gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 10:07:16 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mike Love Do It Again 2017 Promo FIlm  (Read 62323 times)
B.E.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



View Profile
« Reply #125 on: July 19, 2017, 11:05:44 AM »

But, I think there were more factors than just Mike Love to the ending of the reunion.   But, that's a whole other topic. 

Of course, there were other factors, but ultimately Mike Love decided not to continue the reunion. Mike Love's the politician who lets a tax break expire and claims he didn't raise taxes.
Logged

Every wave is new until it breaks.
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #126 on: July 19, 2017, 11:11:10 AM »

Also KDS, what do you think the chances of Mike ending C50 would have been if he didn't have THE NAME OF THE FUCKING BAND to fall back on if he quit? I have this weird feeling that if the only way to tour as The Beach Boys meant touring with Brian and Al, he might have  thought quite a bit more about it.
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #127 on: July 19, 2017, 11:13:54 AM »

Exactly, broke up the band and yet still had the name. This sh*t is reserved for the drifters, not the BBs.
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #128 on: July 19, 2017, 11:14:45 AM »

I happen to agree with the idea (held by filledeplage) of cultural elitists, looking down their noses at such things as Full House (I think youth could benefit from a show like that being on the air today.  My five year old niece loves the reruns).  It's the same reason I had a disagreement with a poster on here last year who said they couldn't enjoy a Mike and Bruce show as much as a Brian Wilson show because Mike and Bruce daring to put palm trees on stage.  

I understand the perception in 2012 about the amateurish mature of The Beach Boys, post reunion.  But, I really don't think that Mike is solely to blame for the reunion ending.  

I don't think you have to be a cultural elitist to characterize "Full House" as silly and unsubstantial. And I'm someone who totally *will* sit and watch it on TV, along with Urkel and all of that stuff. Similarly, I'll eat a Big Mac and enjoy it (sometimes, if made well!), but I'll acknowledge it's total rot-gut food that is not good for me.

I personally think "Full House" sets a *horrible* example for kids, as it implies problems can be fixed in 21 minutes with a hug from Bob Saget. But we're getting off the subject of course.

"Full House" is inane. Consumers of inane stuff will even acknowledge this. The original sitcom was probably done with a lack of cynicism, which I do appreciate (not something that can be said for the cynical, opportunistic motives behind the  Netflix "reboot" of the show).

Just like I don't think fans of Daniel Day Lewis would want him to appear in a Hawaiin shirt singing "Kokomo" with his arm around Mike Love, I don't think Beach Boys fans that take the band seriously particularly appreciate a continue association with a goofy TV show.

As for the reunion, apart from the fact that all of the members have played a role in the entire history of the band that led to the circumstances and setting for the reunion and as well as the demise of the reunion, I'd say in the most functional, direct sense, Mike was largely to blame. Even his own book doesn't refute that others wanted to see it stay together. If you can read the article with Al Jardine from the Grammy event in 2012 seemingly nearly *begging* Mike to just *talk* about continuing the reunion and still think anybody else in the band outside of Mike had any significant part in the reunion's demise, I don't know what to say.

If Mike's book had offered any information that indicated he wanted to continue the reunion and someone else stopped it, I'd perhaps rethink this. But no, his book has a litany of things *he* didn't like about the reunion. By his own word, *he* didn't want to do it anymore.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2017, 11:19:24 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/
B.E.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



View Profile
« Reply #129 on: July 19, 2017, 11:15:01 AM »

Also KDS, what do you think the chances of Mike ending C50 would have been if he didn't have THE NAME OF THE FUCKING BAND to fall back on if he quit? I have this weird feeling that if the only way to tour as The Beach Boys meant touring with Brian and Al, he might have  thought quite a bit more about it.

Which is BRI's fault, unfortunately. I really think it's time for BRI to start monitoring Mike more closely. They are the licensors, they have the power.
Logged

Every wave is new until it breaks.
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #130 on: July 19, 2017, 11:17:51 AM »

Then, why does it keep coming up in conversation?  And I'm not talking the Stamos association so much as the 1988 episode with Mike, Brian, Carl, Al, and Bruce.   Is it because the "too cool for school" crowd has deemed the show a travesty of pop culture cheesiness?  Is it because Home Improvement was past it's peak when The Beach Boys appeared on that show?  

One of the problems especially with the debate over how Full House and Stamos have impacted the band and its legacy (or standing or reputation or whatever we want to call it) is that it can quickly turn into a tired "culture wars" sort of debate. I've seen some others (filledeplage, etc.) either imply or state outright that it's some sort of elitism to suggest "Full House" is a cheesy association that is beneath the Beach Boys and their legacy.

Again, one single appearance on a sitcom is not really what we're talking about. I *would* argue that back in 1988, a popular network sitcom got *far more viewers* than a network sitcom gets in 2017, which is why a weirdly large number of people *do* tend to remember the specific Beach Boys/Full House association. And the association is not one that does the band any favors. Sure, there are some people who got turned onto "Kokomo" via "Full House" and then went on to be hardcore BB fans. But most of *those* fans immediately or soon after or eventually realized how much of a blight (to borrow a term Wirestone mentioned on this subject long ago) Stamos and that ilk actually was on the band and brand and legacy and all of that.

