gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680601 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 29, 2024, 01:50:17 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Beach Boys Pile Up In California  (Read 63976 times)
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #125 on: October 01, 2014, 12:09:41 PM »

Sadly, you're right.
Logged

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

Gender: Male
Posts: 529


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: October 01, 2014, 01:51:34 PM »

Two things.  One, we lived in Las Vegas 2006-2012 before coming back to Texas. The M & B Beach Boys played there several times, Al played there at least twice, but the only concert I saw was the C50 at the Red Rock.  Not because I was avoiding the others, but I just didn't go (although I was thinking about one of Al's shows). The C50 was an absolute must for all the obvious reasons.  50-year fan, 50 year reunion, etc. Would a Vegas-based "residency" for the "original band with surviving members" work for them and us?  Don't know. Santana has had one, and that would have seemed kind of unlikely. In the right venue, a good set-list with some variation, and a reliable cast of characters, it just might.

Two, a couple of other bands I became a fan of in the 70's were the Marshall Tucker Band and Asleep At The Wheel. I would not walk across the street to see the current MTB, much like I wouldn't to see the Stones or Springsteen, for the simple fact that the only original member is the singer Doug Gray. Three are deceased, thee others left in the 1980's after Tommy Caldwell died, one stuck it out with Doug Gray for a few years and then left. It ain't the same band, revolving door of players, and Gray has completely lost his voice. I personally think he has wrecked their legacy to  degree. Now, with Asleep At The Wheel, the only original member is Ray Benson.  But that's the way it has been virtually since their inception in the 70's. There have been over a hundred members - fiddlers, piano players, bass players, drummers, steel guitars, fiddles, horns, all of them.  I think the longest tenured player other than Ray is the drummer, David Sanger, who has been there since the mid-80's. However, the band is always great, and nobody is disappointed because Lucky Oceans or Chris O'Connell or Tim Alexander or whoever aren't there. It's just the way it is. Individual members never seemed that big a deal, even when we did have our favorites. I still love that band, but while I  still listen to the old songs regularly, I pay no attention to Doug Gray's MTB, and wish he would just retire the name. Two bands, one similarity, two opinions. What can I say? Every case is different.

That has obviously not been the case with a lot of longtime Beach Boys fans, and will likely stay that way. I'm not that interested in seeing the M & B show but a lot of fans are. That's fine. They're keeping the music and the name alive. I've seen Brian's band twice, both SMILE shows, and I'm satisfied. I'd like to see Al, but probably won't have that chance.  Seeing them all together, now that's what I'd pay to see again.

Lots of words, not sure I said anything useful.
Logged
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #127 on: October 01, 2014, 03:24:52 PM »

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 think that might be stretching things a little.  Smiley

Obviously the M&B shows do attract plenty of old people but plenty of their shows, depending on the venues, also attract all ages from young children upwards. This is even truer when the mighty John Stamos is involved.
Logged
Howie Edelson
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 672


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: October 01, 2014, 03:43:01 PM »

Nicko -- I bet if I wrote  the opposite, you would disagree that, too.
This dance is getting old (even with the smiley faces).
Logged
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #129 on: October 01, 2014, 03:58:20 PM »

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 think that might be stretching things a little.  Smiley

Obviously the M&B shows do attract plenty of old people but plenty of their shows, depending on the venues, also attract all ages from young children upwards. This is even truer when the mighty John Stamos is involved.
I am with you on this. There are plenty of young people at the shows. Even Mike has mentioned many times on Facebook that there were many young people at this year's shows. He even talked about the kids even sang along on many songs and was amazed that they knew all the words. Maybe California audiences are a different mix than other parts of the country.
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
Howie Edelson
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 672


View Profile
« Reply #130 on: October 01, 2014, 04:40:46 PM »

Are you talking "young people" like children?
Yeah, always tons of children at Mike's Beach Boys shows.
I've never rated that as an attribute.

