gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680599 Posts in 27601 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 11:31:24 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Were the Beach Boys a Progressive Band?  (Read 5321 times)
TMinthePM
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 320


How can I show you Zen if you do not first empty y


View Profile
« on: February 05, 2016, 12:32:54 AM »

A commentator in the rock press once described the Beach Boys as the most conservative of the great rock bands.

The Stones produced Street Fighting Man, the Beatles produced Revolution. Creedence produced Fortunate Son, Motown produced What's Going On.

The Beach Boys produced Do It Again.

It's thus not hard to understand why the Beach Boys were irrelevant and ignored as the '60's reached their climax.

And then there is the sight of them cavorting with Ronald Reagan in the '80's...but I'll just put that aside - can you imagine Lennon or Mick serenading Nancy?

Brian Wilson, master tho he is musically, has often seemed lyrically tongue-tied, relying on a string of lyricists,  Roger Christian, et. al. to put into words the ideas and feelings he was able to express in sound.

Still, Feel Flows is light years from Surfin' Safari, and I know of nothing, before or since that can compare with Cabinessence, so there is certainly progress in that.

Still, if there is any validity to the idea that artists produce work that reflects, interprets, informs and gives meaning to the time in which they live, can it be said that the Beach Boys did so? Or were they mere entertainers?   
Logged
JK
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6053


Maybe I put too much faith in atmosphere


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 05, 2016, 02:21:49 AM »

Not progressive in the mainstream sense (as in prog rock, one of those awful expressions).

I'd say "Cabinessence" makes most so-called progressive bands sound conservative. Grin
Logged

"Ik bun moar een eenvoudige boerenlul en doar schoam ik mien niet veur" (Normaal, 1978)
You're Grass and I'm a Power Mower: A Beach Boys Orchestration Web Series
the Carbon Freeze | Eclectic Essays & Art
bossaroo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 1631


...let's be friends...


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 05, 2016, 02:36:19 AM »

Good Vibrations remains the most progressive single of all time.

indeed, Brian is one of the most progressive figures in popular music but there was always some portion of the Beach Boys organization and audience who resisted such radical innovation. as a result, Brian and the band's musical evolution was stunted to some degree and we ended up with a nostalgic retread like Do It Again in 1968. most fingers point at Mike for adhering to "the formula" and eventually turning the band into the oldies revue it remains to this day... not to mention their shameless political alignments of the 8os and beyond.

does another band exist with such starkly contrasting vision within its own ranks? Brian most certainly created music that interprets and informs the time in which it was created. as someone recently stated: Brian is an artist, Mike is an entertainer.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 02:44:51 AM by bossaroo » Logged
Matt Bielewicz
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 648


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2016, 02:46:22 AM »

...if there is any validity to the idea that artists produce work that reflects, interprets, informs and gives meaning to the time in which they live, can it be said that the Beach Boys did so?

In response to this part of your post, I would contend: absolutely. Even before I was any kind of fan, I could recognise that early-60s California sound a mile off, and it seemed to me, even as a kid, that nothing better conveyed or reflected what it was like to be an affluent teenager in the early part of that decade on the west coast of America: the excitement, the exuberance, the sheer joie de vivre (and that's just the guitar intro to Surfin USA!). That's not nostalgia from my lifetime talking, either: I'm a child of the 70s and 80s, born far away near the muddy, grey estuarial coast of Essex, England. Until about 1994 I thought the Beach Boys were washed-up old Reaganite sad-sacks, and always had been after about 1964.

I would also say that as concerns turned inward for those same West Coast teenagers as they entered their 20s and began to worry about relationships and the complexities of the world they were growing up in, Pet Sounds does a fine job of reflecting and representing those experiences, too. Good Vibrations, of course, was way ahead of its time on many levels: in terms of production, assembly, performance and lyrical concept. And SMiLE might have continued that: what we have inherited of Cabin Essence seems to suggest that, certainly. But of course that never came out at the time, and by its release in 1968, there was plenty of other stuff fighting for attention in that genre.

