Lowest point in the BB career?

[John]

I think it's impossible to pick a specific low point. There are just to many, and it depends on the fan. Releasing a live album(their first one, specificly) filled with dumb covers (Monster Mash, Long Tall Texan, Pappa Ooo Mow Mow) instead of their great original songs(no Don't Worry Baby???) was a low point.

On the other hand, we have five more Beach Boys songs that we wouldn't have otherwise (well, Papa-Oom-Mow-Mow is on PARTY!) rather than shaky versions, tainted with overloud screaming, of songs we've already heard. Sounds like a good deal to me. Why would you want something you've already heard rather than something different? I'd rather take a chance on the quality (and only Long Tall Texan is irredeemable rubbish) and have something different.

[mikeyj]

It SUCKS that Brian quite the touring band and created a giant crack in the band's varnish that was never healed. It was a selfish thing to do really. Selfish and weak in a lot of ways. Then he sat back and let the guys tour relentlessly and make cash while he didn't do much of anything. I'm not saying he didn't have his reasons. And I respect them. But looking at the big picture. Yeah, it sucked in a massive way. Since then it was pretty much slam after slam after slam in the other guy's faces. Why do we have to bash the other guys for wanting to continue as the Beach Boys and do it? Didn't they just want to function as a band and be exactly that? Just like pretty much everyone else in history who was ever in a band? Who can blame them?


If the Brian and The Beach Boys had stuck together like a real band. A band like The Stones/REM/The Beatles even, we probably wouldn't be sitting here blaming Mike love for everything. The whole thing just sucks. Sure, they did become a true band again, but by then it was too late and the well had been poisioned by too many interlopers. It's sad.

While I totally agree with you about the fact that when Brian quit the band it wasn't as good I do think it was for the best in the end. I do think the band adapted without him and I think that the material that Brian created in the studio just got THAT much better after he quit.. at least temporarily it did. But I think it's a little unfair to call Brian's decision "Selfish and weak". Firstly, don't take me as a 'Brianista' or whatever cause I am not but clearly the other guys owe Brian a lot for their success and I think you really have to look at it from Brian's point of view. He had a LOT on his plate, he was writing, producing, arranging, singing, playing on a large chunk of Beach Boys tracks but also doing the same for a few outside artists too and when you add touring, promotional work etc.. to that as well, who can blame him for quitting touring. But I honestly think you have to take his mental illness into consideration. I mean I think a lot of people underestimate Brian's mental problems.

[mikeyj]

On Kokomo; has anyone ever considered the possibity that so many people despise the song simply BECAUSE it's associated with Cocktail ?

No, I have never seen the movie and I don't despise the song, just not a fan of it.

[mikeyj]

5) Don't want it both ways. But, to me, when Brian, Carl, and Al have NO songs on a Beach Boys album, it's more logical to assume they did not submit any, than to speculate that Brian Wilson, Carl Wilson, and Al Jardine submitted a song(s), and one person, Mike Love, had the power to say "No".

In regards to the power to say "no", in that Goldmine interview from 1992, didn't Mike say something like "well I know what is commercial since I co-wrote Kokomo and Good Vibrations" and then he says how that if people have an idea that they have to go to him to decide whether it is commercial or not, something like that anyway. I'd have to take a look at it again.

I also don't buy the theory that they withheld songs because the project didn't warrant or merit their inclusion. What project did? Youngblood Part II? Postcards From Wherever - 20 years later?

Well how about Beckley-Lamm-Wilson?

[brianc]

As it happens, I consider it the last halfway decent song the band did, but Mike had little to do with its genesis.

I shudder to say this, but I think "Lahaina Aloha"  has a great melody and Carl sings it beautifully. It's the only song on SIP that I like, truthfully.

[brianc]

The Beach Boys had one last chance in 1994-95 and they blew it by doing a lame country tribute to themselves.  It all came to a sad end and they were all at fault. That my friends was the low point.

