My theory on what helped "kill" the group

[Magic Transistor Radio]

I think that a band calling it quits can be similar to an athlete retiring. There are some that are still and their prime and decide to call it quits. The fans are upset because he could've given several more quality seasons. Then there are those who quit at the right time.

But there are also those who refuse to quit. They were once superstars, but now they are simply has been roll players on the team. The fans think he should've given it up long ago.

[Cam Mott]

Still the fans can increase and turn out for concerts and buy albums by the hundreds of thousands each new year all to get a taste of that long past season.

[MBE]

Ehhh...you're vote got cut out!

Sorry I think the last great tour was in 1975.

[Jay]

I think it is just because all bands have seasons.

There is truth in that, I guess what get's me frusterated is something like the fall 1993 tour that shows that they COULD still be a great band. It's just very rare that they were all that engaged by then.

I guess that's what I'm saying. It's just annoying to see the band being "lazy" and using their backing band more often, when they could have still been a very good band if they had only tried hard enough. Think about their studio work too. Still A Mystery is a great song, but  group infighting made them eventually take the "easy way out" by doing the Stars and Stripes album as their new "product".

[Pretty Funky]

Good topic.
The discussion about the voices. Must have been very difficult handing on those parts in concert to others because group members no longer had the range, however all the albums released during this time (aside from Stars and Stripes) had moments where those 40-50 year old voices just sounded right. Poor songs/ production for sure but some of those leads made bad tunes better.
One of my rediscovered favorites is 'I'm So Lonely' from 1985. The shared  Brian/ Carl lead (rough with the smooth) makes good listening IMO.

[mikeyj]

I think that a band calling it quits can be similar to an athlete retiring. There are some that are still and their prime and decide to call it quits. The fans are upset because he could've given several more quality seasons. Then there are those who quit at the right time.

But there are also those who refuse to quit. They were once superstars, but now they are simply has been roll players on the team. The fans think he should've given it up long ago.

That's an interesting analogy. I don't know who said it first but I have heard some athletes say "well I would rather people say to me 'Why did you retire?' as opposed to 'Why didn't you retire?'"

And I think that is true. If the Beach Boys had just split up after Holland in 1973 or something and gone their own ways maybe they would be taken more seriously? As it stands now, we are left with things like Here Comes The Night disco version, TM Song/most of 15 Big Ones, the M.I.U. album and of course most of the band's latter-day output such as Kokomo, the Summer In Paradise album etc.. And of course there are some people who like that stuff but seriously it's NOWHERE near the Beach Boys we all knew and loved in the 60's-early 70's. And I'm not saying it was all bad stuff around that time, there were still a few great moments but nothing in terms of consistency.

[MBE]

mikeyj that's my thoughts exactly. The Beatles did the right thing by breaking up when they did, and the Beach Boys would have just as clean of a reputation creatively if they had known when to quit too.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

I wonder if there never was an Endless Summer, or a comercial revival of their oldies in the mid 70s, if they would've stayed together. It seems that after recording Holland in 72, they lost creative focus. This was nearly 2 years before Endless Summer!

If so, I think that Brian would've still made a come back in 1976, but as a solo artist. Perhaps Dennis would've finished POB sooner and completed one or two more albums. Carl may have produced other bands and done a few solo albums. Al Jardine may have attempted a solo career as a folk artist. Mike would get involved in oldie reunion type shows.

Who knows? We may have still gotten some of the music of Love You, LA Light, etc but in different settings.

I like this script much better then reality!

[Aegir]

You guys are forgetting that as artistically damaging Endless Summer and Kokomo were, they're what kept the Beach Boys in the public conciousness. The Beatles stopped recording in 1970 or so, but they were still super-popular up until that point. If the Beach Boys had stopped recording in 1972, they would've had far less fans in 2008, even casual fans.

[tpesky]

Imagine all those incredible concerts missed....1974, 75, 76,80 ,93. I guarantee the band would have reunited many times for reunion tours too! Don't think they would just say separated like the Beatles. There is no doubt in my mind that none of them would have been very successful solo and so they would have reunited to sing the oldies on more than 1 occassion!

[Dancing Bear]

It would be hard to convince a Beach Boy in his early thirties or late twenties to suddenly adjust to middle class life, just because the band's legacy would be tarnished by the records that came after Holland.

They'd probably tell us to take a hike. 

[the captain]

There is truth in that, I guess what get's me frusterated is something like the fall 1993 tour that shows that they COULD still be a great band. It's just very rare that they were all that engaged by then.

I guess that's what I'm saying. It's just annoying to see the band being "lazy" and using their backing band more often, when they could have still been a very good band if they had only tried hard enough. Think about their studio work too. Still A Mystery is a great song, but  group infighting made them eventually take the "easy way out" by doing the Stars and Stripes album as their new "product".
[/quote]

I don't think it's fair to say they did use their backup band any more than they had in the 20-25 years previous, with the exception of the aforementioned leads. They'd almost always relied very heavily on non-band musicians to perform the music from the late 60s onward.