I can firmly attest to this fact: Unlike Jon's part of the country, the well-heeled NYC area folk are bypassing Mike Love concerts for the likes of off-Broadway, Lincoln Center and the Met, etc. I'm not saying that Brian's shows are bringing out Thurston Howell and his ilk, but the Mike shows I've caught over the recent years in the Tri-State NY area attract a lotta broken down sorts. County fair indoors. It is not a classy night out. It seems to me to be a decidedly lower income gang.

 
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #131 on: October 01, 2014, 04:44:33 PM »

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 think that might be stretching things a little.  Smiley

Obviously the M&B shows do attract plenty of old people but plenty of their shows, depending on the venues, also attract all ages from young children upwards. This is even truer when the mighty John Stamos is involved.
I am with you on this. There are plenty of young people at the shows. Even Mike has mentioned many times on Facebook that there were many young people at this year's shows. He even talked about the kids even sang along on many songs and was amazed that they knew all the words. Maybe California audiences are a different mix than other parts of the country.

I dunno. I'm only partially being facetious when I say that when a crowd is, on average, really old, then the scattered young people stick out even more. Yes, I've seen young folks at old fogey shows like Ringo, McCartney (less so with McCartney; probably only because his tickets are so expensive), the Beach Boys, etc. But the average age at a Brian Wilson show is surely noticeably lower than that at a Beach Boys concert. There may be more 10-year-old kids at a Beach Boys concert than at a Brian Wilson show (which may also have to do with ticket prices), but there are more folks in their 20's and 30's at a Brian show. There are a bunch of interesting possible reasons for this, and it's a fun and interesting topic to discuss, but it's a difficult discussion to have when people are insistent on defending Mike's show against the charge that the audience is, on average, on the more geriatric side.

There are all sorts of interesting breakdowns on the potential stats on audiences. For instance, I would guess the age at, say, a UK "Beach Boys" show skews at least a bit younger than at a US show, since the band may have gained a disproportionately large number of fans in the later 60's and into the early 70's in the UK compared to the US.

I have little doubt there's a bit of a political, social subtext boiling under the surface of some of these discussions. I've seen it happen before during discussions of C50 playing larger markets versus Mike playing smaller, more out of the way markets. Setting aside how we individually feel about the group, when we're looking at how the rest of the world views them, there are some fans who think the reaction of an audience in Biloxi is just as integral to the band's career as a good review in Rolling Stone or the the large market newspapers, etc. I can step back and try to be objective and say, the amazing press C50 got was FAR better for their image/career, etc., than making sure they hit the Beau Rivage in Mississippi each and every year.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 04:47:26 PM 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/
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #132 on: October 01, 2014, 04:55:48 PM »

Are you talking "young people" like children?
Yeah, always tons of children at Mike's Beach Boys shows.
I've never rated that as an attribute.

I can firmly attest to this fact: Unlike Jon's part of the country, the well-heeled NYC area folk are bypassing Mike Love concerts for the likes of off-Broadway, Lincoln Center and the Met, etc. I'm not saying that Brian's shows are bringing out Thurston Howell and his ilk, but the Mike shows I've caught over the recent years in the Tri-State NY area attract a lotta broken down sorts. County fair indoors. It is not a classy night out. It seems to me to be a decidedly lower income gang.

 
Yes that and their parents who are young adults. I've seen teenagers and 20 something's, as well. It may not be how it was in the 80s and 90s, but you are correct in that there are many more hipsters and high class dinks and the such at Brian's shows. We dregs who come from the middle class have to buy the cheaper seats and lay low in the shadows of Brian's shows. Boy, never thought of Mike & Bruce's Beach Boys as the Every Man's band. They cater to us low life's. Wink
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
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #133 on: October 01, 2014, 05:07:59 PM »

I can step back and try to be objective and say, the amazing press C50 got was FAR better for their image/career, etc., than making sure they hit the Beau Rivage in Mississippi each and every year.

But I'll bet that BRI is more interested in those Beau Rivage shows - along with all the little kiddies and old fogies - than the amazing press the C50 Reunion got.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #134 on: October 01, 2014, 05:12:20 PM »

I can step back and try to be objective and say, the amazing press C50 got was FAR better for their image/career, etc., than making sure they hit the Beau Rivage in Mississippi each and every year.

