Alternate Universe Beach Boys: What if David never quit?

[John]

This is borrowed from another thread, and rather than derail said thread any more, I thought I might as split it off, I'd be interested in Jon Stebbins' take, certainly, and some expansion. It's just a fun diversion that sparked for me when I realised after reading the Lost Beach Boy that it's possible the Beach Boys history would have been much improved had Dave Marks never left.

Here's what I wrote in the other thread:

"I think that things would have continued the way they did to August 1963 - Al comes back in on bass, replaces Brian on tour. Brian is mainly keys in the studio. If Dave doesn't leave, he'd've started writing his own stuff, and Brian would've had no need to play live during late 1963-late 1964 - unless of course he wanted to and played organ or piano live. He'd have more time to devote to those albumsmade during that time, possibly resulting in at least a better Shut Down Vol. 2 - I still think he'd've cracked up sooner or later though, like on the plane.

Dave starts contributing songs to the albums here and there (a Harrisonesque one or two to start with) and because they already have the full two guitars-bass-drums thing going on, there's no real need to recruit Bruce, thereby removing his songs (plus Bluebirds) from the equation. Yes, Pet Sounds wouldn't have been "promoted" over in the UK with no Bruce but then again, Andrew Oldham was boosting it up, maybe the expectations wouldn't have been piled so high on SMiLE.

SMiLE might well have gone ahead, because Dave would've backed up Denny, judging by a) their obvious friendship and b) Dave's stated taste for progression - if not, well, the Beach Boys have another "rocker" image at least, and the harder-edged music a Carl-Denny-Dave axis might have made would perhaps make a big difference in the late 60s; as Dave came into his own and perhaps a lead guitarist (freed from Murry, why not?) maybe there'd be more instrumental virtuosity when it's most needed, and the new Little Bird-meets-the-Moon sound maybe might have kept the BBs at the top.

Ricky Fataar would still have joined at least, because of Denny's accident, and maybe Blondie too, as a sometime guitarist-bassist-singer during the early Seventies Beach Boys musical chairs thing; perhaps Carl would've played more keyboards and Al switched to rhythm more, who knows? Maybe they'd've just added Blondie anyway. And of course, Dave may've helped fight the Endless Summer oldies-set Carl and Denny were against (and 15 Big Ones). Dave reckons he might have died from drug abuse, but who knows? Who woulda thought Brian would still be alive? Denny might not have even died if he had more say in the band, again, who knows?

I see a lot of advantages in a Wilson-axis supporting rocker / snotty punk being the "sixth" Beach Boy over Mr. Going Public.
I agree that losing Disney Girls is a shame, but who knows what might have taken it's place?"

Anyone else?

[Pretty Funky]

Carrie?

[Surfer Joe]

I really thought about this topic after hearing David's eye-opening I Think About You Often album. 

I think he'd have brought some harder edges to the band starting in 1966 or so, when he was finally old enough to shave, and a lot of wit and humor, maybe of the "I'd Love Just Once To See You" variety.  His cocky smart-ass sensibility MIGHT have brought more of Dennis' same to the fore, and provided that neither of them did self- immolate in a flaming frenzy of drugs and women and squirt guns filled with pee, he MIGHT have greatly increased Dennis' contributions and sped his development along just by being like-minded and supportive.

I think he'd have brought a stronger guitar sensibility to the band.  I think he'd have emerged as a strong songwriter early and often, probably would have written a hit. Unless he could have found his way into the vocal mix, Dennis would have had to step up and sing more.

I think he'd have impregnated all three Rovell sisters and Ginger, Sharon Marie, Annette (during the "Monkey's Uncle" sessions), Bob and Sheri, and so many others that between him and Mike the Sunflower cover photo would have had to be shot from the air.

Or, he might have filled up a squirt gun with pee, shot Manson with it, and you can guess the rest.

Or, he might have done so much coke that his face caved completely in, and been put in a home, sitting in a chair, strapped to a feeding tube, with no face, visited once by Murry in 1971 to say "Rotsa ruck!"