For some low-tier, flash-in-the-pan "celebrities", they have to hang on to the one thing that they're popular for, even if it's a case where they're a musician or singer or songwriter but they're most famous for some PR scandal or getting caught with a hooker or OD'ing or going to jail or something more innocuous but still embarrassing.

But the Beach Boys individually *and* collectively are far above that. They're top-tier in popular music history. They shouldn't have a strong association in the general public's mind with a so-bad-its-good 80s sitcom.

Mike does *himself* a disservice by *choosing* to associate himself with Stamos (or Trump, or remakes, or denigrating Brian in interviews, etc.), because he should be seeking out his deserved accolades for great lyrics in the 60s and his good vocal work, etc. It's Mike's fault that people remember him more for being apprehensive (at best) about "Smile" than they do for his excellent vocal work *on Smile*! Mike undid a TON of that bad PR by doing C50. He could have sang "Cabinessence" on stage with the full reunited band and undone a TON of that "Smile" PR crap. He just can't do it though. He has to ask Van Dyke Parks in 1992, 25 years after the fact, the *same* questions about the Smile lyrics. He learned *nothing* in that quarter of a century.

And that's how the industry felt about the Beach Boys in 2012. 50 years in the business and the perception was that they were still amateurs that had learned nothing about how to make real money and create real marketing and musical synergy.

I happen to agree with the idea (held by filledeplage) of cultural elitists, looking down their noses at such things as Full House (I think youth could benefit from a show like that being on the air today.  My five year old niece loves the reruns).  It's the same reason I had a disagreement with a poster on here last year who said they couldn't enjoy a Mike and Bruce show as much as a Brian Wilson show because Mike and Bruce daring to put palm trees on stage. 

I understand the perception in 2012 about the amateurish mature of The Beach Boys, post reunion.  But, I really don't think that Mike is solely to blame for the reunion ending. 

And I clearly stated it was a matter of taste, you call it snobbery, call it what you want. Both shows are geared towards different people...both put on great shows and each have their own flavor. Some people like the palm tree surf board cheerleader schtick that Mike Love puts on, that doesn't appeal to me. Sorry this puts you off.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #131 on: July 19, 2017, 11:25:39 AM »

Also KDS, what do you think the chances of Mike ending C50 would have been if he didn't have THE NAME OF THE FUCKING BAND to fall back on if he quit? I have this weird feeling that if the only way to tour as The Beach Boys meant touring with Brian and Al, he might have  thought quite a bit more about it.

Which is BRI's fault, unfortunately. I really think it's time for BRI to start monitoring Mike more closely. They are the licensors, they have the power.

Absolutely B.E. It is for sure BRI's fault. And by BRI I mean Brian Wilson, Al Jardine, Mike Love and Carl Wilson's estate. So yep, it is, at the very least, 25 percent Brian Wilson's fault. He was safely well into his new life with Melinda when the agreement started for the license with Mike, and he (and Melinda I presume) chose to give Mike the license. There was no gun to their head forcing this set up. They did it.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #132 on: July 19, 2017, 11:29:43 AM »

Then, why does it keep coming up in conversation?  And I'm not talking the Stamos association so much as the 1988 episode with Mike, Brian, Carl, Al, and Bruce.   Is it because the "too cool for school" crowd has deemed the show a travesty of pop culture cheesiness?  Is it because Home Improvement was past it's peak when The Beach Boys appeared on that show?  

One of the problems especially with the debate over how Full House and Stamos have impacted the band and its legacy (or standing or reputation or whatever we want to call it) is that it can quickly turn into a tired "culture wars" sort of debate. I've seen some others (filledeplage, etc.) either imply or state outright that it's some sort of elitism to suggest "Full House" is a cheesy association that is beneath the Beach Boys and their legacy.

Again, one single appearance on a sitcom is not really what we're talking about. I *would* argue that back in 1988, a popular network sitcom got *far more viewers* than a network sitcom gets in 2017, which is why a weirdly large number of people *do* tend to remember the specific Beach Boys/Full House association. And the association is not one that does the band any favors. Sure, there are some people who got turned onto "Kokomo" via "Full House" and then went on to be hardcore BB fans. But most of *those* fans immediately or soon after or eventually realized how much of a blight (to borrow a term Wirestone mentioned on this subject long ago) Stamos and that ilk actually was on the band and brand and legacy and all of that.

For some low-tier, flash-in-the-pan "celebrities", they have to hang on to the one thing that they're popular for, even if it's a case where they're a musician or singer or songwriter but they're most famous for some PR scandal or getting caught with a hooker or OD'ing or going to jail or something more innocuous but still embarrassing.

But the Beach Boys individually *and* collectively are far above that. They're top-tier in popular music history. They shouldn't have a strong association in the general public's mind with a so-bad-its-good 80s sitcom.

Mike does *himself* a disservice by *choosing* to associate himself with Stamos (or Trump, or remakes, or denigrating Brian in interviews, etc.), because he should be seeking out his deserved accolades for great lyrics in the 60s and his good vocal work, etc. It's Mike's fault that people remember him more for being apprehensive (at best) about "Smile" than they do for his excellent vocal work *on Smile*! Mike undid a TON of that bad PR by doing C50. He could have sang "Cabinessence" on stage with the full reunited band and undone a TON of that "Smile" PR crap. He just can't do it though. He has to ask Van Dyke Parks in 1992, 25 years after the fact, the *same* questions about the Smile lyrics. He learned *nothing* in that quarter of a century.