But I'll bet that BRI is more interested in those Beau Rivage shows - along with all the little kiddies and old fogies - than the amazing press the C50 Reunion got.

BRI is three guys and an estate. We don't know the detailed financials of C50, but it could have easily netted BRI members *collectively* MORE than a Mike tour. Many of us have theorized and suspected there's probably only one person in the whole equation who *may* have made less money on C50 compared to a Mike tour. Further, at the very least 50% of the shareholders of BRI wanted to continue C50.

Also, as we've been discussing, C50 had the wider cross-section of demographics of fans than either a Mike or Brian show. More expensive tickets, larger markets, larger venues, *and* the best press they've had in decades is something that BRI should LOVE, no pun intended.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 05:14:25 PM 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/
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #135 on: October 01, 2014, 05:22:50 PM »

I can step back and try to be objective and say, the amazing press C50 got was FAR better for their image/career, etc., than making sure they hit the Beau Rivage in Mississippi each and every year.

But I'll bet that BRI is more interested in those Beau Rivage shows - along with all the little kiddies and old fogies - than the amazing press the C50 Reunion got.

BRI is three guys and an estate. We don't know the detailed financials of C50, but it could have easily netted BRI members *collectively* MORE than a Mike tour.

Woulda/shoulda/coulda....BRI isn't interested in amazing press or publicity. Show me the money!
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #136 on: October 01, 2014, 05:25:47 PM »

I can step back and try to be objective and say, the amazing press C50 got was FAR better for their image/career, etc., than making sure they hit the Beau Rivage in Mississippi each and every year.

But I'll bet that BRI is more interested in those Beau Rivage shows - along with all the little kiddies and old fogies - than the amazing press the C50 Reunion got.

BRI is three guys and an estate. We don't know the detailed financials of C50, but it could have easily netted BRI members *collectively* MORE than a Mike tour.

Woulda/shoulda/coulda....BRI isn't interested in amazing press or publicity. Show me the money!

I can say with as much confidence as one possibly could without seeing their personal financial statements that at least 50% of BRI, in the form of Brian and Al, made TONS more money on C50 than they make off of Mike's tour.
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/
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #137 on: October 01, 2014, 05:38:30 PM »

I can step back and try to be objective and say, the amazing press C50 got was FAR better for their image/career, etc., than making sure they hit the Beau Rivage in Mississippi each and every year.

But I'll bet that BRI is more interested in those Beau Rivage shows - along with all the little kiddies and old fogies - than the amazing press the C50 Reunion got.

BRI is three guys and an estate. We don't know the detailed financials of C50, but it could have easily netted BRI members *collectively* MORE than a Mike tour.

Woulda/shoulda/coulda....BRI isn't interested in amazing press or publicity. Show me the money!

I can say with as much confidence as one possibly could without seeing their personal financial statements that at least 50% of BRI, in the form of Brian and Al, made TONS more money on C50 than they make off of Mike's tour.

You didn't read closely what I wrote - SHOW me the money, not WORK for the money. Yes, they could conceivably make more money with the C50 lineup than merely milking the M & B roadshow. But, then they'd actually have to perform the 70+ shows and the meet and greets and staged soundchecks, etc. "No more shows, please." See how well they (and their spouses) get along? Either they'd kill themselves or they'd kill each other!
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #138 on: October 01, 2014, 05:41:25 PM »

I can step back and try to be objective and say, the amazing press C50 got was FAR better for their image/career, etc., than making sure they hit the Beau Rivage in Mississippi each and every year.

But I'll bet that BRI is more interested in those Beau Rivage shows - along with all the little kiddies and old fogies - than the amazing press the C50 Reunion got.

BRI is three guys and an estate. We don't know the detailed financials of C50, but it could have easily netted BRI members *collectively* MORE than a Mike tour.

Woulda/shoulda/coulda....BRI isn't interested in amazing press or publicity. Show me the money!