We'll never know, and more's the pity.  But he's still around, he's making great music right now, and probably peeing into a squirt gun this very moment as Carrie phones her attorney. A tip of my cap to 'em both.

Only thing I feel really sure about is that if he had stayed in the band this thread would be about Al, and we'd be saying "Maybe he'd have brought more of a Dylan feel to the band, as well as better dental awareness..."

[Jon Stebbins]

This is one of those giant questions that no one can answer, or no two people will answer alike. But two things I'm sure of...Brian would have been happier because he would not have had to come back to touring full-time in late '63 to late '64 ...he could have done the major gigs, TV shows...but stayed home when the band slogged through lengthy tours. Having both Al and David was a plus for the band in the studio as well. And later on when Carl became more of a vocalist...David would have given the Beach Boys a stronger guitar identity because he was intensely devoted to his instrument, especially on LP's like Wild Honey, which has a bluesy, soul vibe, but is really thin on guitar sounds. David's Moon era guitar style would have been a perfect fit for that album.

[Surfer Joe]

That's funny- I had thought of Wild Honey, too.  I think he'd have put a strong stamp on the Surf's Up album, as well.

[Rocker]

This is one of those giant questions that no one can answer, or no two people will answer alike.

Dito 

 



But I guess the question is, if Dave would've had time enough to grow on the guitar as he had without the Beach Boys.....

[John]

Only thing I feel really sure about is that if he had stayed in the band this thread would be about Al, and we'd be saying "Maybe he'd have brought more of a Dylan feel to the band, as well as better dental awareness..."

HAHA! Great post all round, but this really tickled me.

No, you'd have to have Al too, like on the Surfer Girl / Little Deuce Coupe albums. The perfect six-man line-up.

[John]

Would he have been the first non Wilson-Love composer (not counting instrumentals)?

Would "Our Car Club" have been replaced by "Kustom Kar Show" on LDC?
Would "Cruisin'" have made sure we never would have been subjected to "Cassius Love" on Shut Down 2? Or would a Brian who could stay at home cooked up something even better?
Would "I Wanna Cry" have replaced "Bull Session" on the second side of "Today!"?

[Carrie Marks]

Carrie?

It certainly is interesting to speculate.  I think it would have made Brian's life a lot easier if he's stayed...Dennis' too.  David  took some of the heat off him, for sure.  Then again, they both might not have made it out of the 60's if the universe didn't wisely seperate the two.  Since David and Al have been playing together the last few years I've noticed that they both feed off each other in a positive way....David sings better when he sings with Al and Al plays better guitar with he plays with David.   Al sang on one of David's solo tracks and there is one part where their voices blend so beautifully that it smacks you (me, at least) upside the head with what-if's.  As Jon points out in the book, In My Room is the perfect example of how great the original 6 man line-up really was and there is no reason to think anything other than 'it would have just gotten better!"

On the flip side, David had the luxury of being able to do things like just drop out of life for a year and delve completly into theory and composition...which is something he wouldn't have been able to do if he was touring.  His style today is also influenced by all the different styles he experimented with through the years.  The thing about David is that he could have excelled in any one genre had he bothered to stick around long enough to exploit his abilities.  For example, he wanted to study composition, ane he did it with Alan Silvestri; he studied classical guitar with Vincente Gomez; he was one of Jim Kelner's favourite blues guitarists, etc, etc.  But David was never interested in being a famous musician, otherwise he would have stayed in The Beach Boys.  His career has been purely motivated by his passion for the guitar so he stuck with one 'style' just long enough to master it to his own satisfaction and then he'd move on to learn something else.  So from that perspective, while the Beach Boys may have been better off with David, David would not be the player, and in turn, the person he is today. 

I guess I would have to sum it all up and say that everything happened for the best...and that is, for David to have gone off and done his own thing and now that he's 'back', he brings a totally untapped source of music to the table today that would have otherwise been drained out of him already...he hasn't even hit 2nd gear as far as putting out original music yet.  For me, personally, I'm more excited about where David is going to look backwards at what might have been.

