Why did warner bros screw up promotion/marketing?

[kookadams]

The Beach Boys were doing so well overseas with album sales in the late 60s but unfortunately capitol screwed them in the US and yet in 1970 they come out with Sunflower and it sold so poorly...I like Surfs Up but I think Sunflower has better harmonies and some solid cuts so what happened? The marketing crew at EMI must've been doin something right that they couldn't get right in America... it just seems to be that the US just turned a deaf ear to rock music at that time with the exception of CCR and a few others. And correct me if I'm wrong but the BBs did Cotton Fields a year prior to CCR..ps- willy & the poorboys and cosmos factory were their cream of the crop...but the BBs were rockin just as strong with 20/20 and sunflower.

[Jim V.]

The Beach Boys were doing so well overseas with album sales in the late 60s but unfortunately capitol screwed them in the US and yet in 1970 they come out with Sunflower and it sold so poorly...I like Surfs Up but I think Sunflower has better harmonies and some solid cuts so what happened? The marketing crew at EMI must've been doin something right that they couldn't get right in America... it just seems to be that the US just turned a deaf ear to rock music at that time with the exception of CCR and a few others. And correct me if I'm wrong but the BBs did Cotton Fields a year prior to CCR..ps- willy & the poorboys and cosmos factory were their cream of the crop...but the BBs were rockin just as strong with 20/20 and sunflower.

Dude. How can you say people turned a deaf ear to rock at this time? "Rock" was at it's height during this time. Jimi Hendrix. The Who. The Stones. Led Zeppelin. The Doors. Eric Clapton and whatever group he was playing with at any certain moment. And because The Beach Boys didn't play "rock" I think that's why 20/20 and Sunflower didn't do too well on the charts. And Surf's Up may have had the same fate if that album didn't have the song "Surf's Up" to lean on.

[Lee Marshall]

By the time CCR came along the Beach Boys boat had sailed.  Those of us who were fans at the time knew that 20/20 and Holland...and back to Friends...were great as would be Surfs up, Carl and the Passions and Holland.  BUT.  No one else cared.  Fogerty was and is blessed as a TALENT of the top degree.  CCR was the new flavour on the American block.  The only US group to put up a succesful line of defence against the British Invasion had been left in the wake and the dust of their own self-inflicted demise.  They went about the business of validating themselves instead with stellar live performances.

And when the publoc was ready to accept them again they unloaded 15 'big ones' and Love you...and the come back was aborted immediately after conception.  WHAT???!!!??? Said Joe Average.  How can a great live band like the Beach Boys release such sh*t?  We're never going to buy another one of their stinky little albums again.

And by and large?  They didn't.

[kookadams]

To put it in more, refined terms, I guess, why do you guys think and/or what do you think caused the music culture in Europe to be more conducive to the Beach Boys success in the late 60's - moreso, when compared to the to sales in the United States during the same time period? I personally feel that marketing/promotional differences are probably the most responsible and likely factor to cause such a disparity between how each continent reacted and received their music. Stil, open to other possibilities, so I would like to hear what your guys opinions/ideas on what could cause such different attitudes towards the band and their sales/overal popularity; they were far more successful across Europe in the late 60's than they were in the late 60's in the US.


Was it a difference in marketing? Culture? Possibly affected by politics at the time in each area? Any input is appreciated, curious to hear all points of view. Thanks.

[kookadams]

And sweetdudejim Im talkin about rockNroll not acid rock and arena rock..the who and stones peaked the same time as the BBs: 66.

[Jay]

And sweetdudejim Im talkin about rockNroll not acid rock and arena rock..the who and stones peaked the same time as the BBs: 66.

How on earth are The Who anywhere close to being "acid rock"? Some people shouldn't be allowed to post on the internet.

[Lonely Summer]

The Kinks suffered a similar fate to the Beach Boys in the late 60's/early 70's. In their case, they could not tour America, so the records sank without promotion. When they returned in 1970, they had a hit with "Lola", but couldn't keep the hits coming because Ray Davies decided to write about Muswell Hillbillies, and how much he hated the music biz. But like the Beach Boys in the early 70's, the Kinks had a loyal cult following that tolerated all their weirdness. When Ray finally got the rock operas out of his system, the band returned to a more accessible style of music and had some top selling albums. It's too bad that, by the time the US fans were interested in the BB's again, all they could do was crank out 15BO, LY, and MIU.

[kookadams]

So...if you call Do it again their "last" hit of the 60s and with 20/20 the correlative album when you look out how solid their output was with every record and then follows three albums all different from what preceded with sunflower ,surfs up and holland. But sunflower was mostly recorded in 69 so it could technically be the last BBs of the decade.

[rogerlancelot]

And sweetdudejim Im talkin about rockNroll not acid rock and arena rock..the who and stones peaked the same time as the BBs: 66.

How on earth are The Who anywhere close to being "acid rock"? Some people shouldn't be allowed to post on the internet.