And that's how the industry felt about the Beach Boys in 2012. 50 years in the business and the perception was that they were still amateurs that had learned nothing about how to make real money and create real marketing and musical synergy.

I happen to agree with the idea (held by filledeplage) of cultural elitists, looking down their noses at such things as Full House (I think youth could benefit from a show like that being on the air today.  My five year old niece loves the reruns).  It's the same reason I had a disagreement with a poster on here last year who said they couldn't enjoy a Mike and Bruce show as much as a Brian Wilson show because Mike and Bruce daring to put palm trees on stage. 

I understand the perception in 2012 about the amateurish mature of The Beach Boys, post reunion.  But, I really don't think that Mike is solely to blame for the reunion ending. 

And I clearly stated it was a matter of taste, you call it snobbery, call it what you want. Both shows are geared towards different people...both put on great shows and each have their own flavor. Some people like the palm tree surf board cheerleader schtick that Mike Love puts on, that doesn't appeal to me. Sorry this puts you off.

Doesn't put me off per se.  I just don't understand why palm trees, surfs boards, and such on stage with the band that sang All Summer Long, Catch a Wave, and Fun Fun Fun is that big a deal. 

But, that's part of the somewhat odd double life of The Beach Boys isn't it?  One part fun in the sun, one part serious pop music, and another part that falls somewhere in between.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #133 on: July 19, 2017, 11:31:28 AM »

Also KDS, what do you think the chances of Mike ending C50 would have been if he didn't have THE NAME OF THE FUCKING BAND to fall back on if he quit? I have this weird feeling that if the only way to tour as The Beach Boys meant touring with Brian and Al, he might have  thought quite a bit more about it.

I'm still not 100% convinced it was all Mike.  I think there's a lot more to the story.  Like HJ said, I thought Mike's book was going to offer a bit more of an explanation on the issue.  But, I don't think its as cut and cry as "Mike ended it." 
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #134 on: July 19, 2017, 11:33:27 AM »

Also KDS, what do you think the chances of Mike ending C50 would have been if he didn't have THE NAME OF THE FUCKING BAND to fall back on if he quit? I have this weird feeling that if the only way to tour as The Beach Boys meant touring with Brian and Al, he might have  thought quite a bit more about it.

Which is BRI's fault, unfortunately. I really think it's time for BRI to start monitoring Mike more closely. They are the licensors, they have the power.

Absolutely B.E. It is for sure BRI's fault. And by BRI I mean Brian Wilson, Al Jardine, Mike Love and Carl Wilson's estate. So yep, it is, at the very least, 25 percent Brian Wilson's fault. He was safely well into his new life with Melinda when the agreement started for the license with Mike, and he (and Melinda I presume) chose to give Mike the license. There was no gun to their head forcing this set up. They did it.

Here's an idea.  Maybe management could've stepped in and kept the thing going.  But, let's be honest, great management and The Beach Boys don't go hand in hand. 

Heck if the four guys in Motley Crue were able to ride the gravy train from 2005-2015, there's no reason why The Beach Boys couldn't have. 
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #135 on: July 19, 2017, 11:36:45 AM »

I happen to agree with the idea (held by filledeplage) of cultural elitists, looking down their noses at such things as Full House (I think youth could benefit from a show like that being on the air today.  My five year old niece loves the reruns).  It's the same reason I had a disagreement with a poster on here last year who said they couldn't enjoy a Mike and Bruce show as much as a Brian Wilson show because Mike and Bruce daring to put palm trees on stage.  

I understand the perception in 2012 about the amateurish mature of The Beach Boys, post reunion.  But, I really don't think that Mike is solely to blame for the reunion ending.  


"Full House" is inane. Consumers of inane stuff will even acknowledge this. The original sitcom was probably done with a lack of cynicism, which I do appreciate (not something that can be said for the cynical, opportunistic motives behind the  Netflix "reboot" of the show).



I was a Full House fan, and I barely made it through one episode of the reboot.  Some things should be left in the past. 

Like the song Do It Again.

Boom

Full circle. 
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #136 on: July 19, 2017, 11:37:23 AM »


Take note of the "usual suspects" remark in his post. Ever notice that the usual suspects are usually correct?

It's funny, because in the list that KDS meticulously assembled there is only one song there that had been reprehensibly reimagined with a guest star from the 90s for SOLO release that was performed BY THE BEACH BOYS on live national television on a major holiday broadcast.

The issue isn't recording covers, it's recording a solo cover (mostly unanimously decided BAD cover) and then using The Beach Boys band and name to promote that same solo cover single on live television...then promising to do more covers like this in the future. So pardon that a few of us have concerns that Mike will yet again steer The Beach Boys ship into an era that people will laugh and cringe about 20 years from now.

I mean, did we even watch the video? I did from The Beach Boys official Facebook page. Can't wait for more of these videos to pop up there.

I did watch the video.  I only listening to the single and watched the Capitol Fourth Event.  And I commented both here and PS that it's pretty bad, but at the end of the day, I think it's harmless.  

I will not defend the quality of DIA 17 because, let's be honest, I can't.  It's awful.  But the argument of Mike doing another cover, because he can't do anything original, or that this solo cover somehow taints the legacy is just something that I don't agree with.  