I can say with as much confidence as one possibly could without seeing their personal financial statements that at least 50% of BRI, in the form of Brian and Al, made TONS more money on C50 than they make off of Mike's tour.

You didn't read closely what I wrote - SHOW me the money, not WORK for the money. Yes, they could conceivably make more money with the C50 lineup than merely milking the M & B roadshow. But, then they'd actually have to perform the 70+ shows and the meet and greets and staged soundchecks, etc. "No more shows, please." See how well they (and their spouses) get along? Either they'd kill themselves or they'd kill each other!

Nobody including Mike has contested that Brian and Al wanted to do more reunion shows. That's pretty strong evidence they wanted to keep going, whether for the money, or the experience, or likely both.

As has been discussed elsewhere, Brian and Al likely don't make a ton of money (relatively) off their cut of the licensing fee from Mike's tour. The idea that money is the one and only motivator for "letting" Mike use the name is far too oversimplified.

Brian and AL *surely* made TONS more money off of C50. Carl's estate probably did too. Even Mike *may* have.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 05:42:35 PM 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/
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 722



View Profile
« Reply #139 on: October 01, 2014, 05:50:18 PM »

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

I think the Tony Bennet renaissance began much like the Tom Jones and Johnny Cash comebacks around the same time, where young audiences discovered them and sort of liked them in a tongue-in-cheek way at first before developing in to a full blown appreciation. It didn't hurt that Tony's music video "Steppin' Out With My Baby" amazingly was added to MTV's playlist, giving more exposure than anything he had done in the prior ten years. There was also the "swing revival" happening at the same time, with Harry Connick Jr., The Brian Setzer Orchestra, etc. It was a situation where the stars aligned in Tony's favor.

Another reason why The Beach Boys have been lumped into the "oldies but goodies" category is because Oldies radio is the only format they got airplay on for 40 years!! Classic Rock radio will play The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc (nothing before 1965 naturally) but have ignored the Beach Boys entirely, unless there was a lone wolf out there like Pete Fornatale who would extoll the virtues of "Sunflower". Truth to be told, it was so little attention that it never made any impact on the format. We can't underestimate the power of radio formats in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Generations grew up thinking of The Beach Boys like they would The Four Seasons, The Turtles, etc. and would never expect or even WANT to hear them alongside "serious" music like Led Zeppelin. Obviously radio is dying out now and has less of an impact than it did these past 40 years but .....40 years is some MAJOR history/brainwashing to overcome.


There seems to be a perception on this board that Mike & Bruce's shows somehow tarnish the legacy of The Beach Boys. I don't see that at all. We've come a long way these past 40 years. I think the average music geek today who's into Brian Wilson in the same way he's into Big Star and The Raspberries, doesn't listen to either Classic Rock or Oldies radio, doesn't have these divisions being drilled into his head all day, and doesn't consider the live shows to have any bearing on the legacy of the group. These younger fans seem to only be into Pet Sounds and Smile and few "curated" oddball tracks here and there. Going to see a Brian Wilson show as much to pay respect as to enjoy the music (much like seeing Tony Bennet). Whatever any of the rest of the guys do in various live iterations has zero effect of the group's legacy. Pet Sounds still sells. The Smile Sessions was a huge success and Mike & Bruce were touring all through it and it neither helped or hurt the sales, reviews, etc. (BTW Mike & Bruce do a great live show. There's nothing to be embarrassed about there).

Brian's music in Indie circles is revered the same way Daniel Johnston's music is and, uniquely, he's appreciated OUTSIDE the group (something Carl's legacy hasn't achieved yet for example). What I see is Dennis's comment of "He's everything. We're nothing" really coming true for younger fans/Millenials. Personally I'm not a fan of that idea now, although I was certainly on board with that in my 20's. I get where this notion that the rest of The Beach Boys are worthless is coming from. It may be a case of overcompensating for all those years Brian's musical identity was given short shrift while the rock world proclaimed the genius of Lennon and McCartney, but I feel all the members of The Beach Boys left their stamp on the group's sound. Brian is obviously the key factor, the leader, the most important member, the genius, the one-man band, etc. but all of The Beach Boys are musical heavyweights in my eyes (and ears).