Ognir, can you think of any band that really fits the description of "acid rock"? I've heard that term since I was a child but I can't imagine any work getting done (recording, concerts, press receptions, etc.) if all the members of the band are on acid all the time. Since drugs like acid and mushrooms cause temporary psychosis, the results could be kind of disappointing. Even the Beatles (every thread should bring their name up at least once) learned early on not to record while doing drugs like acid. They were drinking tea most of the time instead. Sounds boring but also very professional.

I haven't done acid in a couple of decades but now I have the urge to score some so I could record an album of old standards (pre-rock and roll) or at least an album with a lot of farting going on. Or both. I'll call it Cast Your Fart To The Wind or Songs For Gassy Couples.

Wait, what were we discussing here? Oh, yes. I find the Ramones to be highly over-rated.

Discuss.

[Jason Penick]

To put it in more, refined terms, I guess, why do you guys think and/or what do you think caused the music culture in Europe to be more conducive to the Beach Boys success in the late 60's - moreso, when compared to the to sales in the United States during the same time period? I personally feel that marketing/promotional differences are probably the most responsible and likely factor to cause such a disparity between how each continent reacted and received their music. Stil, open to other possibilities, so I would like to hear what your guys opinions/ideas on what could cause such different attitudes towards the band and their sales/overal popularity; they were far more successful across Europe in the late 60's than they were in the late 60's in the US.


Was it a difference in marketing? Culture? Possibly affected by politics at the time in each area? Any input is appreciated, curious to hear all points of view. Thanks.

Since you're having a hard time getting a straight answer to your question, I'll offer my two cents. The reason for the Beach Boys relative degree of success over in Europe during their Warner Bros. years was the cultural capital and goodwill they received off of Pet Sounds. Take for example the articles written about them in Melody Maker with titles like "Brian, Pop Genius". The reaction of the European press at the time towards Pet Sounds was far different to the way the group was portrayed by the U.S. teen mags. While people in the U.S. still saw them as "surfing Doris Days", European music fans were exposed to glowing write-ups and were thus fine with the idea of taking the Beach Boys seriously as musicians, at least up through "Cottonfields" when the hits dried up over there as well for the time being. Also, being aware of their relatively high profile overseas, the group focused on playing Europe as much as possible, giving them more exposure to the continent than many other American acts of the time. According to the charts at least, they were most popular in the Netherlands, which could well explain why they decided to record there eventually. I know there's direct quotes from the band members regarding their appeal in Europe, which I'm sure others can post.

[kookadams]

Jason Penick THANK YOU!!!! Someone that gets what I was getting at. Very well put.

[KDS]

And sweetdudejim Im talkin about rockNroll not acid rock and arena rock..the who and stones peaked the same time as the BBs: 66.

The Who put out some great singles around 65/66, but they didn't peak until later.

My friend, you need to grab copies of The Who - Tommy and Who's Next along with The Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers.  Listen to all four of them back to back to back to back.  Nothing on those hard rock records can be confused with acid rock.

While you're at it, include Led Zeppelin's first two albums, Uriah Heep - Very 'Eavy Very 'Umble, Deep Purple - In Rock, and Black Sabbath - Paranoid and Master of Reality. 

Hard rock was peaking in the late 60s / early 70s. 

[kookadams]

Ha! Now I know youre joking if youre telling me to listen to led zeppelin...I mean cmon.

[KDS]

If you're not a fan of Led Zeppelin, that's fine.  But it's still rock and roll.  They even put out a song called "Rock and Roll." 

But to go back to your earlier point, for whatever reason, US fans, for the most part, never allowed The Beach Boys to evolve the way The Beatles, The Stones, or The Who were able to.  To many, The Beach Boys are those five guys with striped shirts, singing about surf and cars.  That stereotype continues to this day in the states.   I mean how long did it take for Pet Sounds to really catch on? 

In fact, if you asked your average music fan who is not as into BB/BW music as we are on here in the States to name three Beach Boys songs released after 1967, you'll likely get Kokomo, maybe Rock and Roll Music (the weak 15BO version), but not much else. 

I'm hoping Love and Mercy convinces people to dig a little deeper and find some the treasures from 68-73. 

[Mike's Beard]

The Beach Boys didn't really catch on in the UK until a good three years after they broke in the States so they never had to overcome the 'fun in the sun' stereotype over here.

[kookadams]

See I dont get the "fun in the sun" stereotype crap...you can say that any band had a niche then, the BBs had the striped shirts,  the beatles had the mod getup of the suits and moptops..

[Mike's Beard]

Think more along the lines of 'lyrical content'.

[KDS]

See I dont get the "fun in the sun" stereotype crap...you can say that any band had a niche then, the BBs had the striped shirts,  the beatles had the mod getup of the suits and moptops..

I don't agree with the stereotype at all.  But the Boys established an image with their first six albums.  The songs from those albums very extremely successful.  And they were called The Beach Boys after all (even if they didn't choose the name).  