So you're okay with Mike performing admittedly terrible solo reinterpretations of BB songs using The Beach Boys touring band on live television?

As a one time thing, I don't really care.  If Bruce or Scott starts yelling "DO IT!!!  DO IT!!! DO IT!!!" at the shows, then I'd change my opinion.  

And there's your legacy right there. We're at a point where this sh*t doesn't even phase some fans. I guess after years of Mike's Beach Boys playing rodeos, parking lots, and sweat lodge tents in New England we've come to a point where a nationally televised holiday broadcast of a horribly autotuned 'Do It Again' featuring Mark McGrath lip syncing "do it!" on repeat isn't even anything to be bothered by.

Again I'll say, The Beach Boys 60s legacy will always be cemented as a crowning achievement of music. But sh*t like Full House, SIP, etc ARE remembered and that's part of the legacy too - legacy is what people remember about something - it's the memories handed down to future generations. Of course the music will always be there and it will always be admired. But embarrassing sh*t like this, thanks to the internet, will be apart of that legacy for the whole of the future to view if they so choose.

That's why I'll agree to disagree.  Plenty of other bands have done dodgy things, appearing on sitcoms, putting out crap albums,  touring with fractured lineups, mediocre remakes, and I don't think it affects the legacy.  

Look at how many young people go to Brian Wilson and Beach Boys concerts.   Do you think they care out an appearance on a cheesy sitcom or one subpar album (let's be honest, Smiley Smile and Love You weren't exactly gems either)?  No.  

You can agree to disagree all you want, but you're not being realistic.

Take a look at the legacy of The Smashing Pumpkins. Of Guns N Roses. Two of the biggest, most influential bands of their prime decades (the '90s and '80s), but in both cases, major narcissistic, egomaniacal frontmen (with much talent, particularly in the case of Corgan, that can't be denied) have dragged the band's reputations down, down, down (after having booted all the original members, Mike-style), to the point where people don't just remember the fantastic music they made; the incredibly influential art that both bands created is clouded by all sorts of embarassing crap where the brand name has been whored out to the extreme, to the point where you cannot just mention the name of the band to a stranger or music fan without a decent chance that the first thing that person is gonna think about is what an assh*le frontman the band has, and how their music output has turned to utter garbage for a very long time.

This is a very sad, unfortunate side effect of whoring out a brand name for a very long time, in a manner completely inconsistent with the good music they once created (also completely inconsistent with the lesser, medicore, but still listenable music they once created). I'm talking about lard, pure lard that gets sh*t out under a once-prestigious brand name, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over  again.

It makes a difference, man. Even if you don't think it does, many people notice after awhile. That's the fault of the perpetrator in the band, and while Mike is not the sole BB to release crap, he is far and away the most egregious one who ties in the BRAND NAME with such massive amounts of lard. It sucks. Saying it doesn't suck to you personally doesn't mean that it doesn't suck as a whole for the brand. I hate that I can't just talk about how great the band's music is without a disclaimer.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2017, 11:39:52 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #137 on: July 19, 2017, 11:42:47 AM »


Take note of the "usual suspects" remark in his post. Ever notice that the usual suspects are usually correct?

It's funny, because in the list that KDS meticulously assembled there is only one song there that had been reprehensibly reimagined with a guest star from the 90s for SOLO release that was performed BY THE BEACH BOYS on live national television on a major holiday broadcast.

The issue isn't recording covers, it's recording a solo cover (mostly unanimously decided BAD cover) and then using The Beach Boys band and name to promote that same solo cover single on live television...then promising to do more covers like this in the future. So pardon that a few of us have concerns that Mike will yet again steer The Beach Boys ship into an era that people will laugh and cringe about 20 years from now.

I mean, did we even watch the video? I did from The Beach Boys official Facebook page. Can't wait for more of these videos to pop up there.

I did watch the video.  I only listening to the single and watched the Capitol Fourth Event.  And I commented both here and PS that it's pretty bad, but at the end of the day, I think it's harmless.  

I will not defend the quality of DIA 17 because, let's be honest, I can't.  It's awful.  But the argument of Mike doing another cover, because he can't do anything original, or that this solo cover somehow taints the legacy is just something that I don't agree with.  

So you're okay with Mike performing admittedly terrible solo reinterpretations of BB songs using The Beach Boys touring band on live television?

As a one time thing, I don't really care.  If Bruce or Scott starts yelling "DO IT!!!  DO IT!!! DO IT!!!" at the shows, then I'd change my opinion.  

And there's your legacy right there. We're at a point where this sh*t doesn't even phase some fans. I guess after years of Mike's Beach Boys playing rodeos, parking lots, and sweat lodge tents in New England we've come to a point where a nationally televised holiday broadcast of a horribly autotuned 'Do It Again' featuring Mark McGrath lip syncing "do it!" on repeat isn't even anything to be bothered by.

Again I'll say, The Beach Boys 60s legacy will always be cemented as a crowning achievement of music. But sh*t like Full House, SIP, etc ARE remembered and that's part of the legacy too - legacy is what people remember about something - it's the memories handed down to future generations. Of course the music will always be there and it will always be admired. But embarrassing sh*t like this, thanks to the internet, will be apart of that legacy for the whole of the future to view if they so choose.