So far, so uncontroversial - I think most people here would agree with what I've said so far. But now we get into more personal opinions that I know aren't necessarily going to be shared by everyone. I know a lot of people like the early 70s Beach Boys, for example the crackerjack live band, the more 'progressive' material and lyrics. But it's always seemed a bit forced to me, as though the band were trying too hard to be something they fundamentally weren't. The speed with which they dropped all of that when Endless Summer hit big also seems a bit suspicious. I can't argue with the fact that the live band were a dynamite unit on stage, but... well... I don't put In Concert on very often. Hardly ever, actually.

So, progressive...? well, I think they tried for that. But I don't think they were ever really accepted in that genre, and personally, I don't think they wore it very comfortably. At the end of the day, I'll always be much more of a poppy Sunflower fan than a semi-progressive Surf's Up fan (the album, I mean). And while I'm hugely admiring of VDP's baroque lyrics, I really can't take Reilly's efforts of a few years later seriously. They seem like third-generation photocopies of sub-Yes progressive drivel to me. But that's just me. I've never been fond of early 70s music. Give me the disco Here Comes The Night any day.

...no, really!

I think they never really reflected the times in which they lived very closely , or in any kind of effective way, after 1967. Other than in the most superficial way, that is — for example, 'The Beach Boys' could not possibly have been recorded and released sounding like that in *any* time in history other than from around 1984 to early 1986!
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #4 on: February 05, 2016, 05:09:28 AM »

I think the Beach Boys and Brian Wilson have had some progressive moments, as have The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, and even Queen. 

But I wouldn't call them a progressive band. 
Logged
Beachlad
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 05, 2016, 05:34:07 AM »

Their fight with Capital, Brian Wilson in the studio, being their own publishers were very progressive. <maybe the most in the 60's>  I can see once Endless summer came out not so much. <though they made bank with it>
Logged
Lee Marshall
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1639



View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2016, 06:04:39 AM »

The Beach Boys NOT PROGRESSIVE?  What a dink!!!  It took just 4 short years to move from Surfin Safari to Pet Sounds.  Of course Mike had dropped anchor by then but the rest of the guys moved on GLADLY for awhile.  They did progress up to and including Holland [Mike sometimes kicking and screaming...Do It Again] and also as concert performers thanks to Jack R.  Then...it stopped.  Brian progressed in a circular motion.  Denny progressed on for as long as he could hold 'it' together.   But they did so as solo artists.

Arsewipists should not be allowed to both write articles and then be published as well.
Logged

"Add Some...Music...To Your Day.  I do.  It's the only way to fly.  Well...what was I gonna put here?  An apple a day keeps the doctor away?  Hum me a few bars."   Lee Marshall [2014]

Donald  TRUMP!  ...  Is TOAST.  "What a disaster."  "Overrated?"... ... ..."BIG LEAGUE."  "Lots of people are saying it"  "I will tell you that."   Collusion, Money Laundering, Treason.   B'Bye Dirty Donnie!!!  Adios!!!  Bon Voyage!!!  Toodles!!!  Move yourself...SPANKY!!!  Jail awaits.  It's NO "Witch Hunt". There IS Collusion...and worse.  The Russian Mafia!!  Conspiracies!!  Fraud!!  This racist is goin' down...and soon.  Good Riddance.  And take the kids.
KDS
Guest
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2016, 06:38:32 AM »

The Beach Boys NOT PROGRESSIVE?  What a dink!!!  It took just 4 short years to move from Surfin Safari to Pet Sounds.  Of course Mike had dropped anchor by then but the rest of the guys moved on GLADLY for awhile.  They did progress up to and including Holland [Mike sometimes kicking and screaming...Do It Again] and also as concert performers thanks to Jack R.  Then...it stopped.  Brian progressed in a circular motion.  Denny progressed on for as long as he could hold 'it' together.   But they did so as solo artists.

Arsewipists should not be allowed to both write articles and then be published as well.

I will agree that, as a band, the Beach Boys, like many bands that have had long careers, have progressed (and at certain points in their history regressed).  And there are a lot of progressive music moments from 66-73 especially.

But, progressing as a band/artists to me is different than being a "progressive band."  When I think of progressive bands, I think Pink Floyd, Yes, Genesis, ELP, King Crimson, etc etc. 
Logged
The Heartical Don
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4761



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2016, 06:59:20 AM »

They were.