[Howie Edelson]

David Marks staying on and the Beach Boys expanding into a full-time six piece with Al in late '63 is something I often think about.

But what I think about EVEN MORE than that is David in the band post-'71, prior to and including the Blondie era. David would've given the band the AOR FM-friendly guitarist hero that the band never had -- a huge defecit that's never mentioned when discussing the band's lack of FM credibility/success. (They had the congas the beards and captain's hats -- no guitar hero...)

Simply put, David would've been their Terry Kath. 

That said, he and Dennis would've both been long dead by '76.

[Alex]

David Marks staying on and the Beach Boys expanding into a full-time six piece with Al in late '63 is something I often think about.

But what I think about EVEN MORE than that is David in the band post-'71, prior to and including the Blondie era. David would've given the band the AOR FM-friendly guitarist hero that the band never had -- a huge defecit that's never mentioned when discussing the band's lack of FM credibility/success. (They had the congas the beards and captain's hats -- no guitar hero...)

Simply put, David would've been their Terry Kath. 

That said, he and Dennis would've both been long dead by '76.

Wasn't Blondie pretty much their early 70s "guitar hero"?

And were people that shallow that having a lot of guitar solos in someone's music would be the determining factor as to whether a group got a lot of airplay or not?

[Howie Edelson]

No, I don't think that Blondie was their guitar hero at all. I'm not that sure if that many people mentally even "got" that Blondie was more of a fronting member than, say, Billy was. The people hip to what they were doing were, but I doubt the lay man even knew his name.

I don't necessarily think that having/needing a guitar hero was "shallow" in '71, '72, '73 etc... It was part of the times and an absolute cornerstone of the genre that the band was trying hard to fit in with (e.g. "Rhonda" c. 72)

The Terry Kath reference kinda excludes shallowness because it only earmarks QUALITY. He was brilliant. The Beach Boys never had that. They could play complex piano chords on an Epiphone 12-string, but the times were very far and few in between that Carl ever played a blistering solo that continued to evolve and break musical boundaries on stage. That's not a knock, that's just the deal. Although the BB's were a kick ass live act, to many they were only and always considered a "singing group." Having an ORIGINAL member -- David --  be both cool AND a virtuoso would've absolutely made a difference within their fan base, and be reflected in their live shows, and eventual airplay. Don't you think??? I do. I love Al Jardine with all my being, but I've yet to catch anyone playing air guitar to his bar chords.

[John]

Although the BB's were a kick ass live act, to many they were only and always considered a "singing group." Having an ORIGINAL member -- David --  be both cool AND a virtuoso would've absolutely made a difference within their fan base, and be reflected in their live shows, and eventual airplay. Don't you think??? I do.

Absolutely. Well said.

[Alex]

No, I don't think that Blondie was their guitar hero at all. I'm not that sure if that many people mentally even "got" that Blondie was more of a fronting member than, say, Billy was. The people hip to what they were doing were, but I doubt the lay man even knew his name.

I don't necessarily think that having/needing a guitar hero was "shallow" in '71, '72, '73 etc... It was part of the times and an absolute cornerstone of the genre that the band was trying hard to fit in with (e.g. "Rhonda" c. 72)

The Terry Kath reference kinda excludes shallowness because it only earmarks QUALITY. He was brilliant. The Beach Boys never had that. They could play complex piano chords on an Epiphone 12-string, but the times were very far and few in between that Carl ever played a blistering solo that continued to evolve and break musical boundaries on stage. That's not a knock, that's just the deal. Although the BB's were a kick ass live act, to many they were only and always considered a "singing group." Having an ORIGINAL member -- David --  be both cool AND a virtuoso would've absolutely made a difference within their fan base, and be reflected in their live shows, and eventual airplay. Don't you think??? I do. I love Al Jardine with all my being, but I've yet to catch anyone playing air guitar to his bar chords.

