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, 09:56:19 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 18 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 52 53 54 ... 171 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Feel Flows box set  (Read 841766 times)
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


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


View Profile
« Reply #1200 on: August 22, 2020, 12:23:15 PM »

Yeah, but why sit and wait and accept we don't know anything in silence, when we can speculate randomly for another 30 or 40 pages.

Well, it was speculation in this thread that led Howie to clear up the confusion with his informative post(s)...which is why we know a lot more about the set now. I’m not saying my theories or other theories are fruitful to getting us the set (because they aren’t), but previous theories/speculation led to important information being dropped. While I completely get and respect what Jon is saying (and HeyJude also tried to point this out previously), I also think that some speculation can lead to good things (which has already been proven true in this very thread).

That being said, I want to thank all the lurkers who decided to make accounts here to help add their voices to the mix. Expressing interest in this set is definitely far more helpful than all the speculation (which I am very guilty of being a part of). If anything is going to get this set released it will be the simple fact that a lot of good fans want to hear this great music. Hopefully that message is well received by the people who have the power to give this set the green light.
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!
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1201 on: August 22, 2020, 12:55:45 PM »

Is Jerry Schilling still managing the group?
Logged

Emdeeh
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2980



View Profile
« Reply #1202 on: August 22, 2020, 02:23:10 PM »

Jerry Schilling, yes
Logged
Robbie Mac
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 877


Carl Wilson is not amused.


View Profile
« Reply #1203 on: August 22, 2020, 05:57:58 PM »

I signed the petition few days ago and posted it on my Facebook page.

Has anyone over at EH posted a link to the petition?
Logged

The world could come together as one
If everybody under the sun
Adds some 🎼 to your day
JakeH
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


View Profile
« Reply #1204 on: August 22, 2020, 06:57:21 PM »

Is Jerry Schilling still managing the group?

There is no "group" - just a "brand." (unless Schilling, or whoever, is the manger of the touring group, which is really just a touring brand anyway) Since we're all speculating, my speculation is that whatever this is has to do with the brand-name "Beach Boys" in some way.  There has been (or once was) significant internal tension over what "Beach Boys" was supposed to represent... the roots of this issue starting no later than the nervous breakdown of late 1964 and Brian coming off the touring circuit at the beginning of 1965. There was a brief period ('65-'67 at most) during which Brian tried to take that brand name and run with it.  He had personal problems, he had family problems, he had no significiant allies in what he was trying to do, he faced opposition from within the family, and thereafter the Beach Boys gradually became something else, something about 180 degrees removed from what Brian was trying to do circa 1966, but something more consistent with what the Beach Boys were in 1962 and 1963.

During that period of time, there was this brief, strange, anomalous "Feel Flows" period during which the group decided (or Jack Rieley convinced them) that "Beach Boys" should represent whatever they had to offer musically.  In reality, this was nothing more than Jack basically telling the Beach Boys "Brian was right back in 1966 - make the best music you can make." But the only reason Bruce, Carl, Dennis, Al and even Mike seemed to (grudgingly?) agree to this is because they had no other option; at the time, they had no clue that surf-and-beach nostalgia was going to come along in '73-'75.  They were forced into a corner commercially, and with Brian semi-retired and not interested in working with them, they had to fall back on... music.   But once the nostalgia and hits-based presentation became an option for them, it was a no-brainer to return to branding and marketing.  Accordingly, the "Feel Flows" era gets buried (as did Pet Sounds and the brief Brian-centered moment of the mid-60s).  So the Beach Boys name gets established, and it becomes a a fixed corporate-entertainment brand that people can take however they want to.  Some like it, some don't.

Today, it's very late in the game for these guys... do they really want whatever is on this quasi-mythical box (whatever it is... can it really be that great?) to represent "Beach Boys?" I would say that from their perspective, this is not "Beach Boys." In fact the overall inference or implicit message to be taken from current overall circumstances is that if you call yourself a "Beach Boys fan" then go out and see the "Beach Boys" on tour when they come to your town. That is, the truest, purest Beach Boys are on tour - go see them if you like them so much.  Or, alternatively, if you're fixated on"Feel Flows"-style music, maybe your'e not really a Beach Boys fan?