The idea that the BBs were/are 'conservative' is a construct that has been created by journalists and others active in the media. It did not help that especially Mike Love led the various incarnations of the band in affiliations with right-wing public persons. I think it was writer Dave Marsh who took the idea of their purported conservatism quite far, he coined the term 'supply side rock' for the BBs in the late '80s. Marsh missed the point, and he was quite far off the mark too.

Oh, I don't find prog rock really innovative, and I think 'prog' is meant to express just that. I don't dislike prog, I actually have a soft spot for Yes - and I can even hear some Yes in the later work of the Flaming Lips.

But I don't think 'innovative' in pop equals technical proficiency, very long compositions, vague fantasy lyrics, and long drum, guitar, and keyboard solos.

Let's define 'innovative' this way: an artists starts with the standard format of the song, as it has been throughout the ages. Some 3 minutes seems to fit the human psyche very well. The chorus-verse-bridge idea too. Nice and not difficult to memorize, should you want to do that. The 20th century brought great leaps forward in terms of studio technology and recording techniques.

In steps Brian Wilson. And the world would never be the same any more.

(I am very sorry but I have to stop here. I just noticed that it is later than I thought. Will try write a bit more; unless others express what I want to add in the interim.)
Logged

80% Of Success Is Showing Up
KDS
Guest
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2016, 07:24:09 AM »

They were.

The idea that the BBs were/are 'conservative' is a construct that has been created by journalists and others active in the media. It did not help that especially Mike Love led the various incarnations of the band in affiliations with right-wing public persons. I think it was writer Dave Marsh who took the idea of their purported conservatism quite far, he coined the term 'supply side rock' for the BBs in the late '80s. Marsh missed the point, and he was quite far off the mark too.

Oh, I don't find prog rock really innovative, and I think 'prog' is meant to express just that. I don't dislike prog, I actually have a soft spot for Yes - and I can even hear some Yes in the later work of the Flaming Lips.

But I don't think 'innovative' in pop equals technical proficiency, very long compositions, vague fantasy lyrics, and long drum, guitar, and keyboard solos.

Let's define 'innovative' this way: an artists starts with the standard format of the song, as it has been throughout the ages. Some 3 minutes seems to fit the human psyche very well. The chorus-verse-bridge idea too. Nice and not difficult to memorize, should you want to do that. The 20th century brought great leaps forward in terms of studio technology and recording techniques.

In steps Brian Wilson. And the world would never be the same any more.

(I am very sorry but I have to stop here. I just noticed that it is later than I thought. Will try write a bit more; unless others express what I want to add in the interim.)

I think in this post, you just proved that The Beach Boys are not progressive.

Progressive rock can be innovative.  But, progressive and innovative are not the same thing. 

The Beach Boys and Brian Wilson are indeed innovative.  But, despite some of their more daring material in the late 60s / early 70s, I would not categorize them as progressive. 

The Beatles put out Sgt Peppers / Strawberry Fields, etc.  These are progressive moments, but I don't consider them a progressive act.  Innovators, yes!! 
Logged
Smilin Ed H
Guest
« Reply #10 on: February 05, 2016, 08:18:34 AM »

Progressive in what way?
Listen to Pet Sounds through Holland and tell me that's not some of the most experimental music created in that field/

Progressive in the prog sense? No. Thankfully. Progressive in the sense of making a progression and being innovative? Definitely The writer can take Street Fighting Man as his Stones example, but he's being highly selective (or dense) if all he can come up with from the Boys is Do It Again, great though it is. I find a lot of the best Stones' stuff totally retrogressive and like it all the more for it.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2016, 08:25:03 AM »

Progressive in what way?
Listen to Pet Sounds through Holland and tell me that's not some of the most experimental music created in that field/

Progressive in the prog sense? No. Thankfully. Progressive in the sense of making a progression and being innovative? Definitely The writer can take Street Fighting Man as his Stones example, but he's being highly selective (or dense) if all he can come up with from the Boys is Do It Again, great though it is. I find a lot of the best Stones' stuff totally retrogressive and like it all the more for it.