I actually have no idea who Terry Kath is, and maybe I really don't "get it" about "guitar heroes" because I wasn't alive back then. But I think that people determining what music is popular or not by whether an artist plays a lot of guitar solos or not is kind of stupid, IMO. Then again, this is the pre-punk/alt./indie era we're talking about, the age of Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Clapton, Black Sabbath, the Who, the Rolling Stones, etc., when elaborate guitar solos were a requirement for rock bands to be popular. But looking at it from the current decade, the whole "guitar hero" concept is soooo cliched. But it would've been cool to see Dave in the group during the Blondie/Ricky-era.

The Beach Boys in the late 60s/early 70s were almost like a moderately successful indie band, making really good music that at least partly went against what was popular with the mainstream (whether it was intentional or not), and selling records and seats in live shows at a rate that is really bad for a #1 act but would be seen as a success for a lower- profile act.

[Howie Edelson]

I don't necessarily think that being a "guitar hero" needs to be classified as superfluous and mindless soloing. Look at George Harrison, Peter Frampton -- or DAVID MARKS for that matter -- very tasteful, restrained, and melodic soloists.

That said, and I truly mean no disrespect; Lay off the message boards for a day or two and figure out who and why Terry Kath was. It's worth your time and ears. I assure you, afterwards my above posts will make a lot more sense to you than they obviously do now.

For starters:
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:fjfixqq5ldse~T1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Kath

P.S. What are the "elaborate" guitar solos you speak of in the Who and Stones' catalogues???
(Maybe lay off the boards for TWO days...)

[John]

No, I don't think that Blondie was their guitar hero at all. I'm not that sure if that many people mentally even "got" that Blondie was more of a fronting member than, say, Billy was. The people hip to what they were doing were, but I doubt the lay man even knew his name.

I don't necessarily think that having/needing a guitar hero was "shallow" in '71, '72, '73 etc... It was part of the times and an absolute cornerstone of the genre that the band was trying hard to fit in with (e.g. "Rhonda" c. 72)

The Terry Kath reference kinda excludes shallowness because it only earmarks QUALITY. He was brilliant. The Beach Boys never had that. They could play complex piano chords on an Epiphone 12-string, but the times were very far and few in between that Carl ever played a blistering solo that continued to evolve and break musical boundaries on stage. That's not a knock, that's just the deal. Although the BB's were a kick ass live act, to many they were only and always considered a "singing group." Having an ORIGINAL member -- David --  be both cool AND a virtuoso would've absolutely made a difference within their fan base, and be reflected in their live shows, and eventual airplay. Don't you think??? I do. I love Al Jardine with all my being, but I've yet to catch anyone playing air guitar to his bar chords.

I actually have no idea who Terry Kath is, and maybe I really don't "get it" about "guitar heroes" because I wasn't alive back then.

Neither was I. I wouldn't be born for years after the Blondie era.

But I think that people determining what music is popular or not by whether an artist plays a lot of guitar solos or not is kind of stupid, IMO. Then again, this is the pre-punk/alt./indie era we're talking about, the age of Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Clapton, Black Sabbath, the Who, the Rolling Stones, etc., when elaborate guitar solos were a requirement for rock bands to be popular. But looking at it from the current decade, the whole "guitar hero" concept is soooo cliched. But it would've been cool to see Dave in the group during the Blondie/Ricky-era.

No, a guitar hero isn't "cliched" at all. It's as cliched as anything else. As Howie says, this needn't be garish fretwankery like Yngwie Malmsteen. Mick Taylor took long, melodic solos in his Stones work and it was tasteful, such as "Can't You Hear Me Knocking", which has a Santana-like feel to it. People were stretching free at that time of the 2:45 single limit and that was part of it. A long melodic phrase played on a guitar with a nice-tone can be at least as beautiful as the human voice singing a melody. David Gilmour is another example. The Who didn't particularly go crazy with guitar solos either. Yeah, there's a few on Live At Leeds, but otherwise...

