gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
677792 Posts in 27363 Topics by 4046 Members - Latest Member: reecemorgan December 06, 2022, 12:36:09 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Go Down Print
Author Topic: What did Bruce and Jack disagree over?  (Read 29358 times)
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5740



View Profile
« Reply #150 on: June 10, 2016, 09:59:14 AM »


CD - The last sentence sums up where you were going. Mike is a band member and Jack was not.  And the "leading questions" where you were looking to box me into a yes/no answer.  There is no relationship between the two issues.  Some of Dennis stuff...one, from Dennis, written with Mike (Only With You) probably one of the best ever written in my opinion.  How is this leading to a Mike bash?  How did Jack end up as a writer? I think of So Tough and Holland as one body of work.  Holland did not do that well in the States, not unlike Pet Sounds but grew into a classic.  ST was #50 and Holland was at #36.  Both got good fm coverage as kids were ripping out am radios of their rides and putting in am/fm for the choice of better music.  

What was Dennis' relationship with Jack?  That is not the question in the thread. POB is a classic.  That merits it's own thread.  And while I look at my vinyl - Dennis has a nice note of appreciation for Bruce.      

The nation was not at war and there was a sense of relief, and gone, the need to create dirge-like war protest songs.  Jack was part of that era, no matter how you look at it.  GF's cool post is not lost on me where many people do start out in the mailroom.  I get that.  I am talking about "blurred lines" with job descriptions.  And one in particular who crossed over in a very destructive way over time. Jack was supposed to manage, not insinuate himself in the creative process.

  

So you are of the opinion that the only possible songs that Jack could have contributed to the band, or that Jack could help influence the direction of the band in, had he stayed in the band past Holland, would be dirge-like war protest songs?

I don't care that the "party" era began, as you like to put it. Guess what? Look at 1979 still during this "party" era, with disco BB songs and lots of coke. Dennis fortunately contributed progressive sounding songs to the LA album, and it made the album a lot better and more balanced.

Look what happens when you take out an important guy in the band pushing for a progressive slant:

In 1976, the first post-Jack album = 15 Big Ones. In 1980, the when Denny removes himself from the equation as a songwriter = Keepin' The Summer Alive. In both cases, a pretty significant downgrade. For some reason, it's like pulling teeth for you to actually address a common element in both of these cases: an intentional change of direction, where a progressive-leaning force (whether an official member, or an influential collaborator) is removed. How is it that you fail to see, and fail to address my point of this commonality between these two situations?  

Look, I'll concede that often times, there may be multiple reasons why a band changes direction on any given album. And if that next record sucks, it's not necessarily any one member's "fault". But if a particular progressive-minded person is silenced, it isn't inconsequential. Stop trying to pretend that it's inconsequential. There's going to be some difference to the final product without the influence or input of that progressive-minded person, one way or another. How can you not see this logic?

The only thing my post is leading to is to point out that it's preposterous to conclude that Jack leaving the scene didn't leave a void, and that creative decay didn't occur in the immediate aftermath. Jack was really pushing for quality control, and he was a much-needed support system to the vision of Wilson brothers, when it came to specifically helping bolster the progressive side of their creativity.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2016, 10:03:11 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Smilin Ed H
Guest
« Reply #151 on: June 10, 2016, 11:12:42 AM »

"So you are of the opinion that the only possible songs that Jack could have contributed to the band, or that Jack could help influence the direction of the band in, had he stayed in the band past Holland, would be dirge-like war protest songs? "

I'd rather have that than much of the stuff that followed. As fan I can make excuses and see the good in fairly average songs - even going as far as justifying some of those fun in the sun numbers like It's Okay and Woncha Come Out Tonight - but no album - apart from the quirkiness of Love You - can come close to Holland. Look at the potential of LA from the tracks lying around or at least begun around that time, but no, let's pollute the good stuff with considerably lesser stuff (though at least we didn't get Calendar Girl). Love You aside, in terms of albums with genuinely decent new music since Holland, we've had half of LA and half of TWGMTR (plus all of POB and BW88) - that's obviously not to dismiss the genuine worth some great 'new' tracks on weaker albums like Had to Phone Ya and My Diane. I don't think Carl ever wrote as good a song as those he wrote with Jack. That, in itself, is telling.