Again... pure speculation. I know nothing about this box set.  But speculation based on the very supportable proposition that the image issue - what their collective group name should mean, and what it should be identified with in the public mind - has been a problem since 1965 at the latest, it's always a problem, so why shouldn't it have at least something to do with this current issue?  Stebbins mentioned "dysfunction" and "circular firing squad" somewhere in this thread - the roots and causes of that are very deep, but one of the  clearest manifestations of the dysfunction is (1) this battle over identity, along with (2) the apparent inability to sever family and business ties.
Logged
MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 757



View Profile
« Reply #1205 on: August 22, 2020, 07:32:33 PM »

^ Great thoughts.

Logged
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1990



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1206 on: August 22, 2020, 07:41:11 PM »

Disagree that there is no “group”. “The Beach Boys” (not Mike’s touring band) still exist.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2020, 07:42:07 PM by DonnyL » Logged

juggler
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120


View Profile
« Reply #1207 on: August 23, 2020, 01:15:15 AM »

Disagree that there is no “group”. “The Beach Boys” (not Mike’s touring band) still exist.

Sure, but the "Beach Boys" touring act isn't "the group."  If the touring act went into the studio right now and cut an album, could it be released as a "Beach Boys" album?   The answer to that is an obvious "no." No matter how good or polished such an album was, it could never be a "Beach Boys" album because (1) the Brother Record shareholders other than ML would likely put the kibosh on such a project; and (2) critics and fans would overwhelmingly reject such a release.
Logged
twentytwenty
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 113


View Profile
« Reply #1208 on: August 23, 2020, 02:23:54 AM »

I’ll write this again since I don’t think I got a reply last time. If they miss the 50 year copyright extension deadline, couldn’t the label just release the stuff anyways then since Mike, al, Bruce and Brian don’t own the copyright anymore?
Isn’t that the reason behind all of these 50 year copyright extension sets?

Or am I completely wrong here?
Logged
Jay
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5985



View Profile
« Reply #1209 on: August 23, 2020, 08:25:12 AM »

This might come off as the most stupid post I've ever made here, but I really don't understand the point of copywriting. I mean, if something slips into the public domain but the label still owns the masters, couldn't they just release it anyway?
Logged

A son of anarchy surrounded by the hierarchy.
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #1210 on: August 23, 2020, 10:15:32 AM »

Is Jerry Schilling still managing the group?

There is no "group" - just a "brand." (unless Schilling, or whoever, is the manger of the touring group, which is really just a touring brand anyway) Since we're all speculating, my speculation is that whatever this is has to do with the brand-name "Beach Boys" in some way.  There has been (or once was) significant internal tension over what "Beach Boys" was supposed to represent... the roots of this issue starting no later than the nervous breakdown of late 1964 and Brian coming off the touring circuit at the beginning of 1965. There was a brief period ('65-'67 at most) during which Brian tried to take that brand name and run with it.  He had personal problems, he had family problems, he had no significiant allies in what he was trying to do, he faced opposition from within the family, and thereafter the Beach Boys gradually became something else, something about 180 degrees removed from what Brian was trying to do circa 1966, but something more consistent with what the Beach Boys were in 1962 and 1963.

During that period of time, there was this brief, strange, anomalous "Feel Flows" period during which the group decided (or Jack Rieley convinced them) that "Beach Boys" should represent whatever they had to offer musically.  In reality, this was nothing more than Jack basically telling the Beach Boys "Brian was right back in 1966 - make the best music you can make." But the only reason Bruce, Carl, Dennis, Al and even Mike seemed to (grudgingly?) agree to this is because they had no other option; at the time, they had no clue that surf-and-beach nostalgia was going to come along in '73-'75.  They were forced into a corner commercially, and with Brian semi-retired and not interested in working with them, they had to fall back on... music.   But once the nostalgia and hits-based presentation became an option for them, it was a no-brainer to return to branding and marketing.  Accordingly, the "Feel Flows" era gets buried (as did Pet Sounds and the brief Brian-centered moment of the mid-60s).  So the Beach Boys name gets established, and it becomes a a fixed corporate-entertainment brand that people can take however they want to.  Some like it, some don't.