[Emdeeh]

I think the change in American radio at the time was part of the issue. For the longest time, radio was mostly AM, and the Beach Boys were played (and fared quite well) on the Top 40 stations. Around the time their fortunes changed, FM radio began its domination. Those late-'60s/early '70s FM stations had more adventurous and open playlists than their AM counterparts. The AM stations were only playing a few artists by comparison. The FM stations were much more diverse, and the BBs had a LOT more competition for airplay.

My favorite station back in the day was FM-100 in Memphis. It had a very open format, with rock, blues, pop, comedy, folk, soul, country, and other elements all in the mix. Mostly album cuts were played -- you could even hear a full album side regularly.

I did get FM-100 to play my Beach Boys album track requests and they even highlighted Surf's Up when it was released. Then the big corporations started buying up and/or programming the FM stations and the party was over.... back to more limited playlists (and later on, entire format changes).  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The Beach Boys didn't really catch on in the UK until a good three years after they broke in the States so they never had to overcome the 'fun in the sun' stereotype over here.

I think this a huge part of it. Apart from a few examples (Good Vibrations being a big one), the Beach Boys had largely been associated with a particular theme and there was no audience that particularly wanted to see them do anything else in the United States. I think it came as less of a surprise to Beatles fans when they started experimenting with their sound since they were, in many ways, always cutting edge. The Beach Boys were too, I'd say, but in a less transparent way and may not have been considered to be even when they were cutting some of the finest records out there.

[Jason Penick]

Jason Penick THANK YOU!!!! Someone that gets what I was getting at. Very well put.

No problem, I thought it was an interesting question. Having never lived in Europe I cannot say my analysis is spot on, but I have seen the articles in Melody Maker and NME and it's apparent that the Beach Boys were given a level of artistic respect over there that they didn't really achieve in the US (a couple of positive Rolling Stone album reviews and the Jules Siegel article notwithstanding). What others have said about the two year delay in popularity/recognition and the rise of FM radio in the States rings true as well.

Another thing that just occurred to me: I've read interviews with British musicians in the past concerning the Beach Boys where they mentioned that to them (the musicians) California may have well been on another planet. There was a level of fascination with California as this far off land of enchantment that may not have resonated as strongly with Americans who would have had an easier time visiting the state.

[Beachlad]

Did the Beach Boys ever get proper marketing?<Sans 15 Big Ones > I think part of Brian's problem was the amount of albums they had to put out. I think Capital could have Milked the early Albums better than they did and lord knows they didn't do any favors to Pet SOunds.

[Cyncie]

I do think there's truth to the idea that the stereotype hurt the band, but I don't think it was the final blow. Good Vibrations moved the Boys past the surf and sun image into the late 60's psychedelic "Flower Power" genre, and proved Brian's point that The Beach Boys could ditch the formula and still be The Beach Boys. They broke that image then and there, and could have moved on. But, to paraphrase Dylan, "Times, they were a-changin." Not all of the baggage belonged to the boys.

I don't think you can remove The Beach Boys, and popular music in general, from the political and social landscape in the US during the 60's. With all of the social upheaval in the US at that time, music changed, and The Beach Boys weren't gritty enough to be taken seriously in that climate. By the late 60's-early 70's, Viet Nam, political assassinations, the Civil Rights protests, Kent State, Charles Manson, mounting drug related celebrity deaths, and Watergate had exposed the darker side of American social and and political culture. The Summer of Love was followed by Altamont Speedway. Idealistic kids who wanted to have fun with the girls on the beach had been replaced by idealistic kids who wanted to change the world through "love ins." But, when the ugliness finally reached home, those kids were replaced by less trusting, less idealistic youth who preferred a more aggressive style of music to reflect their own disillusionment. It wasn't just a matter of style. It was also a matter of substance, and The Beach Boys weren't gritty or cynical in a time when American youth wanted hard rock angst. Of course, you still had groups like The Carpenters who were wildly successful performing melodic, orchestrated songs with harmonies, hooks and catchy lyrics; and The Beach Boys certainly could have found a niche in soft rock if they had accepted the trend. But, to the 16 year old "serious album rocker", that was all just bubble gum or Top 40, not to be taken seriously by anyone over the age of 10.

I think, since Europe was not in the midst of America's social upheaval, European audiences were able to appreciate the Beach Boys for what they were, no baggage attached.

[kookadams]

Cyncie I totally know what you mean but think about how in 77 when the Ramones broke they were hard rockn, cutting edge AND bubblegum, they took the BBs golden era and reinvented rockNroll making it pure again.

[Ron]

The Beach Boys 'problem' with marketing was just that they had been around too long.  Hardly any band or artist enjoys a super long career, they have a shelf life and then they fade.  You could make an argument that maybe that didn't happen with the Stones, and so it should have been able to happen for the Beach Boys too but with very, very, very few exceptions you just don't get to keep selling big numbers of albums for decades.  

Add on top of that that in the late 60's music had a considerable shift, and nobody survived that jump!  You could name dozens of great artists from the early 60's that couldn't sell sh*t in the late 60's even though they were fantastic.  Roy Orbison, the Everly Brothers, Chuck Berry, etc.  The Beach Boys were more like them than the music that was out at the time...  

Basically what Cyncie said...