That's why I'll agree to disagree.  Plenty of other bands have done dodgy things, appearing on sitcoms, putting out crap albums,  touring with fractured lineups, mediocre remakes, and I don't think it affects the legacy.  

Look at how many young people go to Brian Wilson and Beach Boys concerts.   Do you think they care out an appearance on a cheesy sitcom or one subpar album (let's be honest, Smiley Smile and Love You weren't exactly gems either)?  No.  

You can agree to disagree all you want, but you're not being realistic.

Take a look at the legacy of The Smashing Pumpkins. Of Guns N Roses. Two of the biggest, most influential bands of their prime decades (the '90s and '80s), but in both cases, major narcissistic, egomaniacal frontmen (with much talent, particularly in the case of Corgan, that can't be denied) have dragged the band's reputations down, down, down (after having booted all the original members, Mike-style), to the point where people don't just remember the fantastic music they made

And look now that Axl has reunited with Slash and Duff McKagan, things are going pretty well for the GNR brand, aren't they? Look what playing nice does!
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #138 on: July 19, 2017, 11:44:04 AM »


Take note of the "usual suspects" remark in his post. Ever notice that the usual suspects are usually correct?

It's funny, because in the list that KDS meticulously assembled there is only one song there that had been reprehensibly reimagined with a guest star from the 90s for SOLO release that was performed BY THE BEACH BOYS on live national television on a major holiday broadcast.

The issue isn't recording covers, it's recording a solo cover (mostly unanimously decided BAD cover) and then using The Beach Boys band and name to promote that same solo cover single on live television...then promising to do more covers like this in the future. So pardon that a few of us have concerns that Mike will yet again steer The Beach Boys ship into an era that people will laugh and cringe about 20 years from now.

I mean, did we even watch the video? I did from The Beach Boys official Facebook page. Can't wait for more of these videos to pop up there.

I did watch the video.  I only listening to the single and watched the Capitol Fourth Event.  And I commented both here and PS that it's pretty bad, but at the end of the day, I think it's harmless.  

I will not defend the quality of DIA 17 because, let's be honest, I can't.  It's awful.  But the argument of Mike doing another cover, because he can't do anything original, or that this solo cover somehow taints the legacy is just something that I don't agree with.  

So you're okay with Mike performing admittedly terrible solo reinterpretations of BB songs using The Beach Boys touring band on live television?

As a one time thing, I don't really care.  If Bruce or Scott starts yelling "DO IT!!!  DO IT!!! DO IT!!!" at the shows, then I'd change my opinion.  

And there's your legacy right there. We're at a point where this sh*t doesn't even phase some fans. I guess after years of Mike's Beach Boys playing rodeos, parking lots, and sweat lodge tents in New England we've come to a point where a nationally televised holiday broadcast of a horribly autotuned 'Do It Again' featuring Mark McGrath lip syncing "do it!" on repeat isn't even anything to be bothered by.

Again I'll say, The Beach Boys 60s legacy will always be cemented as a crowning achievement of music. But sh*t like Full House, SIP, etc ARE remembered and that's part of the legacy too - legacy is what people remember about something - it's the memories handed down to future generations. Of course the music will always be there and it will always be admired. But embarrassing sh*t like this, thanks to the internet, will be apart of that legacy for the whole of the future to view if they so choose.

That's why I'll agree to disagree.  Plenty of other bands have done dodgy things, appearing on sitcoms, putting out crap albums,  touring with fractured lineups, mediocre remakes, and I don't think it affects the legacy.  

Look at how many young people go to Brian Wilson and Beach Boys concerts.   Do you think they care out an appearance on a cheesy sitcom or one subpar album (let's be honest, Smiley Smile and Love You weren't exactly gems either)?  No.  

You can agree to disagree all you want, but you're not being realistic.

Take a look at the legacy of The Smashing Pumpkins. Of Guns N Roses. Two of the biggest, most influential bands of their prime decades (the '90s and '80s), but in both cases, major narcissistic, egomaniacal frontmen (with much talent, particularly in the case of Corgan, that can't be denied) have dragged the band's reputations down, down, down (after having booted all the original members), to the point where people don't just remember the fantastic music they made; the incredibly influential art that both bands created is clouded by all sorts of embarassing crap where the brand name has been whored out to the extreme, to the point where you cannot just mention the name of the band to a stranger or music fan without a decent chance that the first thing that person is gonna think about is what an assh*le frontman the band has, and how their music output has turned to utter garbage for a very long time.

This is a very sad, unfortunate side effect of whoring out a brand name for a very long time, in a manner completely inconsistent with the good music they once created (also completely inconsistent with the lesser, medicore, but still listenable music they once created). I'm talking about lard, pure lard that gets sh*t out under a once-prestigious brand name, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over  again.

It makes a difference, man. Even if you don't think it does, many people notice after awhile. That's the fault of the perpetrator in the band, and while Mike is not the sole BB to release crap, he is far and away the most egregious one who ties in the BRAND NAME with such massive amounts of lard. It sucks. Saying it doesn't suck to you personally doesn't mean that it doesn't suck as a whole for the brand. I hate that I can't just talk about how great the band's music is without a disclaimer.