Today, it's very late in the game for these guys... do they really want whatever is on this quasi-mythical box (whatever it is... can it really be that great?) to represent "Beach Boys?" I would say that from their perspective, this is not "Beach Boys." In fact the overall inference or implicit message to be taken from current overall circumstances is that if you call yourself a "Beach Boys fan" then go out and see the "Beach Boys" on tour when they come to your town. That is, the truest, purest Beach Boys are on tour - go see them if you like them so much.  Or, alternatively, if you're fixated on"Feel Flows"-style music, maybe your'e not really a Beach Boys fan?

Again... pure speculation. I know nothing about this box set.  But speculation based on the very supportable proposition that the image issue - what their collective group name should mean, and what it should be identified with in the public mind - has been a problem since 1965 at the latest, it's always a problem, so why shouldn't it have at least something to do with this current issue?  Stebbins mentioned "dysfunction" and "circular firing squad" somewhere in this thread - the roots and causes of that are very deep, but one of the  clearest manifestations of the dysfunction is (1) this battle over identity, along with (2) the apparent inability to sever family and business ties.

I greatly fear that this post has an element of truth and may point somewhat to what's going on.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1211 on: August 23, 2020, 10:53:07 AM »

Is Jerry Schilling still managing the group?

There is no "group" - just a "brand." (unless Schilling, or whoever, is the manger of the touring group, which is really just a touring brand anyway) Since we're all speculating, my speculation is that whatever this is has to do with the brand-name "Beach Boys" in some way.  There has been (or once was) significant internal tension over what "Beach Boys" was supposed to represent... the roots of this issue starting no later than the nervous breakdown of late 1964 and Brian coming off the touring circuit at the beginning of 1965. There was a brief period ('65-'67 at most) during which Brian tried to take that brand name and run with it.  He had personal problems, he had family problems, he had no significiant allies in what he was trying to do, he faced opposition from within the family, and thereafter the Beach Boys gradually became something else, something about 180 degrees removed from what Brian was trying to do circa 1966, but something more consistent with what the Beach Boys were in 1962 and 1963.

During that period of time, there was this brief, strange, anomalous "Feel Flows" period during which the group decided (or Jack Rieley convinced them) that "Beach Boys" should represent whatever they had to offer musically.  In reality, this was nothing more than Jack basically telling the Beach Boys "Brian was right back in 1966 - make the best music you can make." But the only reason Bruce, Carl, Dennis, Al and even Mike seemed to (grudgingly?) agree to this is because they had no other option; at the time, they had no clue that surf-and-beach nostalgia was going to come along in '73-'75.  They were forced into a corner commercially, and with Brian semi-retired and not interested in working with them, they had to fall back on... music.   But once the nostalgia and hits-based presentation became an option for them, it was a no-brainer to return to branding and marketing.  Accordingly, the "Feel Flows" era gets buried (as did Pet Sounds and the brief Brian-centered moment of the mid-60s).  So the Beach Boys name gets established, and it becomes a a fixed corporate-entertainment brand that people can take however they want to.  Some like it, some don't.

Today, it's very late in the game for these guys... do they really want whatever is on this quasi-mythical box (whatever it is... can it really be that great?) to represent "Beach Boys?" I would say that from their perspective, this is not "Beach Boys." In fact the overall inference or implicit message to be taken from current overall circumstances is that if you call yourself a "Beach Boys fan" then go out and see the "Beach Boys" on tour when they come to your town. That is, the truest, purest Beach Boys are on tour - go see them if you like them so much.  Or, alternatively, if you're fixated on"Feel Flows"-style music, maybe your'e not really a Beach Boys fan?

Again... pure speculation. I know nothing about this box set.  But speculation based on the very supportable proposition that the image issue - what their collective group name should mean, and what it should be identified with in the public mind - has been a problem since 1965 at the latest, it's always a problem, so why shouldn't it have at least something to do with this current issue?  Stebbins mentioned "dysfunction" and "circular firing squad" somewhere in this thread - the roots and causes of that are very deep, but one of the  clearest manifestations of the dysfunction is (1) this battle over identity, along with (2) the apparent inability to sever family and business ties.