And for the record, I can't stand Classic Rock radio. For any radio station to call itself Classic Rock and NOT play Chuck Berry makes it a joke (but I'm way in the minority there...so much so that my opinion would be irrelevant to the programmers and listeners).
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 05:55:54 PM by GhostyTMRS » Logged
Sheriff John Stone
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5309



View Profile
« Reply #140 on: October 01, 2014, 05:55:51 PM »

I can step back and try to be objective and say, the amazing press C50 got was FAR better for their image/career, etc., than making sure they hit the Beau Rivage in Mississippi each and every year.

But I'll bet that BRI is more interested in those Beau Rivage shows - along with all the little kiddies and old fogies - than the amazing press the C50 Reunion got.

BRI is three guys and an estate. We don't know the detailed financials of C50, but it could have easily netted BRI members *collectively* MORE than a Mike tour.

Woulda/shoulda/coulda....BRI isn't interested in amazing press or publicity. Show me the money!

I can say with as much confidence as one possibly could without seeing their personal financial statements that at least 50% of BRI, in the form of Brian and Al, made TONS more money on C50 than they make off of Mike's tour.

You didn't read closely what I wrote - SHOW me the money, not WORK for the money. Yes, they could conceivably make more money with the C50 lineup than merely milking the M & B roadshow. But, then they'd actually have to perform the 70+ shows and the meet and greets and staged soundchecks, etc. "No more shows, please." See how well they (and their spouses) get along? Either they'd kill themselves or they'd kill each other!

Nobody including Mike has contested that Brian and Al wanted to do more reunion shows. That's pretty strong evidence they wanted to keep going, whether for the money, or the experience, or likely both.

As has been discussed elsewhere, Brian and Al likely don't make a ton of money (relatively) off their cut of the licensing fee from Mike's tour. The idea that money is the one and only motivator for "letting" Mike use the name is far too oversimplified.

I don't agree with the figures that have been proposed/discussed on this board regarding Brian and Al's cut. I think they are too low, which is what I would expect from this board. But, even if they are accurate, it still amounts to millions of dollars since the license was negotiated. However, the actual dollar amount isn't relevant. Obviously they were happy with the figure/amount - whatever it was - during negotiations or else they wouldn't have agreed to it. And, obviously they are still happy with the figure/amount - whatever it is - because I don't hear of any movement to change it. And, don't you think if there was a movement to change it, we'd have heard about it? People always talk, especially in The Beach Boys' circle.

I do agree with you that the idea of money as the one and only motivator for "letting" Mike use the name does appear too simplified. But I'll be damned if I can think of a better one.

Good conversation, Hey Jude, but I'm now going to devote some time to my fantasy football team. My first two picks this year were Adrian Peterson and Tom Brady, so, needless to say, I'm been scrambling and recovering ever since! Angry
Logged
SIP.FLAC
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



View Profile
« Reply #141 on: October 01, 2014, 06:29:24 PM »

Are you talking "young people" like children?
Yeah, always tons of children at Mike's Beach Boys shows.
I've never rated that as an attribute.

I can firmly attest to this fact: Unlike Jon's part of the country, the well-heeled NYC area folk are bypassing Mike Love concerts for the likes of off-Broadway, Lincoln Center and the Met, etc. I'm not saying that Brian's shows are bringing out Thurston Howell and his ilk, but the Mike shows I've caught over the recent years in the Tri-State NY area attract a lotta broken down sorts. County fair indoors. It is not a classy night out. It seems to me to be a decidedly lower income gang.

 

I love seeing the kids at Mike's Beach Boys shows. They don't know about the entire shitshow behind the scenes, they just love the music.
Logged

Youre not allowed to have a picture in your signature so imagine this : Tony Montana shooting a machine gun (his little friend), but the face is actually Mike Love haha.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #142 on: October 01, 2014, 07:06:55 PM »

delete
« Last Edit: October 01, 2014, 07:31:01 PM by rockandroll » Logged
Dove Nested Towers
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 877

Goodnight, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are!