Maybe my personal definition of progressive differs from others. 

Pet Sounds - Holland has a lot of material that could be called progressive in nature.  But, I don't think this very fruitful, but very short, period in Beach Boys history makes them a progressive band per se. 
Logged
drbeachboy
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5214



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 05, 2016, 08:38:56 AM »

Progressive in what way?
Listen to Pet Sounds through Holland and tell me that's not some of the most experimental music created in that field/

Progressive in the prog sense? No. Thankfully. Progressive in the sense of making a progression and being innovative? Definitely The writer can take Street Fighting Man as his Stones example, but he's being highly selective (or dense) if all he can come up with from the Boys is Do It Again, great though it is. I find a lot of the best Stones' stuff totally retrogressive and like it all the more for it.

Maybe my personal definition of progressive differs from others. 

Pet Sounds - Holland has a lot of material that could be called progressive in nature.  But, I don't think this very fruitful, but very short, period in Beach Boys history makes them a progressive band per se. 
That 7-8 year period is longer than their "Hey day" period of 3-4 years. In my opinion they were not Progressive in the genre term. They had a few tunes that were, but it was never defining in the way it was for bands like Pink Floyd. etc. As you say, they were innovators, that no one listened to until many years later.
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
Magic Transistor Radio
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2974


Bill Cooper Mystery Babylon


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2016, 09:35:20 PM »

The Beach Boys are one of the most diverse bands of all time. How many bands did the likes of Babarann, Feel Flows, All I Want to Do, Sail On Sailor, Cool Cool Water, Woody Wood Pecker's Symphony, California Saga, Mt Vernon and Fairway, Johnny Carson, etc! Progressive may not define them, but they explored many different things. And it was mostly good until after Love You. They all faught against their surfing image (including Mike) until the audience made it clear they wanted the hits.
Logged

"Over the years, I've been accused of not supporting our new music from this era (67-73) and just wanting to play our hits. That's complete b.s......I was also, as the front man, the one promoting these songs onstage and have the scars to show for it."
Mike Love autobiography (pg 242-243)
TMinthePM
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 320


How can I show you Zen if you do not first empty y


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 07, 2016, 01:44:21 AM »

There is this oft expressed view that the Beach Boys degenerated into an on-the-road-oldies-act as a result of Endless Summer.

I think this is an unfair criticism, as they always featured selections from their latest album when on tour.

Part of the problem seems to arise from the fact that latest albums became fewer and fewer as time progressed

That they featured signatures tunes for decades is nothing unusual. The Stones still perform Satisfaction, McCartney Hey Jude. Fogarty Bad Moon Rising.

Granted, opening with California Girls and closing with Fun Fun Fun in 1972 or 1982 or 1992 or 2002 or 2012 would seem suggest a band on auto-pilot, but - well I'm thinking of Louis Armstrong blowing the roof off some place in Chicago in 1955 playing 30 year old tunes - make your hair stand on end - or Benny Goodman reviving the Fletcher Henderson arrangements 50 years on and going out of this life swinging.

What I'm wondering is how long newer material remained in the set-list? Did something like The Trader resurface from time to time? Did the selection of oldies change up? Did they find something new in the old warhorses after a thousand performances?

I don't know exactly what I was thinking about the term "Progressive" at the top of this. Probably something in the vein of social consciousness combined with musical growth. In the end I guess the Zen-like explorations of Friends are as Progressive as the spaced out meandering of Leaving This Town, and the grit in the guitar break of latter day Surfin' USA says something different from the rapier-like sting in the original.

Just hanging this evening, mulling things over.