And I don't think it's a matter of laziness. They were under no obligation to anyone to work their asses off and be a great band anymore, and even if they had worked their asses off with some united musical goal in front of them, odds are it would not have been as commercially successful as what they were doing: touring the oldies. Nobody had cared for years. All they were doing was continuing to make their livelihood on music that people clearly preferred to hear.

Playing music is unusual in that it serves two functions: a creative outlet, but also a livelihood. The font of the former fades, but the latter remains a necessity. So their hearts weren't in it every day or night? (So what? You should've seen me at work today!)

[Pretty Funky]

So their hearts weren't in it every day or night? (So what? You should've seen me at work today!)

 

Will remember that line. Good one.

[SG7]

I think death killed the group.

[carlydenise]

death.....and lawyers....

Carly

[the captain]

Entirely natural changes over time. Death, sure, but fashions changing, minds changing, people growing up and apart, musical tastes wandering or diminishing, money, different goals. It's all complicated, but when taken together it's all very simple: time happened, and that killed the band.

[Alex]

Losing Blondie and Ricky, and losing Jack Reiley as their manager, along with the hiring of Steve Love seemed to me to have tipped the scales in Mike Love's favor. Love basically controlled the set lists from 75/76 on, and that pretty much tarnished their reputation among the "serious" music fans.

[Sheriff John Stone]

They were just giving the people what they wanted. Not you or me, but "the people". It is as simple as that.

[MBE]

And it was the "people" who pur "Kokomo" at #1 and Sunflower at #151.

[Cam Mott]

...and that's why it's called Popular Music.

[Chris Brown]

And it was the "people" who pur "Kokomo" at #1 and Sunflower at #151.

Yep...more often than not, the "people" wouldn't know good music if it hit them upside the head.

[MBE]

Exactly. To me it's a matter of balance. Sure you should throw in ten "hits" to please the crowd, but the rest should be about what you are at that time. Dylan's managed this for years and he still draws. The Box Set or orchestrated shows prove that Mike can do this too-with success. It's a matter of caring and by the 80's the Beach Boys on the whole simply didn't.

[Sheriff John Stone]

Sure you should throw in ten "hits" to please the crowd, but the rest should be about what you are at that time. Dylan's managed this for years and he still draws. The Box Set or orchestrated shows prove that Mike can do this too-with success. It's a matter of caring and by the 80's the Beach Boys on the whole simply didn't.

I think if you take a close look at the set lists in the 1970's, you would be surprised at how many of their "current" album tracks that they performed. With the exception of MIU, I think they peformed a good 4-5 songs from their current album at that time.

There is one major difference between Bob Dylan and The Beach Boys performing songs that reflect "what you are at that time". Dylan's songs were of very high quality and The Beach Boys' songs weren't. And I think they both knew that.

Your point about the boxed set...This goes back to giving the people what they want. If a survey was done for the purpose of seeing which sides of the boxed set were played the most, you would probably see a very high percentage for Sides 1 and 2, with a sharp decline for Sides 3, 4, and 5. And they knew that too.

And, again, the group did NOT give up, at least live. Maybe they were creatively bankrupt in the studio, but as a live act, they were doing just fine thank you. Just ask the millions and millions of people who saw them and walked away happy. I'd give anything today to see a live Beach Boys concert from any of those years from 1976-1997.

[MBE]

I think the moment Litttle Decue Coup was added back in 1974 was the moment the decline started, but I know the setlists pretty well and through 1980 I see an effort being made. Sure you can argue that the new stuff was few and far between after that, but they had a rich catalog that could have been utilized better.

When I brought Dylan up I didn't just mean his current work. He gives his old songs new life, changing the beat, phrasing, even the words to reflect where he is at on any given tour. It can be hit and miss but sometimes the results are amazing. For instance I like those updated lyrics and melodies on the Le'id In Hawaii project.

They may have knew which were most popular, but that's not the point. The point is that a blend of popular and obscure is the best route to take. That tour proved it. Afterall if they had kept playing a wide range of songs, a lot of the other tunes would have caught on over time with those who often went to see them.

Sure they were sucessful as a live band, but that doesn't mean they weren't coasting. Now that's he's gone of coure it would be great to see Carl, but there was a huge difference between what the group did over those years quality wise. A 1976 show would blow away a 1996 show anyday.

I still think those years with he cheerleaders, guesting on Full House, with Bruce in short shorts hurt their legacy. They didn't have to, but they went down the wrong path.

[Sheriff John Stone]

I still think those years with he cheerleaders, guesting on Full House, with Bruce in short shorts hurt their legacy. They didn't have to, but they went down the wrong path.

Of course, as you know, those above things you refer to have nothing to do with the vitality of the live band/shows and everything with the image they were trying to portray off-stage (except for the cheerleaders which I consider harmless).

What I do find interesting which is related to this topic is....when Carl passed away, the praise he received as the "leader of the band" was unanimous. There wasn't one iota of criticism, still isn't. It was always mentioned how he (and these are my words) "whipped the band into shape and paid attention to every detail". Yet, now, the live band is being criticized consistently - in the time frame when Carl really asserted himself as that leader - for, basically coasting. I wonder what Carl would think about that?