I greatly fear that this post has an element of truth and may point somewhat to what's going on.


But would a "Feel Flows" box set be any less representative of the brand name "Beach Boys" than seeing the touring Beach Boys play Mike's solo releases like "This Too Shall Pass" over actual Beach Boys songs? On one hand the suggestion is the 1970-1972 era doesn't represent what the brand identity is in 2020, yet on the other neither do Mike's solo releases which are featured at every Beach Boys concert.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2020, 10:55:09 AM by guitarfool2002 » Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 757



View Profile
« Reply #1212 on: August 23, 2020, 11:50:25 AM »

But would a "Feel Flows" box set be any less representative of the brand name "Beach Boys" than seeing the touring Beach Boys play Mike's solo releases like "This Too Shall Pass" over actual Beach Boys songs? On one hand the suggestion is the 1970-1972 era doesn't represent what the brand identity is in 2020, yet on the other neither do Mike's solo releases which are featured at every Beach Boys concert.

I understand your logic here, but can definitely think of a key player who would not.

But the weird thing about this whole scenario (that the Feel Flows set is simply too 'off-brand' for the Beach Boys, which is putting it in jeopardy) is that the project was approved in the first place by all the members. Just curious, was the project *always* going to be the scale it is currently, i.e. a 5CD box set?

Logged
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 5855


View Profile
« Reply #1213 on: August 23, 2020, 12:38:35 PM »

I’ll write this again since I don’t think I got a reply last time. If they miss the 50 year copyright extension deadline, couldn’t the label just release the stuff anyways then since Mike, al, Bruce and Brian don’t own the copyright anymore?
Isn’t that the reason behind all of these 50 year copyright extension sets?

Or am I completely wrong here?

I don’t know these things either, however the 3 songs released Dec 27 last year (I’m Going Your Way) on Spotify apparently were enough to cover 1969 releases I think someone wrote at the time. I would assume a few songs released in the same way before this year is out will cover 1970.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #1214 on: August 23, 2020, 01:15:07 PM »

Is Jerry Schilling still managing the group?

There is no "group" - just a "brand." (unless Schilling, or whoever, is the manger of the touring group, which is really just a touring brand anyway) Since we're all speculating, my speculation is that whatever this is has to do with the brand-name "Beach Boys" in some way.  There has been (or once was) significant internal tension over what "Beach Boys" was supposed to represent... the roots of this issue starting no later than the nervous breakdown of late 1964 and Brian coming off the touring circuit at the beginning of 1965. There was a brief period ('65-'67 at most) during which Brian tried to take that brand name and run with it.  He had personal problems, he had family problems, he had no significiant allies in what he was trying to do, he faced opposition from within the family, and thereafter the Beach Boys gradually became something else, something about 180 degrees removed from what Brian was trying to do circa 1966, but something more consistent with what the Beach Boys were in 1962 and 1963.

During that period of time, there was this brief, strange, anomalous "Feel Flows" period during which the group decided (or Jack Rieley convinced them) that "Beach Boys" should represent whatever they had to offer musically.  In reality, this was nothing more than Jack basically telling the Beach Boys "Brian was right back in 1966 - make the best music you can make." But the only reason Bruce, Carl, Dennis, Al and even Mike seemed to (grudgingly?) agree to this is because they had no other option; at the time, they had no clue that surf-and-beach nostalgia was going to come along in '73-'75.  They were forced into a corner commercially, and with Brian semi-retired and not interested in working with them, they had to fall back on... music.   But once the nostalgia and hits-based presentation became an option for them, it was a no-brainer to return to branding and marketing.  Accordingly, the "Feel Flows" era gets buried (as did Pet Sounds and the brief Brian-centered moment of the mid-60s).  So the Beach Boys name gets established, and it becomes a a fixed corporate-entertainment brand that people can take however they want to.  Some like it, some don't.