Logged
halblaineisgood
Guest
« Reply #15 on: February 07, 2016, 04:02:09 AM »

Good Vibrations wouldn't be the only song included in the classic rock format.
Logged
SamMcK
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 584



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 07, 2016, 06:24:06 AM »

Listening to the music from 1961-1978 to you can hear the development of one of the most expansive and rewarding catalogs in the history of Popular music.
There's an overlying melancholy to almost every note that Brian created at his peak, that is why newer fans keep coming back to the Beach Boys IMO. The earliest songs (1961-1964) tell the story of the 60's American lifestyle better than any other band in history, Pet Sounds conveys universal themes of love and loss, SMiLE tells the story of America's history, over the next 10 years they begin incorporating themes of Pop Soul, Bossa Nova, Hard Rock, Proto Synth Pop etc.
"Beginning with the creation of “Good Vibrations” in early-1966, the writing and recording of Smile was a long, arduous, and stressful process; Brian Wilson worked for over a year with young lyricist Van Dyke Parks and a multitude of session musicians, recording various music fragments that were largely disjointed; and avant-garde vignettes centering on themes of love, health, childhood innocence, and Americana, with recurring experimental, psychedelic, baroque, jazz, and classical motifs."

Even the New York Times, anticipating the SMiLE release called Brian & The Beach Boys innovators:

The New York Times – July 9, 1967

"It has been a worrying year for fans of The Beach Boys, formerly California’s leading surf pop group and now America’s leading competition with the Beatles where musical innovation and experimentation is concerned. Last May, band leader Brian Wilson unveiled his passion project, the album Pet Sounds, which truly sounded like nothing before it. Labeled ‘progressive pop’, many noted the complex orchestral and vocal arrangements, as well as unorthodox production techniques that even industry giants like Phil Spector hadn’t thought of first. Then, in October, we received the single “Good Vibrations”, a so-called “Pocket Symphony” that consisted of multiple musical fragments spliced together. That record was a number-one hit, and when Mr. Wilson announced his plans for an entire album recorded with a blend of techniques and styles used in Pet Sounds and “Vibrations”, those who had labeled him a pioneering genius had high hopes and expectations, and we were all curious to see what the young man could think of next."

and If Pet Sounds, SMiLE, Wild Honey, Surf's Up, Love You and Adult/Child are considered conservative than somethings clearly wrong!

The truth is that The Beach Boys has several conflicting legacies to deal with, the Wilson's brothers appearing to be more liberal, with Mike/Bruce appearing more conservative. But the band can not be tied down to any political ideology. (and it shouldn't either)
Forget the politics and listen.  
« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 06:25:04 AM by SamMcK » Logged
clack
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 537


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 07, 2016, 07:40:02 AM »

'Progressive' implies progress. But progress towards what end? Where is the journey's end for pop music? We know what progress looks like in science, or in medicine, and even politics has a theoretical end point -- the achievement of utopia. But what would be the musical equivalent of utopia?

The concept of progress in rock music was an illusion of the late 60's/early 70's. In 1965 pop music absorbed folk, then blues. 1966/67, rock began to tackle classical, experimental, jazz, and world music. A total music, absorbing and transcending all genres, seemed to be within reach. But rather than produce an all-encompassing, totalizing, mega-music, what we got was ELP doing Copeland with a rock beat.

To the punks, progressive rock was conservative.

Ultimately, it's about whether or not your music lasts. Not so much timeless -- nothing is timeless -- but time-resistant. A progressive rock group is one whose music holds up, is listened to by succeeding generations and influences succeeding generations of artists -- and by that criterion, the Beach Boys are progressive.

Logged
kookadams
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 656


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2021, 02:50:49 AM »

ANYONE WHO DOESN'T THINK THEY PROGRESSED DOESN'T KNOW WHAT ITS SUPPOSED TO MEAN. all summer long is a progression from surfin safari, pet sounds from summer days, sunflower/surfs up ARE a HUGE progress from the lukewarm friends etc. So CMON
Logged
thr33
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2021, 03:45:34 AM »

Progressive as a genre of music? Hard to tell, I know some of these terms have clearly-defined meanings. For instance, 15 Big Ones had a lot of covers, but isn’t using synths to that extent inherently progressive (even if it’s not as prevalent as in Love You)?

In terms of progressing, 5 years from Surfin’ to Surf’s Up speaks volumes imo.
Logged
maggie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2021, 09:06:03 AM »

In my very humble opinion, it is foolhardy to conflate artistic innovation with progressive politics, or artistic conservatism with regressive politics for that matter.

For the first half of the century, you can point to a laundry list of extremely innovative artists (from Stravinsky to Ezra Pound to Wallace Stevens to Picasso) who were conservative to the point of fascism.