Maybe the guitar "hero" concept (actually what I'd just call "a lead guitarist") has been debased by soulless virtuosos, but in the late 60s/early 70s it was a sound concept producing, yes, a few self-indulgent misses (but hey, there was long organ and drum solos too) but some nice moments too. Looking at a time from the point of view of a musical style yet to come (i.e. "post-punk and alt.") is more pointless than a "guitar hero". I'm comfortable with listening to guys who can actually play. It's only the same as Brian Wilson showing how well he can sing, after all.

[Surfer Joe]

I've always felt a little guilty about not appreciating Terry Kath as much as some.  Somebody direct me to the song that I need to hear over again and I'll pop it in and re-listen.  As it is there are a few of his solos that I'm just not bowled over by, like "25 Or 6 To 4". But my mind is open, I can be sold.

One thing the Beach Boys lacked, and could have benefited from at a certain point, was a guitar personality (which Chicago definitely did have). Bringing a guy in for "Bluebirds Over The Mountain" to do something special is nice, but at some point it would be nice to have a guy hang in there and bring his own stamp to it- like George Harrison (as mentioned), one of the best examples imaginable.  You know who you're listening to. Genesis never recovered the loss of what Steve Hackett brought in. Townshend, Dave Davies- you know who you're listening to; the guitar voice is like a human voice.  Can't speak for other people, but that's what I meant by "guitar identity" or whatever I said earlier in this thread- not long wanker solos. I'd love to have heard what Dave would have put down for "Feel Flows" or "All This Is That".  Bet he'd have had some nice touch.

Steely Dan has some of the best guitar sounds of any band ever- but it sounds like a bunch of different guys, which it is. The identity is in the production and taste only.  That's more like the Beach Boys.

[Alex]

I don't necessarily think that being a "guitar hero" needs to be classified as superfluous and mindless soloing. Look at George Harrison, Peter Frampton -- or DAVID MARKS for that matter -- very tasteful, restrained, and melodic soloists.

That said, and I truly mean no disrespect; Lay off the message boards for a day or two and figure out who and why Terry Kath was. It's worth your time and ears. I assure you, afterwards my above posts will make a lot more sense to you than they obviously do now.

For starters:
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:fjfixqq5ldse~T1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Kath

P.S. What are the "elaborate" guitar solos you speak of in the Who and Stones' catalogs???
(Maybe lay off the boards for TWO days...)

Don't worry, I'll be laying off the board for quite a while after tomorrow...and thank you for calling me out on my inconsistencies. I was thinking of Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and prog-rock bands when I said "elaborate", but was just listing off popular guitar-centric groups from that time, not really thinking about the "elaborate" part when listing the bands off. I should pay closer attention to what I'm writing.

My main gripe was that whether or not a group has a "guitar hero" among their ranks shouldn't be the determining factor in whether they are popular or not.

And speaking of Peter Frampton, the song "Do You Feel Like I Do?" from Frampton Comes Alive was recorded at the college I currently attend. (The reason I made a "scatterbrained" post might be because I've officially "switched my brain off" after finishing my exams earlier this week. Plus, I'm usually pretty "scatterbrained" anyway.)

[Jon Stebbins]

Hey...i think i was the one who said what Dave would have improved in the BB's is their "guitar identity"...I like that phrase. the BB's had a very distinct guitar identity until 1965, that's when the guitar passion of Carl, Dave...(and Al's) excellent surf/hot rod guitar sound had run its course...and the BB's guitar sound kind of became a small part of a big presentation on the records, and just a mild support system in concert. But everything around them was becoming MORE guitar-centric, and this is part of why they became viewed as so uncool so quickly. I think Howie points out nicely that the BB's had everything, great songs, great production, great vocals, great instrumentation...but one thing they didn't have was that guitar identity like The Beatles, Stones, Who whatever...its true, and you can say well that's what made them special...but it wasn't. A great guitarist would have only helped, or a guy that could take Barbara Ann and turn it into Crossroads for a few bars...that might have made a difference along the way. and certainly great LP's like Wild Honey would have been better with some tasteful guitar textures woven into some of the tracks...it could have made the whole thing more mature, more FM friendly...the early '70's updated live sound might have been underway in '67, and there would have been less ground to make up with the typical rock audience. And BTW...i was never a big Chicago fan, but Terry Kath was a monster...more of a jazz player...but a really fantastic guitarist. I know Brian Wilson would have taken advantage of the fact that he had another weapon to fire in his arsenal...and maybe Dave would have been a really good one at a crucial time...we'll never know. Just remember this, in June 1967 when the BB's bailed out of playing at Monterey... David Marks was 18 years old.