However, I do think the loss of Murry is surely a huge factor in the kind of implosion that went on.
Logged
Gerry
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


View Profile
« Reply #152 on: June 10, 2016, 11:54:24 AM »

I think what this all boils down to was timing. Jack Rieley was the perfect person to have in that position at that time. What might've happened with him in the mid and later seventies is pure conjecture. I think most of the time the BB's were their own worst enemies in terms of career moves, they succeeded in spite of themselves. In the long run( no pun intended) I think Irving Azoff would have been a great manager for them.
Logged
Terry
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 60



View Profile
« Reply #153 on: June 10, 2016, 12:07:49 PM »

Re: Beach Boys management.

Things recently came so very, very, very, very close to being set right -- to be spectacular. To be major.
And it was blown.

I hate to be so vague, because I hate when others do the same -- but it was almost all set right.

So close.
I did my best.


I have to say after catching a Mike & Bruce show a few weeks ago doing almost half of Pet Sounds, and performing the songs well, and seeing Brian and Al a few times last year, I would say a major opportunity was lost in properly celebrating the 50th anniversay of PS.
Logged
Rocker
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 10375


"Too dumb for New York City, too ugly for L.A."


View Profile WWW
« Reply #154 on: June 10, 2016, 12:57:16 PM »

Re: Beach Boys management.

Things recently came so very, very, very, very close to being set right -- to be spectacular. To be major.
And it was blown.

I hate to be so vague, because I hate when others do the same -- but it was almost all set right.

So close.
I did my best.


I have to say after catching a Mike & Bruce show a few weeks ago doing almost half of Pet Sounds, and performing the songs well, and seeing Brian and Al a few times last year, I would say a major opportunity was lost in properly celebrating the 50th anniversay of PS.



Wasn't there a recent Brian interview that mentioned Mike (and I guess Bruce, maybe David as well) was asked to join Brian and Al (and Blondie) for the Pet Sounds anniversary?
Logged

a diseased bunch of mo'fos if there ever was one… their beauty is so awesome that listening to them at their best is like being in some vast dream cathedral decorated with a thousand gleaming American pop culture icons.

- Lester Bangs on The Beach Boys


PRO SHOT BEACH BOYS CONCERTS - LIST


To sum it up, they blew it, they blew it consistently, they continue to blow it, it is tragic and this pathological problem caused The Beach Boys' greatest music to be so underrated by the general public.

- Jack Rieley
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #155 on: June 10, 2016, 02:07:37 PM »


CD - The last sentence sums up where you were going. Mike is a band member and Jack was not.  And the "leading questions" where you were looking to box me into a yes/no answer.  There is no relationship between the two issues.  Some of Dennis stuff...one, from Dennis, written with Mike (Only With You) probably one of the best ever written in my opinion.  How is this leading to a Mike bash?  How did Jack end up as a writer? I think of So Tough and Holland as one body of work.  Holland did not do that well in the States, not unlike Pet Sounds but grew into a classic.  ST was #50 and Holland was at #36.  Both got good fm coverage as kids were ripping out am radios of their rides and putting in am/fm for the choice of better music.  

What was Dennis' relationship with Jack?  That is not the question in the thread. POB is a classic.  That merits it's own thread.  And while I look at my vinyl - Dennis has a nice note of appreciation for Bruce.      

The nation was not at war and there was a sense of relief, and gone, the need to create dirge-like war protest songs.  Jack was part of that era, no matter how you look at it.  GF's cool post is not lost on me where many people do start out in the mailroom.  I get that.  I am talking about "blurred lines" with job descriptions.  And one in particular who crossed over in a very destructive way over time. Jack was supposed to manage, not insinuate himself in the creative process.  

So you are of the opinion that the only possible songs that Jack could have contributed to the band, or that Jack could help influence the direction of the band in, had he stayed in the band past Holland, would be dirge-like war protest songs?

I don't care that the "party" era began, as you like to put it. Guess what? Look at 1979 still during this "party" era, with disco BB songs and lots of coke. Dennis fortunately contributed progressive sounding songs to the LA album, and it made the album a lot better and more balanced.

Look what happens when you take out an important guy in the band pushing for a progressive slant:

In 1976, the first post-Jack album = 15 Big Ones. In 1980, the when Denny removes himself from the equation as a songwriter = Keepin' The Summer Alive. In both cases, a pretty significant downgrade. For some reason, it's like pulling teeth for you to actually address a common element in both of these cases: an intentional change of direction, where a progressive-leaning force (whether an official member, or an influential collaborator) is removed. How is it that you fail to see, and fail to address my point of this commonality between these two situations?  