I'm not saying that the connection between artistic innovation and progressive social/political attitudes is completely imaginary: undoubtedly a lot of avant-garde jazz musicians of the '60s were (and remain) genuine social progressives, but there are plenty of artists who were staunchly conservative about their art while also being very progressive politically and socially -- and vice versa.

For rock and roll in particular, you'd be surprised how many '60s "radicals" became Regan-worshippers and such. In fact, the whole "neoconservative" contingent that came into the ascendancy during the Bush era largely started as Summer of Love types.

It goes without saying that the Beach Boys were musically innovative and I think it also goes without saying that they were (and are) mostly politically and socially conservative, regardless of how they vote. Certainly Bruce and Mike make no secret of where their allegiances lie. Brian and Al, I tend to think of as more "centrist" in politics while being generally conservative in the way they live their lives and their world view, and I have no idea about Carl and Dennis.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2021, 09:08:32 AM by maggie » Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2021, 10:16:11 AM »

In my very humble opinion, it is foolhardy to conflate artistic innovation with progressive politics, or artistic conservatism with regressive politics for that matter.

For the first half of the century, you can point to a laundry list of extremely innovative artists (from Stravinsky to Ezra Pound to Wallace Stevens to Picasso) who were conservative to the point of fascism.

I'm not saying that the connection between artistic innovation and progressive social/political attitudes is completely imaginary: undoubtedly a lot of avant-garde jazz musicians of the '60s were (and remain) genuine social progressives, but there are plenty of artists who were staunchly conservative about their art while also being very progressive politically and socially -- and vice versa.

For rock and roll in particular, you'd be surprised how many '60s "radicals" became Regan-worshippers and such. In fact, the whole "neoconservative" contingent that came into the ascendancy during the Bush era largely started as Summer of Love types.

It goes without saying that the Beach Boys were musically innovative and I think it also goes without saying that they were (and are) mostly politically and socially conservative, regardless of how they vote. Certainly Bruce and Mike make no secret of where their allegiances lie. Brian and Al, I tend to think of as more "centrist" in politics while being generally conservative in the way they live their lives and their world view, and I have no idea about Carl and Dennis.

Some random thoughts:

Given their age, and the only intermittently available information about their political leanings, it's hard to try to characterize each member's politics through the lens of how we categorize things now. Things are in many ways much more polarized, and I think these guys are really old and don't always realize that.

That being said, I think Bruce's politics are pretty crystal clear based on his own statements and actions. He's the most vociferously politically conservative, both socially and fiscally.

Mike, by most measures, seems pretty conservative, and if he isn't as conservative as Bruce, he seems to counteract that by being *more* willing to openly state and celebrate his political affiliations/preferences/defacto endorsements.

I've never bothered to weigh heavily Mike and Bruce standing for a few environmental causes. Even the most dogmatic, hardcore of either side of the political spectrum often have some random topic where they are an outlier.

Brian's a 50s kid, and I think that sometimes has presented itself as a certain type of social conservatism. But we have quotes from Brian from way back in the 80s saying he didn't like the band's political affiliations being a thing. I don't view Brian myself so much as "centrist" as intermittently *non-political* and then sometimes seemingly pretty liberal. I think certain social norms are burned into his persona from being that 50s kid that can be read today as "conservative".

Same would probably go for Al. I think he seems to be a pretty liberal guy these days, and I think his buddying up with Mike and Bruce on the 80s Republican bandwagon had less to do with a strong political ideology, and more to do with just not viewing a specific affiliation as being indicative of his political views.

In other words, in today's polarized climate, I think some if not most of the guys simply don't view attending, say, a Ronald Reagan celebration as an overtly *Republican/Conservative* move. Whether it is or not is obviously up for some type of debate.

This seeming *partial* ignorance/incredulous aspect might indicate that Mike's stated chosen presidential candidate of recent years is something that he doesn't think or know is *quite* as polarizing as it actually is. I don't cut him *a lot* of slack in this regard. But it's a possibly partial explanation.

I don't really think of anything to do with Dennis as particularly conservative. The closest I can fathom is that he was somewhat apolitical.