View Profile
« Reply #143 on: October 01, 2014, 10:20:47 PM »

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.

It's very relevant in that the musical content and catalogues of the top tier, most revered and iconic groups in rock and roll history, like the Beatles, Stones, Who, Led Zeppelin and yes, Beach Boys arguably transcend the significance of the band lineups, which is the heart of the "carrying the torch", "keeping the spirit of the music alive" etc. argument. This argument has validity in any case where the music is so uniquely evocative and has the power to positively affect people so strongly.

But it is trumped IMO by the other argument. In the cases of the Stones & Who, they know what's right & proper and all surviving members will d--n well be onstage at any concert that bears their bands' legendary name (McCartney & Ringo are a unique case and should be given a pass).

Brian Wilson began giving live solo shows in the late '90s, slowly recovered and re-habituated himself courageously to being onstage, and understandably didn't want to have anything to do with his cousin until the C50 opportunity arose, whereupon he rejoined the reunited BBs and enjoyed it so much that he was eager to extend the tour open-endedly, which as Howie said would have been thoroughly doable regardless of ML's protestations to the contrary, even if it would have gone against his standard operating procedure re: changing terms with promoters etc., but his cousin refused, prioritizing his own convenience and autonomy.

I'm sorry, but IMO whether he has the license legally or not, no matter how long he had done things his own way, used the name (no matter what dues were paid to use it) how used to it he was, etc., when the other original members, esp. THE original member most responsible for the creation of the music and the brand (any arguments to the contrary are simply benighted, no matter what his lyrical, vocal and performance contributions), asks, along with one or two other original members to remain in the current incarnation of the group, said cousin is OBLIGATED by any number of criteria to oblige him, END OF STORY, NO EXCUSES.

ML's refusal to allow it and his insistence on returning to the diluted status quo on his own terms constitutes a sad cheapening of the legendary group's name, image and brand, no ifs, ands or buts, but admittedly by a somewhat narrow margin over the "keeping the music alive" rationale, as I said before. One could argue that by working so hard and touring constantly for so many years he has earned the right to define the brand, but that is invalidated by the fact that, despite his undoubtedly sincere love for the music, he has also been amply remunerated in innumerable ways and therefore
had/has a vested interest in making the "sacrifice" of his hard work.

Pink Floyd is the closest parallel to the BB scenario but at least both Gilmour and Waters were legitimate co-visionaries who both carried on Syd Barrett's legacy and expanded it in two grand, totally legitimate directions.

I know this sounds dogmatic and very black & white, but assuming that there is/was a will on Brian's side to continue doing concerts with Mike & Bruce (Al as well, which is definite, and David would probably like to participate to some degree as is evdenced by M&B inviting him to join them for some shows now), anything less than allowing him/them to play whatever shows they want to with the "Beach Boys" continues the ongoing undermining of their legacy and cannot be adequately justified.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2014, 01:58:23 AM by Dove Nested Towers » Logged

"The police aren't there to create disorder,
they're there to preserve disorder!" -Mayor
Daly, Chicago 1968
Andrew G. Doe
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 17767


The triumph of The Hickey Script !


View Profile WWW
« Reply #144 on: October 01, 2014, 10:50:13 PM »

I'm sorry, but IMO whether he has the license legally or not, no matter how long he had done things his own way, used the name (no matter what dues were paid to use it) how used to it he was, etc., when the other original members, esp. THE original member most responsible for the creation of the music and the brand (any arguments to the contrary are simply benighted, no matter what his lyrical, vocal and performance contributions), asks, along with one or two other original members to remain in the current incarnation of the group, said cousin is OBLIGATED by any number of criteria to oblige him, END OF STORY, NO EXCUSES.