Look, I'll concede that often times, there may be multiple reasons why a band changes direction on any given album. And if that next record sucks, it's not necessarily any one member's "fault". But if a particular progressive-minded person is silenced, it isn't inconsequential. Stop trying to pretend that it's inconsequential. There's going to be some difference to the final product without the influence or input of that progressive-minded person, one way or another. How can you not see this logic?

The only thing my post is leading to is to point out that it's preposterous to conclude that Jack leaving the scene didn't leave a void, and that creative decay didn't occur in the immediate aftermath. Jack was really pushing for quality control, and he was a much-needed support system to the vision of Wilson brothers, when it came to specifically helping bolster the progressive side of their creativity.
CD - Staying relevant in the mid-late 60's, into the 70's was a huge issue.  Do you deny that?  They were condemned for that?  When the winds of war were blowing over, during a time of peace and re-building post Nixon, was anti-war music relevant?  No.  Time to switch it up again. Those bands who never got out of the protest mode are where, now? They needed to pay attention to what is going on and remain relevant.  Yes, disco. How would they fit?  

And I did not fire Jack.  They did.  You are pulling teeth?  You want me to "salute" and agree?  What is the longevity of bands?  Apparently Capitol thought they were done, releasing Best of, Volume I, eight weeks post Pet Sounds.  

In life, I don't expect perfection, because as a teacher, I know that that is not how growth occurs. Growth mostly occurs when your butt is in the dirt, or worse, if your face is in the dirt and you figure out that it is time to rise to the occasion or you will remain in the dirt.  Most success is spurred by failure.  They are no different.  In the big scheme of things, Jack served some purpose working on relevancy, but I have a problem with his b.s.  One of my favorite things about this band, is that despite the odds, they can get up on that stage and belt out their music and still have some passion after all this time.  

When people leave a void, the rest have to figure out how to regroup.  It is life. Guercio... Working with Chicago...Wishin' You Were Here.  Their voices jumped out of the radio. 15 Big Ones? Rock and Roll Music and It's OK at Caribou...not too bad.  I have no huge problem with a lot of this, given the time, the demands of the record company to "turn something out." And Landy in the supervisor's chair? (according to wiki) This is post-Jack?

Staying on the charts was important. And they were getting older.  They were not teens playing for teens, or in their twenty year olds playing for twenty year olds.  The audience was in their thirties, with young kids in tow. It was cool to hear the voices of the BB's on any radio or on a juke box lineup, in the throes of the disco-era.  There was still life.   I guess what I am having a problem with your post is that you seem to be looking at absolutes, and I don't think there are any.   Wink

Happy Friday!  Wink
« Last Edit: June 10, 2016, 02:52:24 PM by filledeplage » Logged
rasmus skotte
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 366


View Profile
« Reply #156 on: June 13, 2016, 12:00:17 AM »

But still, Rieley claims that Bruce asked him to write the lyric for Disney Girls (which he declined)!?
Logged

Comics/cartooniés
(Fun Fun FUNniés)/Graphic NOVELties
Manga/animé
Bande dessinée
Tegneserié
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #157 on: June 13, 2016, 06:35:29 AM »

But still, Rieley claims that Bruce asked him to write the lyric for Disney Girls (which he declined)!?
rasmus skotte - Rieley's claims might be as credible as his resume, and his awards.      Wink
Logged
clack
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 537


View Profile
« Reply #158 on: June 13, 2016, 08:58:39 AM »

Having successfully guided the band into a place in the early 70's "progressive rock" scene, or whatever you want to call it, could Rieley -- if he had remained -- likewise transition the Beach Boys into the late 70's, early 80's New Wave era?

I think it highly unlikely. Which "dinosaur" acts did make that transition? Paul Simon? Fleetwood Mac, to a minor extent?
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2021


View Profile
« Reply #159 on: June 13, 2016, 09:04:27 AM »

Having successfully guided the band into a place in the early 70's "progressive rock" scene, or whatever you want to call it, could Rieley -- if he had remained -- likewise transition the Beach Boys into the late 70's, early 80's New Wave era?