Carl, who knows. I mean, I think we *do* know or can guess certain things. But he's certainly somewhat more of an enigma. He was famously an objector in the late 60s. But I don't know how *political* that decision was versus a personal decision. Carl seemed to go along with doing rallies for Regan and Bush in the 80s. His demeanor and musical tastes as he got older certainly seemed to start skewing more conservative. But I don't know that that would have ever translated as being overtly politically conservative. But I think he could have been a wild card.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2021, 10:18:28 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/
patsy6
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 133



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2021, 03:09:51 PM »

This seeming *partial* ignorance/incredulous aspect might indicate that Mike's stated chosen presidential candidate of recent years is something that he doesn't think or know is *quite* as polarizing as it actually is. I don't cut him *a lot* of slack in this regard. But it's a possibly partial explanation.

I don't cut Mike any slack concerning his recent preferred presidential candidate. Mike is not ignorant. He knows how polarizing his candidate of choice is. And as for being old as an excuse, Brian and Al are almost as old as Mike is, and they wisely disavowed themselves from Mike's venue choices as quickly as they could. Or at least they wisely listened to their PR people.
Logged
maggie
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2021, 10:05:58 AM »

This seeming *partial* ignorance/incredulous aspect might indicate that Mike's stated chosen presidential candidate of recent years is something that he doesn't think or know is *quite* as polarizing as it actually is. I don't cut him *a lot* of slack in this regard. But it's a possibly partial explanation.

I don't cut Mike any slack concerning his recent preferred presidential candidate. Mike is not ignorant. He knows how polarizing his candidate of choice is. And as for being old as an excuse, Brian and Al are almost as old as Mike is, and they wisely disavowed themselves from Mike's venue choices as quickly as they could. Or at least they wisely listened to their PR people.

I probably have less insight into what makes Mike Love tick than anyone here. I think HeyJude's read of the situation perhaps spins out of what Mike wrote (or dictated, or approved being said on his behalf) in his own book. The part of his book where he discusses politics is fascinating. It is deliberately quite vague about Mike's own actual convictions on economic and social issues and even as regards particular political contests. It claims that Mike's associations with the Reagans and the Bushes reflected entirely personal, rather than political, loyalties. Maybe I misread the book, or maybe the effect was deliberate, but I came away with the impression that Mike was at least trying to give the impression to his readers that he was basically liberal in outlook, without actually coming out and saying so.

Of course, his activities on behalf of Trump, especially in 2020, completely belie this. After all, if he was truly personally loyal to the Bushes, he would have never done anything to benefit Trump. The Bushes and the Trumps despise one another.

So even on the off chance that one doesn't have a moral problem with Mike campaigning for Trump (at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, no less), it's impossible to credit the naively unideological framing that Mike gives to his political activities.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2021, 12:19:09 PM »

And to be clear, when I'm trying to attempt to get into Mike's brain about the *why* as far as why he would feel comfortable with his recent (and to some degree all) public affiliations with politicians and politics, I'm not really delving into "fault" or "blame."

There's a point at which it doesn't particularly matter whether Mike knows the gravity of his public affiliations, at least as far as taking any moral/ethical stance around it from a fan perspective.

The only reason it matters whether Mike *knows* the gravity is if we want to understand him, if we want to try to understand how the mind of one of the Beach Boys works.

I'd find it fascinating if Mike really thinks all political endorsements/affiliations/support are somehow *not political* nearly as much as they are *personal* (e.g. "I'm supporting my celebrity friend"). I don't think that's the case particularly, and if it was, it wouldn't absolve him of anything. But it would be fascinating nonetheless.

I do think guys like Mike and Bruce live in somewhat of a bubble socially/politically. They're not dumb, and they know what "politics" are. But it's possible they think support of, say, Trump is no different from their support of Reagan, at least as far as how fans and the media view it.

Based on what I've heard behind the scenes, I will say for instance that Mike doing the Trump fundraiser last year was something he probably knew was controversial/incendiary, but I also don't think he knew the degree to which it was.

Lest anyone think otherwise, I'd say it's very likely under Iconic that Mike will not be doing any more such shows, at least under the "Beach Boys" name.   
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 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.468 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!