Today, it's very late in the game for these guys... do they really want whatever is on this quasi-mythical box (whatever it is... can it really be that great?) to represent "Beach Boys?" I would say that from their perspective, this is not "Beach Boys." In fact the overall inference or implicit message to be taken from current overall circumstances is that if you call yourself a "Beach Boys fan" then go out and see the "Beach Boys" on tour when they come to your town. That is, the truest, purest Beach Boys are on tour - go see them if you like them so much.  Or, alternatively, if you're fixated on"Feel Flows"-style music, maybe your'e not really a Beach Boys fan?

Again... pure speculation. I know nothing about this box set.  But speculation based on the very supportable proposition that the image issue - what their collective group name should mean, and what it should be identified with in the public mind - has been a problem since 1965 at the latest, it's always a problem, so why shouldn't it have at least something to do with this current issue?  Stebbins mentioned "dysfunction" and "circular firing squad" somewhere in this thread - the roots and causes of that are very deep, but one of the  clearest manifestations of the dysfunction is (1) this battle over identity, along with (2) the apparent inability to sever family and business ties.

I greatly fear that this post has an element of truth and may point somewhat to what's going on.


But would a "Feel Flows" box set be any less representative of the brand name "Beach Boys" than seeing the touring Beach Boys play Mike's solo releases like "This Too Shall Pass" over actual Beach Boys songs? On one hand the suggestion is the 1970-1972 era doesn't represent what the brand identity is in 2020, yet on the other neither do Mike's solo releases which are featured at every Beach Boys concert.

Still, if that theory is true, it would be the ultimate example of the "don't f*** with the formula" ideology being completely accurate in terms of detriment to the artistic output of this band, despite denials for decades. The slight addendum (as GF points out that  "This Too Shall Pass" is being peddled by Mike at BBs shows) being Mike effectively saying "don't f*** with the formula, unless it's in a cheesy manner that I see fit, and that benefits my personal version of the legacy".

Oh how I hope this is not true but it seems so logical as to be hard to fathom it's not at least partly true. Huh I sincerely hope I am completely wrong and that it's an easier issue to overcome then the stubborn whims of a vengeful, bitter old coot. I have no idea how one overcomes that.  

I still feel it's hard to fathom that the real reason(s) haven't been more less approximated in various user posts throughout the course of this thread somewhere. What other possible reasons could it be other than somewhere in the vicinity of what's been speculated?  But yes, I understand that the focus should be at convincing the band and powers that be that this set's release would be a good move for the brand and that speculation is perhaps pointless. Yet I still must ponder, how does a fanbase best help convince someone (or multiple someones) that the set would be good for their legacy if they are completely in the dark as to why in the first place a miguided notion is causing the holdup/non-release to begin with?  
« Last Edit: August 23, 2020, 01:34:13 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
thetojo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 511



View Profile
« Reply #1215 on: August 23, 2020, 02:20:41 PM »

I’ll write this again since I don’t think I got a reply last time. If they miss the 50 year copyright extension deadline, couldn’t the label just release the stuff anyways then since Mike, al, Bruce and Brian don’t own the copyright anymore?
Isn’t that the reason behind all of these 50 year copyright extension sets?

Or am I completely wrong here?

That is a per-song thing.
So any song, previously unreleased in any form, would fall within what you say.
Any never before heard song could be released.

So things like alternate mixes, instrumental tracks, alternate takes, alternate versions, vocals only versions, session excerpts etc. are not fair game.

While I'm hopeful that there is significant content that would be out of copyright as you say, the majority of the content would not be out of copyright.

This also begs the question, who would be in a position to actually leak the tracks. My estimation is that the list of names would be so short that they simply could not be leaked. So regardless of the copyright position, I don't believe your scenario could play out in any event!

Live recordings are z different ball-game, but again, the high quality recordings aren't likely to just leak simply because the Earth finishes another orbit of the Sun, someone with access has to actually leak them. Otherwise it's just another rehashed bootleg.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2020, 02:25:12 PM by thetojo » Logged
thetojo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 511



View Profile
« Reply #1216 on: August 23, 2020, 02:39:07 PM »

Just wanted to say to JakeH, great post above. Very thoughtful.