I'm not being realistic?  Nobody remembers the music of Guns N Roses?  Are you serious?  They're one of the few hard rock bands that can play stadiums in the US.  Appetite for Destruction is still regarded as one of the best rock albums in history.  

To his credit, Axl has done a lot to repair his rep in recent years.  

And nothing is stopping you, or anyone else, from simply discussing the music of The Beach Boys without a disclaimer.  
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #139 on: July 19, 2017, 11:47:10 AM »



Once again, it's a stupid single.  If you look at the posts on Pet Sounds Forum, I don't think anyone is defending the single.  At best, they're laughing at the absurdity of it.  Yet, here, the Brian Wilson Forum, and social media, it's turned into the usual predictable Mike Love Hate-Fest.  "It's killing the legacy!!"  "Take the license away from him!!"  Blah blah blah.  It's bunk. 

Once again, I ask you to name something that Mike Love could release, could do, that could get you onboard with legitimately thinking that he's harming the legacy and that he should stop. Something you'd honestly get riled up about. If not this, then what? A serious question.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #140 on: July 19, 2017, 11:49:52 AM »



I thought TWGMTR was a great album, easily their best since Holland.   But, I think there were more factors than just Mike Love to the ending of the reunion.   But, that's a whole other topic. 

Well if Mike had his way, we wouldn't even have Summer's Gone in its current form; in fact, probably most of the best material from that album such as the Life Suite might have been nixed if Mike had his way.

That said, I love Mike being part of that album, but he needed to be used as a voice, as Brian saw fit to use him.
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #141 on: July 19, 2017, 11:53:34 AM »


Take note of the "usual suspects" remark in his post. Ever notice that the usual suspects are usually correct?

It's funny, because in the list that KDS meticulously assembled there is only one song there that had been reprehensibly reimagined with a guest star from the 90s for SOLO release that was performed BY THE BEACH BOYS on live national television on a major holiday broadcast.

The issue isn't recording covers, it's recording a solo cover (mostly unanimously decided BAD cover) and then using The Beach Boys band and name to promote that same solo cover single on live television...then promising to do more covers like this in the future. So pardon that a few of us have concerns that Mike will yet again steer The Beach Boys ship into an era that people will laugh and cringe about 20 years from now.

I mean, did we even watch the video? I did from The Beach Boys official Facebook page. Can't wait for more of these videos to pop up there.

I did watch the video.  I only listening to the single and watched the Capitol Fourth Event.  And I commented both here and PS that it's pretty bad, but at the end of the day, I think it's harmless.  

I will not defend the quality of DIA 17 because, let's be honest, I can't.  It's awful.  But the argument of Mike doing another cover, because he can't do anything original, or that this solo cover somehow taints the legacy is just something that I don't agree with.  

So you're okay with Mike performing admittedly terrible solo reinterpretations of BB songs using The Beach Boys touring band on live television?

As a one time thing, I don't really care.  If Bruce or Scott starts yelling "DO IT!!!  DO IT!!! DO IT!!!" at the shows, then I'd change my opinion.  

And there's your legacy right there. We're at a point where this sh*t doesn't even phase some fans. I guess after years of Mike's Beach Boys playing rodeos, parking lots, and sweat lodge tents in New England we've come to a point where a nationally televised holiday broadcast of a horribly autotuned 'Do It Again' featuring Mark McGrath lip syncing "do it!" on repeat isn't even anything to be bothered by.

Again I'll say, The Beach Boys 60s legacy will always be cemented as a crowning achievement of music. But sh*t like Full House, SIP, etc ARE remembered and that's part of the legacy too - legacy is what people remember about something - it's the memories handed down to future generations. Of course the music will always be there and it will always be admired. But embarrassing sh*t like this, thanks to the internet, will be apart of that legacy for the whole of the future to view if they so choose.

That's why I'll agree to disagree.  Plenty of other bands have done dodgy things, appearing on sitcoms, putting out crap albums,  touring with fractured lineups, mediocre remakes, and I don't think it affects the legacy.  

Look at how many young people go to Brian Wilson and Beach Boys concerts.   Do you think they care out an appearance on a cheesy sitcom or one subpar album (let's be honest, Smiley Smile and Love You weren't exactly gems either)?  No.  

You can agree to disagree all you want, but you're not being realistic.

Take a look at the legacy of The Smashing Pumpkins. Of Guns N Roses. Two of the biggest, most influential bands of their prime decades (the '90s and '80s), but in both cases, major narcissistic, egomaniacal frontmen (with much talent, particularly in the case of Corgan, that can't be denied) have dragged the band's reputations down, down, down (after having booted all the original members), to the point where people don't just remember the fantastic music they made; the incredibly influential art that both bands created is clouded by all sorts of embarassing crap where the brand name has been whored out to the extreme, to the point where you cannot just mention the name of the band to a stranger or music fan without a decent chance that the first thing that person is gonna think about is what an assh*le frontman the band has, and how their music output has turned to utter garbage for a very long time.

This is a very sad, unfortunate side effect of whoring out a brand name for a very long time, in a manner completely inconsistent with the good music they once created (also completely inconsistent with the lesser, medicore, but still listenable music they once created). I'm talking about lard, pure lard that gets sh*t out under a once-prestigious brand name, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over  again.