[Dancing Bear]

'Bluebirds Over the Montain' wouldn't have such god-awful lead guitar.

[John]

If Dave Marks was there, there's a chance that Bluebirds would never have been recorded by the Beach Boys, since it was Bruce Johnston's idea and he would probably have been surplus to requirements.

[Dancing Bear]

If Dave Marks was there, there's a chance that Bluebirds would never have been recorded by the Beach Boys, since it was Bruce Johnston's idea and he would probably have been surplus to requirements.

[John]

 

That's brilliant. I'll have to steal that.

[Surfer Joe]

Hey...i think i was the one who said what Dave would have improved in the BB's is their "guitar identity"...I like that phrase. ...

You're right- I swiped it because it was better- looking back I said "sensibility" but identity is much more to the point.  Dave might have gotten swamped, like the rest of the band, on the monster wave of Pet Sounds and SMiLE, but his period to shine would have followed.  I even wonder if he might have led Dennis to be a little more serious about his drums, but that's really getting into groundless speculation.

At some later point the Beach Boys got to be just a little like the Monkees after Headquarters, with one guy wandering in and doing a few tracks with some guys, and another guy wandering in and doing some other tracks with some other guys, and a guy in Nashville doing tracks with a whole other bunch of guys, and then voting the album together. Even Holland, the opposite of that idea, has a little of that feeling to me. I guess it's nice to think that Dave might have tried to hold the band's center a little more, and had more success at it than Peter Tork (because the Beach Boys were never quite as disjointed as that). I'm rambling a little...

Also, with a guy who's more driven instrumentally, you have a better chance for things to happen out of jams, like a couple really good Beatles' songs did.

So what do I need to put on to reconsider Terry Kath?

[Jon Stebbins]

Hey...i think i was the one who said what Dave would have improved in the BB's is their "guitar identity"...I like that phrase. ...

You're right- I swiped it because it was better- looking back I said "sensibility" but identity is much more to the point.  Dave might have gotten swamped, like the rest of the band, on the monster wave of Pet Sounds and SMiLE, but his period to shine would have followed.  I even wonder if he might have led Dennis to be a little more serious about his drums, but that's really getting into groundless speculation.

At some later point the Beach Boys got to be just a little like the Monkees after Headquarters, with one guy wandering in and doing a few tracks with some guys, and another guy wandering in and doing some other tracks with some other guys, and a guy in Nashville doing tracks with a whole other bunch of guys, and then voting the album together. Even Holland, the opposite of that idea, has a little of that feeling to me. I guess it's nice to think that Dave might have tried to hold the band's center a little more, and had more success at it than Peter Tork (because the Beach Boys were never quite as disjointed as that). I'm rambling a little...

Also, with a guy who's more driven instrumentally, you have a better chance for things to happen out of jams, like a couple really good Beatles' songs did.

So what do I need to put on to reconsider Terry Kath?

I think that Monkees analogy is exactly right, except they didn't have a Brian Wilson...but they had four guys with really divergent ideas about their musical direction, and so did the BB's...at least four. And yeah writing out of jams might have been a good thing...Dennis did some of that later on. The first couple of Chicago LP's probably show off TK as well as anything, but again its jazz based...and you gotta hear it surrounded by all those horns. He certainly had an identity, and really was the driving force of the band...plus he sang Wishin' You Were Here...the best BB's hit ever, that wasn't theirs. BTW...Kath and Dennis were close for awhile...and both had bad habits and early ends.