I think it highly unlikely. Which "dinosaur" acts did make that transition? Paul Simon? Fleetwood Mac, to a minor extent?
Stones and the Who were successful during that time.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5740



View Profile
« Reply #160 on: June 13, 2016, 09:59:53 AM »

Having successfully guided the band into a place in the early 70's "progressive rock" scene, or whatever you want to call it, could Rieley -- if he had remained -- likewise transition the Beach Boys into the late 70's, early 80's New Wave era?

I think it highly unlikely. Which "dinosaur" acts did make that transition? Paul Simon? Fleetwood Mac, to a minor extent?

If Jack could have continued to have been present, genuinely continuing to nurture the Wilson brothers' progressive creativity during this time, and holding back the Love axis from yielding as much influence as it soon did, I cannot fathom that this would have been a bad thing musically for the end result.

Even with the early part of the band's career being more celebrated as the '70s went on, that didn't by definition mean the band had to experience creative decay in the manner it did. It wasn't unavoidable. Was Jack the cure? Maybe he would have helped. I can't feel he would have hurt the Wilson brothers continuing to explore a progressive creative direction.

Let's take a fantasy scenario of Mike quitting the band for whatever reason after Holland, and also Jack staying onboard. Does anyone think we'd have gotten material in the later part of the 70s that would be *worse* than what we actually got (LA Light Album excepted)? I love Love You to death, but obviously history would be very different, and I don't think in a negative way in which the music quality output suffers.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2016, 10:16:40 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Ian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1746


View Profile
« Reply #161 on: June 13, 2016, 10:16:10 AM »

I don't really think the who transitioned into the 80s that well. Keith moon's death and pete's increasing inability to write for roger's voice basically ended the band in 1978. Face dances in 1979 and it's hard in 1982 were pale imitations
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #162 on: June 13, 2016, 10:34:48 AM »

Having successfully guided the band into a place in the early 70's "progressive rock" scene, or whatever you want to call it, could Rieley -- if he had remained -- likewise transition the Beach Boys into the late 70's, early 80's New Wave era?

I think it highly unlikely. Which "dinosaur" acts did make that transition? Paul Simon? Fleetwood Mac, to a minor extent?
clack - This whole "Rieley" thing, notwithstanding the so-called "image" issues, where, as a "promotor" - it was his job to work on "image" reformation, remains a huge disconnect for me.  This is the band, who in that early first 10 years had switched up themes, styles, and beats while Brian was composing, and the others learning the craft to a lesser extent.  Jack did not come in with a magic wand and turn them into what they already had done into pixie dust, and sprinkle it over college campuses.  Jack had a lot to work with.

Was the band stuck in a stereotype?  Maybe. That was on the record company during the Pet Sounds and post era as I see it.  They had been a progressive groove since 1965 and prior.  Even BB Today was a prefiguration of sorts of the potential.  Jack may have provided "themes" to work around, but the band was at the table with a pretty impressive portfolio.  I think the individual band members had all grown in the job, and each, including and especially Carl and Dennis were coming into their own.  I think Jack "packaged" what was already going on.  But the packaging was his job.       
Logged
Smilin Ed H
Guest
« Reply #163 on: June 13, 2016, 11:06:24 AM »

Having successfully guided the band into a place in the early 70's "progressive rock" scene, or whatever you want to call it, could Rieley -- if he had remained -- likewise transition the Beach Boys into the late 70's, early 80's New Wave era?

I think it highly unlikely. Which "dinosaur" acts did make that transition? Paul Simon? Fleetwood Mac, to a minor extent?

Hod on. Disco's first and that didn't work out for the boys.
Logged
Howie Edelson
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 665


View Profile
« Reply #164 on: June 13, 2016, 11:48:18 AM »

RE: Townshend not being able to write for Daltrey -- I could not disagree more.

Drumming issues aside -- "You Better You Bet," "Cache Cache," "Daily Records," "Another Tricky Day," "I've Known No War, " One Life's Enough," "Cry If You Want" -- all world class/life affirming/as good as all that came before.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2021


View Profile
« Reply #165 on: June 13, 2016, 11:56:53 AM »

I don't really think the who transitioned into the 80s that well. Keith moon's death and pete's increasing inability to write for roger's voice basically ended the band in 1978. Face dances in 1979 and it's hard in 1982 were pale imitations
I don't personally like their work during that period so much; but they had some success.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #166 on: June 13, 2016, 12:22:14 PM »

RE: Townshend not being able to write for Daltrey -- I could not disagree more.