It makes a difference, man. Even if you don't think it does, many people notice after awhile. That's the fault of the perpetrator in the band, and while Mike is not the sole BB to release crap, he is far and away the most egregious one who ties in the BRAND NAME with such massive amounts of lard. It sucks. Saying it doesn't suck to you personally doesn't mean that it doesn't suck as a whole for the brand. I hate that I can't just talk about how great the band's music is without a disclaimer.

I'm not being realistic?  Nobody remembers the music of Guns N Roses?  Are you serious?  They're one of the few hard rock bands that can play stadiums in the US.  Appetite for Destruction is still regarded as one of the best rock albums in history.  

To his credit, Axl has done a lot to repair his rep in recent years.  

And nothing is stopping you, or anyone else, from simply discussing the music of The Beach Boys without a disclaimer.  

He said "people don't just remember..." not that people don't remember. He's saying that when I talk to friends about Guns and Roses the music is always shadowed by talk about what Axl is looking like these days or what antics he's up to....the music is some of the best, but yet it's overshadowed by Axl being an ass. The same goes for The Beach Boys, I can have talks about how great the music is, but sometimes Full House gets brought up and I have to embarrassingly explain that it was a dark time for the band...and Full House is just one embarrassing example of many that has been done to this band in the last couple decades (Baywatch anyone?). The fear is that the band could be re-entering an era where sh*t like this goes unchecked again.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #142 on: July 19, 2017, 11:54:56 AM »


I'm not being realistic?  Nobody remembers the music of Guns N Roses?  Are you serious?  They're one of the few hard rock bands that can play stadiums in the US.  Appetite for Destruction is still regarded as one of the best rock albums in history.  

To his credit, Axl has done a lot to repair his rep in recent years.  

And nothing is stopping you, or anyone else, from simply discussing the music of The Beach Boys without a disclaimer.  

People remember the music of Guns N Roses but they ALSO remember the absurd decades-long antics of Axl embarrassing himself and the brand. And yes, the moment he got his sh*t together and started working with his old bandmates again, the more people remember the good stuff.

Corgan is probably more like Mike, personality-wise (other than Corgan, unlike Mike, being a massively talented producer/arranger/musician/songwriter without anyone's help). But like Mike, he's a MASSIVE narcissist who regularly talks sh*t about his original bandmates in a very repugnant way. And his talent seemingly went out the window, and he has damaged his band's legacy irreparably for SO, SO many reasons over YEARS.

Mike ain't getting back together with The BBs again. It ain't gonna happen. So at this point, his latter-day antics like DIA '17 are pure garbage that is not going to be rectified with a reunion tour, the way that one could argue Axl did recently. That ship has sailed.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2017, 12:04:22 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #143 on: July 19, 2017, 11:57:03 AM »

The difference is the BBs have 30 plus years of bad Mike Love run craziness and it looks like a covers album of his OWN band will be the nail in the coffin.
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
KDS
Guest
« Reply #144 on: July 19, 2017, 12:35:28 PM »


I'm not being realistic?  Nobody remembers the music of Guns N Roses?  Are you serious?  They're one of the few hard rock bands that can play stadiums in the US.  Appetite for Destruction is still regarded as one of the best rock albums in history.  

To his credit, Axl has done a lot to repair his rep in recent years.  

And nothing is stopping you, or anyone else, from simply discussing the music of The Beach Boys without a disclaimer.  

People remember the music of Guns N Roses but they ALSO remember the absurd decades-long antics of Axl embarrassing himself and the brand. And yes, the moment he got his sh*t together and started working with his old bandmates again, the more people remember the good stuff.

Corgan is probably more like Mike, personality-wise (other than Corgan, unlike Mike, being a massively talented producer/arranger/musician/songwriter without anyone's help). But like Mike, he's a MASSIVE narcissist who regularly talks sh*t about his original bandmates in a very repugnant way. And his talent seemingly went out the window, and he has damaged his band's legacy irreparably for SO, SO many reasons over YEARS.

Mike ain't getting back together with The BBs again. It ain't gonna happen. So at this point, his latter-day antics like DIA '17 are pure garbage that is not going to be rectified with a reunion tour, the way that one could argue Axl did recently. That ship has sailed.

So, DIA 17 is the breaking point, and that's why a reunion can never happen?  Alright. 

The music business, and that's just what it is, a business, is a funny thing.  If bands like Motley Crue, Poison, and Guns N Roses can still go out and tour, then it's not out of the realm of possibility that another BB reunion can happen. 

Is it likely?  Probably not, but in all honesty, I wouldn't be shocked. 
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #145 on: July 19, 2017, 12:48:01 PM »


I'm not being realistic?  Nobody remembers the music of Guns N Roses?  Are you serious?  They're one of the few hard rock bands that can play stadiums in the US.  Appetite for Destruction is still regarded as one of the best rock albums in history.  

To his credit, Axl has done a lot to repair his rep in recent years.  

And nothing is stopping you, or anyone else, from simply discussing the music of The Beach Boys without a disclaimer.  

People remember the music of Guns N Roses but they ALSO remember the absurd decades-long antics of Axl embarrassing himself and the brand. And yes, the moment he got his sh*t together and started working with his old bandmates again, the more people remember the good stuff.