So you're stating that, in both the BB world and the real world, no contract is worth the paper it's written on if one or more of the founders of said institution decides otherwise ? To call such a mindset demented is being exceedingly polite. It's actually fucking insane, even for the BB cosmos. Reminds me of the French attitude to the EU - they sign the treaties, then do what they damn well want to. Suppose you and I formed an alliance to write a book, agreed to split everything 50/50... and then when it was a best seller, I told you "sorry, I'm keeping everything" ? In your world, you'd have to roll over and comply.

And, uh, why do Paul & Ringo get a free pass ? Just because they're the surviving Beatles ?
Logged

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

Posts: 877

Goodnight, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are!


View Profile
« Reply #145 on: October 01, 2014, 11:41:31 PM »

I'm sorry, but IMO whether he has the license legally or not, no matter how long he had done things his own way, used the name (no matter what dues were paid to use it) how used to it he was, etc., when the other original members, esp. THE original member most responsible for the creation of the music and the brand (any arguments to the contrary are simply benighted, no matter what his lyrical, vocal and performance contributions), asks, along with one or two other original members to remain in the current incarnation of the group, said cousin is OBLIGATED by any number of criteria to oblige him, END OF STORY, NO EXCUSES.

So you're stating that, in both the BB world and the real world, no contract is worth the paper it's written on if one or more of the founders of said institution decides otherwise ? To call such a mindset demented is being exceedingly polite. It's actually fucking insane, even for the BB cosmos. Reminds me of the French attitude to the EU - they sign the treaties, then do what they damn well want to. Suppose you and I formed an alliance to write a book, agreed to split everything 50/50... and then when it was a best seller, I told you "sorry, I'm keeping everything" ? In your world, you'd have to roll over and comply.

And, uh, why do Paul & Ringo get a free pass ? Just because they're the surviving Beatles ?

Signing the contracts only gives them the right to do whatever they want, not the right to determine how posterity or objective (as much as possible) observers view their decisions. They may regret their decisions later as well, obviously. In Brian Wilson's case, if he as The Beach Boys (as Dennis said) and not just another "messenger", hypothetically were to regret a decision to license the name and wants to be part of any band that would bill itself as the BBs, ML should respect that since, despite his immense, unique and invaluable contributions to the group, as many have said without Brian he would be pumping gas or its rough equivalent.

McCartney doesn't bill himself as The Beatles anyway, so a free pass wasn't necessary anyway in retrospect.
Logged

"The police aren't there to create disorder,
they're there to preserve disorder!" -Mayor
Daly, Chicago 1968
Lonely Summer
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3932


View Profile
« Reply #146 on: October 02, 2014, 12:09:16 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

I think the Tony Bennet renaissance began much like the Tom Jones and Johnny Cash comebacks around the same time, where young audiences discovered them and sort of liked them in a tongue-in-cheek way at first before developing in to a full blown appreciation. It didn't hurt that Tony's music video "Steppin' Out With My Baby" amazingly was added to MTV's playlist, giving more exposure than anything he had done in the prior ten years. There was also the "swing revival" happening at the same time, with Harry Connick Jr., The Brian Setzer Orchestra, etc. It was a situation where the stars aligned in Tony's favor.

Another reason why The Beach Boys have been lumped into the "oldies but goodies" category is because Oldies radio is the only format they got airplay on for 40 years!! Classic Rock radio will play The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc (nothing before 1965 naturally) but have ignored the Beach Boys entirely, unless there was a lone wolf out there like Pete Fornatale who would extoll the virtues of "Sunflower". Truth to be told, it was so little attention that it never made any impact on the format. We can't underestimate the power of radio formats in the 70's, 80's and 90's. Generations grew up thinking of The Beach Boys like they would The Four Seasons, The Turtles, etc. and would never expect or even WANT to hear them alongside "serious" music like Led Zeppelin. Obviously radio is dying out now and has less of an impact than it did these past 40 years but .....40 years is some MAJOR history/brainwashing to overcome.