Drumming issues aside -- "You Better You Bet," "Cache Cache," "Daily Records," "Another Tricky Day," "I've Known No War, " One Life's Enough," "Cry If You Want" -- all world class/life affirming/as good as all that came before.

I think if you take the best tracks from Face Dance and It's Hard and put them together, you'd have a pretty good album. 

But, quite frankly, I liked The Who's 2006 Endless Wire album better than both. 
Logged
clack
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 537


View Profile
« Reply #167 on: June 13, 2016, 01:59:14 PM »

Some 60's acts had accumulated enough momentum to carry them on to some early 80's chart success -- the Who, the Stones, the Moody Blues, Stevie Wonder, McCartney. Sort of the equivalent of Elvis, Chuck Berry or Roy Orbison having chart success in 1964/65. Basically, running on fumes.

If the Beach Boys had had a big album in 1977 or '78, and then had followed up with some strong early 80's work, then their career might have had enough impetus to take them into the early MTV era. But even then, would they have been able to compete with Duran Duran? Prince? Michael Jackson? Any residual success would have been short-lived.

Their time was just over. It happens to everyone. Jack Rieley -- or any other manager -- couldn't have re-established their relevance.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #168 on: June 14, 2016, 06:03:35 AM »

Some 60's acts had accumulated enough momentum to carry them on to some early 80's chart success -- the Who, the Stones, the Moody Blues, Stevie Wonder, McCartney. Sort of the equivalent of Elvis, Chuck Berry or Roy Orbison having chart success in 1964/65. Basically, running on fumes.

If the Beach Boys had had a big album in 1977 or '78, and then had followed up with some strong early 80's work, then their career might have had enough impetus to take them into the early MTV era. But even then, would they have been able to compete with Duran Duran? Prince? Michael Jackson? Any residual success would have been short-lived.

Their time was just over. It happens to everyone. Jack Rieley -- or any other manager -- couldn't have re-established their relevance.
clack - that cracked me up - "running on fumes!"  Haven't heard that in a really long time.  LOL
Logged
Joel Goldenberg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 578



View Profile
« Reply #169 on: June 15, 2016, 07:19:25 AM »

RE: Townshend not being able to write for Daltrey -- I could not disagree more.

Drumming issues aside -- "You Better You Bet," "Cache Cache," "Daily Records," "Another Tricky Day," "I've Known No War, " One Life's Enough," "Cry If You Want" -- all world class/life affirming/as good as all that came before.

I've noticed other seem to love I've Known No War. IMO, the track is ambitious lyrically, but really doesn't go anywhere great musically.
Logged
Rotat
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 177



View Profile
« Reply #170 on: January 19, 2017, 06:05:29 PM »

I think what this all boils down to was timing. Jack Rieley was the perfect person to have in that position at that time. What might've happened with him in the mid and later seventies is pure conjecture. I think most of the time the BB's were their own worst enemies in terms of career moves, they succeeded in spite of themselves. In the long run( no pun intended) I think Irving Azoff would have been a great manager for them.

Not sure why no one is mentioning "Endless Summer" here. That is what basically killed their career, when they thought that they needed the stereotypical "fun in the sun" image with the band just because of how successful that compilation was, and rushing out an album just to capitalize on that (15 big ones) rather than waiting for true inspiration to spark.

I think someone like Rieley could have brought the band to their senses and stopped them from trying to be their old selves and shoehorning things in their music in a contrived manner just to stay relevant (which made them more irrelevant).

I am shocked an album like Love You was released, which is why it is one of my favorites. That's a rare case of them realizing they have some Brian Wilson gold and just working with what they had instead of overcompensating to try to get some hits. Granted maybe that would have kept happening if Brian was capable of producing and writing as much again but then again Adult Child was rejected and discouraged. Thank God for Carl to make Love You what it was.
Logged
Kid Presentable
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 287


View Profile
« Reply #171 on: January 20, 2017, 02:22:22 AM »


If Jack could have continued to have been present, genuinely continuing to nurture the Wilson brothers' progressive creativity during this time, and holding back the Love axis from yielding as much influence as it soon did, I cannot fathom that this would have been a bad thing musically for the end result.

Even with the early part of the band's career being more celebrated as the '70s went on, that didn't by definition mean the band had to experience creative decay in the manner it did. It wasn't unavoidable. Was Jack the cure? Maybe he would have helped. I can't feel he would have hurt the Wilson brothers continuing to explore a progressive creative direction.