Corgan is probably more like Mike, personality-wise (other than Corgan, unlike Mike, being a massively talented producer/arranger/musician/songwriter without anyone's help). But like Mike, he's a MASSIVE narcissist who regularly talks sh*t about his original bandmates in a very repugnant way. And his talent seemingly went out the window, and he has damaged his band's legacy irreparably for SO, SO many reasons over YEARS.

Mike ain't getting back together with The BBs again. It ain't gonna happen. So at this point, his latter-day antics like DIA '17 are pure garbage that is not going to be rectified with a reunion tour, the way that one could argue Axl did recently. That ship has sailed.

So, DIA 17 is the breaking point, and that's why a reunion can never happen?  Alright.  

The music business, and that's just what it is, a business, is a funny thing.  If bands like Motley Crue, Poison, and Guns N Roses can still go out and tour, then it's not out of the realm of possibility that another BB reunion can happen.  

Is it likely?  Probably not, but in all honesty, I wouldn't be shocked.  

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. Did I say that DIA 17 is the reason why a reunion can't happen? No. No, I didn't.

It's a cumulative thing, as has been stated before... one key reason is just the amount of crap that Mike keeps talking about Brian in interviews, but most importantly, the hurdle that any possible reunion from this point on would have to tackle would be the fact that a reunion in 2012 ALREADY HAPPENED, and ended disastrously.

And Mike won't own up to the fact that he simply wants his way, and that's it, period. How on earth would that hurdle be overcome at this point? Mike feels that things are OWED to him, that promises of cowriting are going to be broken. And he's right - they probably would be broken, because they should be broken, because Mike has NO INHERENT "RIGHT" TO WRITE SONGS WITH BRIAN.  And he doesn't get that, and now the cat's more than out of the bag. There's no way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Mike showed his true colors, what he wanted out of a reunion. He wants more control than anyone feels comfortable giving him. It sadly ain't EVER happenin' again. I feel mighty sure of that.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2017, 12:56:01 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #146 on: July 19, 2017, 01:03:33 PM »



Once again, it's a stupid single.  If you look at the posts on Pet Sounds Forum, I don't think anyone is defending the single.  At best, they're laughing at the absurdity of it.  Yet, here, the Brian Wilson Forum, and social media, it's turned into the usual predictable Mike Love Hate-Fest.  "It's killing the legacy!!"  "Take the license away from him!!"  Blah blah blah.  It's bunk. 

Once again, I ask you to name something that Mike Love could release, could do, that could get you onboard with legitimately thinking that he's harming the legacy and that he should stop. Something you'd honestly get riled up about. If not this, then what? A serious question.

Seriously, you'd want to take the touring license away for this? 

OK, here are things Mike would have to do for me to go along with the "harming the legacy" belief

1.  Start doing rap or EDM versions of BB classics at BB shows.
2.  Release a single called "Brian Wilson Sucks"
3.  Digitally remove the images of past Beach Boys from the pictures and videos on screen
Logged
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #147 on: July 19, 2017, 01:11:08 PM »

Seriously, you'd want to take the touring license away for this? 

I have to ask, do you think Mike Love deserves to tour under the name "The Beach Boys" (not to mention promote solo work under that name) despite the fact that he froze Brian and Al out of the band after C50? Ergo, does it seem fair to you that he could basically "quit the band" in 2012 so he could go back and then for all intents and purposes be the band on his own? That to me is just inherently shitty behavior.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #148 on: July 19, 2017, 01:17:21 PM »

Seriously, you'd want to take the touring license away for this? 

I have to ask, do you think Mike Love deserves to tour under the name "The Beach Boys" (not to mention promote solo work under that name) despite the fact that he froze Brian and Al out of the band after C50? Ergo, does it seem fair to you that he could basically "quit the band" in 2012 so he could go back and then for all intents and purposes be the band on his own? That to me is just inherently shitty behavior.

In all honesty, I believe the name The Beach Boys should have been retired when Carl passed away.  Or even amended to something like "Mike Love's Beach Boys" (as is pretty common with many British Invasion bands).  And, frankly, I'd feel the same way if Al Jardine or Brian Wilson were the sole members. 

But, legally, he has the right to tour as The Beach Boys.  And I think it's fair that he can't release new material as "The Beach Boys."  The live arena and the studio are two different things.  There was a touring version of Thin Lizzy well after Lynott died, but they decided to change the name when they went back into the studio. 

So, if I could pay to see The Yardbirds with only Chris Dreja and Jim McCarty, I'm fine with seeing The Beach Boys with Mike and Bruce. 

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 #149 on: July 19, 2017, 01:21:09 PM »

In the US, the brand was damaged many many years ago for reasons that are too numerous to list. The issue is, at this point, Mike's poor decision making is just piling on to it. I mean, WE get it. We know how enormously talented each and every member of the band is and was. We know that they are one of the greatest (IMHO THE greatest) bands in history. The general public, sadly, doesn't get that. They think of the BB as a band who ceased to be relevant 50 years ago, or just some group that made fun-in-the-sun songs before the Beatles came in. Worse, there's a segment of the population that looks at them as pure cheese, a novelty act, that is along the lines of Sha Na Na. Things like this just add to it.  People shouldn't have to be ashamed to admit they are Beach Boys fans, but thanks to the past,  dunno, 30 years, many are.

Thanks Michael. Thanks Stamos. f*** you very much from the bottom of my heart

Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.51 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!