There seems to be a perception on this board that Mike & Bruce's shows somehow tarnish the legacy of The Beach Boys. I don't see that at all. We've come a long way these past 40 years. I think the average music geek today who's into Brian Wilson in the same way he's into Big Star and The Raspberries, doesn't listen to either Classic Rock or Oldies radio, doesn't have these divisions being drilled into his head all day, and doesn't consider the live shows to have any bearing on the legacy of the group. These younger fans seem to only be into Pet Sounds and Smile and few "curated" oddball tracks here and there. Going to see a Brian Wilson show as much to pay respect as to enjoy the music (much like seeing Tony Bennet). Whatever any of the rest of the guys do in various live iterations has zero effect of the group's legacy. Pet Sounds still sells. The Smile Sessions was a huge success and Mike & Bruce were touring all through it and it neither helped or hurt the sales, reviews, etc. (BTW Mike & Bruce do a great live show. There's nothing to be embarrassed about there).

Brian's music in Indie circles is revered the same way Daniel Johnston's music is and, uniquely, he's appreciated OUTSIDE the group (something Carl's legacy hasn't achieved yet for example). What I see is Dennis's comment of "He's everything. We're nothing" really coming true for younger fans/Millenials. Personally I'm not a fan of that idea now, although I was certainly on board with that in my 20's. I get where this notion that the rest of The Beach Boys are worthless is coming from. It may be a case of overcompensating for all those years Brian's musical identity was given short shrift while the rock world proclaimed the genius of Lennon and McCartney, but I feel all the members of The Beach Boys left their stamp on the group's sound. Brian is obviously the key factor, the leader, the most important member, the genius, the one-man band, etc. but all of The Beach Boys are musical heavyweights in my eyes (and ears).


And for the record, I can't stand Classic Rock radio. For any radio station to call itself Classic Rock and NOT play Chuck Berry makes it a joke (but I'm way in the minority there...so much so that my opinion would be irrelevant to the programmers and listeners).
I agree with you - especially on this last statement. It's just wrong to promote the idea that rock music began in 1965, or thereabouts. I guess that is the arbitrary cutoff for when "rock 'n' roll" or "rock and roll" became just "rock".
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 #147 on: October 02, 2014, 12:34:23 AM »

As someone who generally is not a fan of early rock and roll, it's no skin off my ass, although I realize I'm in the minority.

As for the reference to Pink Floyd, I agree...up until a point. For me, Animals was the last true Pink Floyd album I dug. I actually prefer the Final Cut to the Wall, and massively so (another thing that puts me in the minority), but that's a Waters solo album in all but name. The post-Waters Floyd? With a couple of individual tracks aside, I do not care for it at ALL.
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Nicko1234
Guest
« Reply #148 on: October 02, 2014, 01:36:08 AM »

Nicko -- I bet if I wrote  the opposite, you would disagree that, too.
This dance is getting old (even with the smiley faces).

Yep. At the moment I think you are sometimes claiming that various shades of grey are black. If you started claiming they were white then you are right that I would still disagree.  Smiley  Cheesy  Grin

If you had simply said that, `More young hipsters attend Brian`s shows than Mike and Bruce`s` then I don`t think anyone would disagree.

The fact is that people of all ages attend Mike and Bruce`s shows depending on the venues. If no young women were attending the shows then Mike would have retired years ago.  Wink
Logged
Fire Wind
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 299



View Profile
« Reply #149 on: October 02, 2014, 04:46:53 AM »

I think Mike can appreciate young folk/hipsters okay.  I recall, at a Mike n' Bruce gig, me mouthing along to Darlin' in the stalls, while Cowsill sang.  Mike looked at me a couple of times during the song, then mentioned something about the fans here and their knowledge when the song ended.  Can't remember his exact words, but the sentiment was there.

In the splendid post-show afterglow, an older guy passed me and my woman, still standing by our seats, and starts saying to his own chums pointedly, 'pfff, yeah like young bands these days, huh like they could do that...huh, yeah, young bands, yeah, young huh.'

C50 was a good mix of folk, but there was still a broader spread of humanity.  A fist-fight nearly broke out near me at Wembley.  Aggression.  Men shouting.  All while Mike was giving his TM spiel leading into All This is That.
Logged

I still can taste the ocean breeze...
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.797 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!