Let's take a fantasy scenario of Mike quitting the band for whatever reason after Holland, and also Jack staying onboard. Does anyone think we'd have gotten material in the later part of the 70s that would be *worse* than what we actually got (LA Light Album excepted)? I love Love You to death, but obviously history would be very different, and I don't think in a negative way in which the music quality output suffers.

While I love alternate history and such, these types of things are next to impossible with the BBs, because whether one likes it or not, in the 60s 70s and 80s for sure, no Mike Love=no Beach Boys.  Without Mike there is no band and that is not a judgement on his skills or lack of skills but a judgement on the realities of that band and the times in which they operated. 

Now, if one wants to discuss the merits and potential of the three Wilson brothers branching off into a grand new progressive direction of power trio songwriting with their music, that is another thing, and something I think about sometimes.  Would it have been successful and this huge creative masterpiece?  Maybe.  Quite possibly.  Then again....    Grin

Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9811



View Profile WWW
« Reply #172 on: January 20, 2017, 06:51:52 AM »

Well, let's be clear. I think most BB fans, even those that loathe Mike Love on a more personal/personality level, would agree he was a key component to the band.

But in the most literal sense, the band *could have* existed without Mike. If Chicago could continue without Peter Cetera, than the Beach Boys could have technically continued without Mike.

Would the thing have fallen apart without Mike there eventually? Possibly, depending on when a theoretical Mike departure would have occurred.

As for a "Wilson Power Trio", I don't think many fans, even very staunch "it's all about the Wilsons" people, have ever specifically argued that the three Wilsons should have or could have broken off and formed a "power trio." That sounds more like a fanfic scenario or something. I'm not even sure the three of them were writing music that was compatible with each other. Supporting each other's music and projects? Sure. Carl singing on POB, etc. totally worked. Both Dennis and Carl working on Brian stuff of course was great. 

But Dennis was doing stuff relatively disparate from what Carl was writing (e.g. "Love Surrounds Me" or POB stuff versus "Full Sail" or "Goin' South" or his '81 solo album stuff), and Brian was doing his own thing at that same time to the degree he was writing and creating.

But I don't think a "power trio" album was ever feasible (and a "Hanson" comparison doesn't make any sense to me either), and if the three of them *had* done an album together, it basically would have been disparate, more like "LA (Light Album)" just without the other BB's songs.
Logged

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

Posts: 9811



View Profile WWW
« Reply #173 on: January 20, 2017, 06:57:11 AM »

I think what this all boils down to was timing. Jack Rieley was the perfect person to have in that position at that time. What might've happened with him in the mid and later seventies is pure conjecture. I think most of the time the BB's were their own worst enemies in terms of career moves, they succeeded in spite of themselves. In the long run( no pun intended) I think Irving Azoff would have been a great manager for them.

Not sure why no one is mentioning "Endless Summer" here. That is what basically killed their career, when they thought that they needed the stereotypical "fun in the sun" image with the band just because of how successful that compilation was, and rushing out an album just to capitalize on that (15 big ones) rather than waiting for true inspiration to spark.

I think someone like Rieley could have brought the band to their senses and stopped them from trying to be their old selves and shoehorning things in their music in a contrived manner just to stay relevant (which made them more irrelevant).

I am shocked an album like Love You was released, which is why it is one of my favorites. That's a rare case of them realizing they have some Brian Wilson gold and just working with what they had instead of overcompensating to try to get some hits. Granted maybe that would have kept happening if Brian was capable of producing and writing as much again but then again Adult Child was rejected and discouraged. Thank God for Carl to make Love You what it was.

The thing with "Endless Summer" was that it was less about an artistic direction choice, and more about just doing something that got a larger positive reception. I think a lot of "Classic Rock" era bands went through the stage where their new albums didn't sell well, and they were basically looking at doing *whatever it would take* to stay relevant, even if it meant just going "all oldies", or vastly changing their sound to something more "current."

Look at an example like Chicago. Some of the guys in the band clearly weren't big fans of going 80s-power-ballad-heavy in the early-mid 80s (and even going back to the late 70s), but all those Peter Cetera ballads are what kept them relevant at that time. Indeed, for 30 years after Cetera left, they continued to do those songs in concert.
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/
Kid Presentable
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 287


View Profile
« Reply #174 on: January 20, 2017, 07:17:43 AM »

The Hanson thing was meant to be lighthearted.
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.23 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!