However I disagree, not with the historical interpretation, but with the likelihood that the name/branding issue is the hang up.

Howie says he consulted the relevant parties along the way - settling the tracklist would have been part of that.

This leads me to surmise that something changed around the first few months of this year, say January to March sometime, which caused one or more parties to have a change of heart. To me that suggests it comes down to a personal interaction which happened or a public position which changed at that time.

That, from memory, was around the time that one of the licensors of The Beach Boys name made a public statement regarding the appropriate use of the name against the wishes of the licensee. Right or wrong, I doubt that any such condition on the use of the name was contained in the licensing agreement.
Just sayin'.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #1217 on: August 23, 2020, 03:15:45 PM »

Just wanted to say to JakeH, great post above. Very thoughtful.

However I disagree, not with the historical interpretation, but with the likelihood that the name/branding issue is the hang up.

Howie says he consulted the relevant parties along the way - settling the tracklist would have been part of that.

This leads me to surmise that something changed around the first few months of this year, say January to March sometime, which caused one or more parties to have a change of heart. To me that suggests it comes down to a personal interaction which happened or a public position which changed at that time.

That, from memory, was around the time that one of the licensors of The Beach Boys name made a public statement regarding the appropriate use of the name against the wishes of the licensee. Right or wrong, I doubt that any such condition on the use of the name was contained in the licensing agreement.
Just sayin'.

Yep. I think Mikey was publicity humilated by Brian's support of the anti-hunting show petition, and now this is his revenge. Nobody puts Mikey in a corner. What a capper on a career legacy.

If Mike wants unchecked power (duh) and to never under any circumstances be questioned about any show or action he ever plays/does under the band name from here on out, in exchange for the FF release, then I say Brian and everybody should give it to him, if it means future archival releases will squeak by without issue. Let Mike play an outhouse cleaning factory, a Trump campaign event, pro-hunting shows even his most ardent defenders are disgusted by -  whatever nonsense garbage he wants to tarnish the brand with, let him do it without question.

Who cares anymore. It's worth it if releases it like this will be held in limbo. I think few fans would argue that. Let the Salieri have his bottle.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2020, 04:58:42 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
mtaber
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 489


View Profile
« Reply #1218 on: August 23, 2020, 04:33:05 PM »

Imagine if, ten years from now, Mike Love is the lone living band member. Think about how he would then be able to further twist the band’s history to enhance his own importance without opposition. It makes me nauseous.
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #1219 on: August 23, 2020, 05:19:16 PM »

Jesus, mtaber…. Shocked
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
JakeH
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


View Profile
« Reply #1220 on: August 23, 2020, 07:33:41 PM »


However I disagree, not with the historical interpretation, but with the likelihood that the name/branding issue is the hang up.

Yes - My intention was really only to offer a reminder of a particular sticky issue/problem that is always present, either in the background or foreground; it was, for example, one of the motivating factors behind Mike's lawsuit over Brian Wilson Presents Smile promotional material, circa 2004 - the allegedly unauthorized use of the words "Beach Boys" in the alleged promotion of non-Beach Boys music; music that Mike may not have wanted the Beach Boys' name associated with. (that was not the only reason for the lawsuit.)  Still, the image/brand issue is not necessarily the cause of anything going on here today.  However, the outcome of a canceled box set from this particular era of the group's history just so happens to have "branding" implications, even if they are just incidental, and it just so happens that this is occurring at a time when the touring Beach Boys are constrained in their ability to promote their version of the Beach Boys in the way they have done for decades.  It could easily all just be coincidental.

Imagine if, ten years from now, Mike Love is the lone living band member. Think about how he would then be able to further twist the band’s history to enhance his own importance without opposition. It makes me nauseous.

I wouldn't worry about it.  Really, the more interesting hypothetical is what would have occurred if Brian Wilson had died in the late '60s, mid-70s or early '80s. 

