing set up. But from the evidence at hand, Carl *did* play some level of a role in where things are at now.

Again, turning to the Stebbins/Marks book and Carlin’s book, and other inteviews and sources, it appears the move toward the current setup of Mike’s production company running the tour, employing the musicians, and then licensing use of the BB name began in the 90’s while Carl was still alive. I don’t know if they literally were already issuing a “license” to anybody prior to Carl’s death. But it appears as though Al saw where this setup was going and how that could allow for a huge, seemingly insurmountable power shift in their setup, and Carl did not side with Al and did not contest what was going on. We don’t know Carl’s intentions (just resigned to Mike running the group, or honestly thought it was a good idea, or didn’t see or believe in Al’s theoretical doomsday scenario), but Al was pretty much going it alone even when Carl was still alive. It also appears as though, however you view the validity of what happened in subsequent years, and despite Al being utterly impotent in doing anything about it, Al apparently predicted/knew what was going to happen. Again, whether justified or not, it helps explain why, especially in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, he seemed rather disenfranchised and pot-stirring in interviews about it. The description in the Stebbins/Marks book of Al questioning David Marks about his reintroduction into the band is stark and a bit more poignant in relation to the demise of his position in the band once you’re able to fill in more blanks about what had been going on, what Al knew, and what ended up happening.  


Another possibility is that he had something bigger to deal with: although his cancer was officially announced in spring 1997, I saw him twice  in early 1996 and he looked awful, sounded very 'off': as a friend stated at the time, "Carl just looks... wrong". Those who know him better are of the opinion that he knew something was very wrong by summer 1995.

That's absolutely possible; I've mentioned this possibility in the past. This would be a variation on the "resigned" scenario. But, we also don't know how long those business machinations were going on. Moves towards the eventual set up may have begun prior to 1995. Scant evidence, but I'm still interested to know more about Carlin's reference to attempt to oust Al from the band in 1990.

I think there's a decent amount of purely circumstantial evidence that while Carl was the one who was full of piss and vinegar about the deteriorating live show back in 1981, by the early 90's he seemed to be on autopilot just like everyone else in the band. That's not to say he didn't give great performances. He was one of the main reasons to catch the band in the 80's and 90's. I've sensed that all those little nitpicky things like the cheerleaders were things that Al took more issue with than Carl, although Carl so rarely spoke about those things that we can never know for sure.

That circa 1989 interview with Carl that someone dug up and translated a while back was interesting, and even back in 1989 Carl presciently predicted that in the end Mike might well be the only one left standing. I think Carl sensed that back then (probably even earlier), and that could have contributed to his feeling more easily resigned to whatever Mike's moves for the group were.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 11:29:04 AM by HeyJude » 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/
♩♬🐸 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 #123 on: October 01, 2014, 11:29:47 AM »


I may not be precisely addressing the points brought up in relation to Carl and the current trademark/licensing set up. But from the evidence at hand, Carl *did* play some level of a role in where things are at now.

Again, turning to the Stebbins/Marks book and Carlin’s book, and other inteviews and sources, it appears the move toward the current setup of Mike’s production company running the tour, employing the musicians, and then licensing use of the BB name began in the 90’s while Carl was still alive. I don’t know if they literally were already issuing a “license” to anybody prior to Carl’s death. But it appears as though Al saw where this setup was going and how that could allow for a huge, seemingly insurmountable power shift in their setup, and Carl did not side with Al and did not contest what was going on. We don’t know Carl’s intentions (just resigned to Mike running the group, or honestly thought it was a good idea, or didn’t see or believe in Al’s theoretical doomsday scenario), but Al was pretty much going it alone even when Carl was still alive. It also appears as though, however you view the validity of what happened in subsequent years, and despite Al being utterly impotent in doing anything about it, Al apparently predicted/knew what was going to happen. Again, whether justified or not, it helps explain why, especially in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, he seemed rather disenfranchised and pot-stirring in interviews about it. The description in the Stebbins/Marks book of Al questioning David Marks about his reintroduction into the band is stark and a bit more poignant in relation to the demise of his position in the band once you’re able to fill in more blanks about what had been going on, what Al knew, and what ended up happening.  


Another possibility is that he had something bigger to deal with: although his cancer was officially announced in spring 1997, I saw him twice  in early 1996 and he looked awful, sounded very 'off': as a friend stated at the time, "Carl just looks... wrong". Those who know him better are of the opinion that he knew something was very wrong by summer 1995.

I have always been of the thought that Carl's illness affected his judgment a bit, and was one of the reasons the album sessions with Brian crashed & burned. When the Beach Boys were on Home Improvement, first thing I noticed was how pale Carl looked (second thing was how stupid it was for neighbor Wilson to refer to all of them as his cousins...)
Logged

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

Posts: 10029



View Profile WWW
« Reply #124 on: October 01, 2014, 11:32:13 AM »


I may not be precisely addressing the points brought up in relation to Carl and the current trademark/licensing set up. But from the evidence at hand, Carl *did* play some level of a role in where things are at now.

Again, turning to the Stebbins/Marks book and Carlin’s book, and other inteviews and sources, it appears the move toward the current setup of Mike’s production company running the tour, employing the musicians, and then licensing use of the BB name began in the 90’s while Carl was still alive. I don’t know if they literally were already issuing a “license” to anybody prior to Carl’s death. But it appears as though Al saw where this setup was going and how that could allow for a huge, seemingly insurmountable power shift in their setup, and Carl did not side with Al and did not contest what was going on. We don’t know Carl’s intentions (just resigned to Mike running the group, or honestly thought it was a good idea, or didn’t see or believe in Al’s theoretical doomsday scenario), but Al was pretty much going it alone even when Carl was still alive. It also appears as though, however you view the validity of what happened in subsequent years, and despite Al being utterly impotent in doing anything about it, Al apparently predicted/knew what was going to happen. Again, whether justified or not, it helps explain why, especially in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, he seemed rather disenfranchised and pot-stirring in interviews about it. The description in the Stebbins/Marks book of Al questioning David Marks about his reintroduction into the band is stark and a bit more poignant in relation to the demise of his position in the band once you’re able to fill in more blanks about what had been going on, what Al knew, and what ended up happening.  


Another possibility is that he had something bigger to deal with: although his cancer was officially announced in spring 1997, I saw him twice  in early 1996 and he looked awful, sounded very 'off': as a friend stated at the time, "Carl just looks... wrong". Those who know him better are of the opinion that he knew something was very wrong by summer 1995.

I have always been of the thought that Carl's illness affected his judgment a bit, and was one of the reasons the album sessions with Brian crashed & burned. When the Beach Boys were on Home Improvement, first thing I noticed was how pale Carl looked (second thing was how stupid it was for neighbor Wilson to refer to all of them as his cousins...)

And sadly, "Home Improvement" was probably the best of the sitcom guest star bits they did!  LOL
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/
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.878 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!