In any event, how much is Mike really "twisting" history?  Before bashing him, it should be remembered that his preferred conception of the Beach Boys is one that the public has favored for most, if not all, of the group's history.  This was what secured their initial popularity in 1963 and 64... the response to Pet Sounds was muted... Sunflower bombed, Friends bombed, Surf's Up did okay (probably because the words "Surf's Up" got people interested again), and the popularity of Endless Summer is further proof that the public wants fun in the sun.  The Beach Boys were filling stadiums in the mid '70s because of surfing-California-happy; and if Brian was honored during the "Brian is Back" promotional scheme in 1976, it was only because he was held up as the writer of "Fun Fun Fun," "California Girls" and "Little Deuce Coupe", not because of Pet Sounds, "Til I Die," "Day In the Life of a Tree," "This Whole World," let alone Smile, which is his greatest achievement.  In 1988, the public wasn't interested in what Brian had to say with "Love and Mercy" - they wanted "Kokomo."  If a person bought tickets to the 2012 reunion tour then that person is, arguably, a fan of Mike's Beach Boys concept.     

 
Logged
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #1221 on: August 23, 2020, 09:04:00 PM »

If a person bought tickets to the 2012 reunion tour then that person is, arguably, a fan of Mike's Beach Boys concept. 

Hey Jake, your post was a great read, but I do have to ask about this part. Is this your opinion or what you think Mike thinks? Cuz I mean, though these weren't arena shows, I think for the most part they were much bigger deals than Mike's faux-Beach Boys shows. And the reasoning for that, I assume, was that it was pushed as the return of Brian Wilson (and of course Al Jardine and then to a lesser extent David Marks).
Logged
The LEGENDARY OSD
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1948

luHv Estrangement Syndrome. It's a great thing!


View Profile
« Reply #1222 on: August 23, 2020, 09:55:29 PM »

Imagine if, ten years from now, Mike Love is the lone living band member. Think about how he would then be able to further twist the band’s history to enhance his own importance without opposition. It makes me nauseous.

Hopefully, that won't happen. I can't think of a more insidious nightmare than Mike Love outliving Brian or Al.  Angry
Logged

myKe luHv, the most hated, embarrassing clown the world of music has ever witnessed.
JakeH
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


View Profile
« Reply #1223 on: August 23, 2020, 10:03:44 PM »

If a person bought tickets to the 2012 reunion tour then that person is, arguably, a fan of Mike's Beach Boys concept. 

Hey Jake, your post was a great read, but I do have to ask about this part. Is this your opinion or what you think Mike thinks? Cuz I mean, though these weren't arena shows, I think for the most part they were much bigger deals than Mike's faux-Beach Boys shows. And the reasoning for that, I assume, was that it was pushed as the return of Brian Wilson (and of course Al Jardine and then to a lesser extent David Marks).

My opinion only, because in my opinion, if Mike is on stage, it is his show, no matter who else is there.  The same cannot be said for Brian, due to his receding presence on stage.  Brian can sit behind the piano at his own shows, with his own band, and not always do that much, and it is somehow still his show.  Not the case if Mike is out there.   Question: Was "Be True To Your School" performed during the reunion tour? (I don't know the answer to this). If it was, then that is evidence of what the show was about and where they were coming from.  Maybe I'm mistaken (I don't follow set lists), but I doubt Brian would ever perform that song on one of his own tours -has he ever performed it live? And was "Surf's Up" performed during the reunion tour? (Again, I don't know) Because if you've got a Beach Boys reunion tour on which "Surf's Up" is not performed and "Be True To Your School" is performed, then that's much closer to a Mike concept than a Brian-oriented concept.
Logged
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 5855


View Profile
« Reply #1224 on: August 24, 2020, 03:11:26 AM »

To be fair, 2012 was predominantly promoted as Celebration 50 or C50 for short. Yeah a reunion for the fans but a celebration of all things Beach Boys. In all honesty Mike has been as important to the live shows in the same way Brian has been important to the recorded material. Most here did see the C50 I suspect and I don’t recall any feelings of ill will against Mike’s stage performance or setlists, which gave each member plus several from Brian’s group the chance to shine vocally. From memory there were about 14 performers onstage of which only 4 were from Mikes group, so it was very Brian Wilson Band influenced.
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 52 53 54 ... 171 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.602 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!