Totally agree. I think the 1994-96 Wilson/Paley sessions, which were song earmarked for the last Beach Boys album, stand as the last time that Brian Wilson truly created an autonymous piece of work.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Was Brian there, could he have done more, should Al or Carl have contributed, etc.? Maybe. But I can't blame them for an absence. Sometimes nothing is better than something, and those albums are such times.

We'll just have to respectfully disagree, Luther. I do think, yes, Brian could have done more. I do think, yes, Al and Carl should've contributed more. I can blame and do blame them for their absence. Yes, sometimes nothing is better than something (GIOMH for example), but not in this case. Those BB albums in question needed more. It's one thing to blame someone, it's another thing to single them out unfairly. But, hey, no problem; look forward to your posts....

Alan was excluded from the band for the majority of the SIP sessions, so it would have been a tad difficult for him to contribute material.

Difficult, but not impossible. How many days was Al present? How long does it take to present a tape (or whatever you present), and say, "Here's a song I wrote which I think is pretty good. Would you give it a listen?". There, that took ten seconds...

Allan returned to the fold just in time for the vocal sessions for an album that had a very tight deadline. There was no time to cut any new tracks, however good they might have been.

[Andrew G. Doe]

[quote author=Sheriff John Stone link=topic=5795.msg93186#msg93186
4) You say that Mike wasn't succeeding? "Getcha Back"? "Wipe Out"? "Kokomo"? "Somewhere In Japan"? Not successful? You don't have to LIKE them, but they were successful. And, I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I didn't find Mike's SIP songs THAT bad.

One, "Somewhere Near Japan" was written almost entirely by John Phillips (as was "Kokomo")... and two, as a single, it tanked. Never charted. As it happens, I consider it the last halfway decent song the band did, but Mike had little to do with its genesis.

Mike's name is on the credits, and, based on Mike's record as being proven (in a court of law) to be honest in his songwriting claims, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and at least some credit. Is he at least partially responsible for bringing the track to the group's attention? I'll give him credit for that also.

I'm aware that "Somewhere In Japan" didn't chart. But after being scolded for equating some (but not all) degree of success with sales, I included "Somewhere In Japan" as being successful, based on what I heard, rather than its chart performance. Jeez, I can't win no matter which way I go....
[/quote]
[/quote]
Bruce's name is also on the credits.    I strongly suspect that Mike's contribution could be editing the song down from its original 20-odd verses.

[adamghost]

[quote author=Sheriff John Stone link=topic=5795.msg93186#msg93186
4) You say that Mike wasn't succeeding? "Getcha Back"? "Wipe Out"? "Kokomo"? "Somewhere In Japan"? Not successful? You don't have to LIKE them, but they were successful. And, I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I didn't find Mike's SIP songs THAT bad.

One, "Somewhere Near Japan" was written almost entirely by John Phillips (as was "Kokomo")... and two, as a single, it tanked. Never charted. As it happens, I consider it the last halfway decent song the band did, but Mike had little to do with its genesis.

Mike's name is on the credits, and, based on Mike's record as being proven (in a court of law) to be honest in his songwriting claims, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and at least some credit. Is he at least partially responsible for bringing the track to the group's attention? I'll give him credit for that also.

I'm aware that "Somewhere In Japan" didn't chart. But after being scolded for equating some (but not all) degree of success with sales, I included "Somewhere In Japan" as being successful, based on what I heard, rather than its chart performance. Jeez, I can't win no matter which way I go....

 [/quote]

Well, in all fairness John, I have to say in making your argument you're making every possible assumption in favor of Mike, and discarding some factually proven information to make your point.  I don't have a problem with advocacy in favor of Mike -- God knows he could use one -- but let's just call it what it is. 

[brianc]

I strongly suspect that Mike's contribution could be editing the song down from its original 20-odd verses.

Who wrote the 20-verse version? John Phillips? If so, I'd like to hear that. My hunch has always been that this song deserved a better voice than the Beach Boys. Weird to say it, but the song could have been given to a better entity at that time. The Beach Boys could sing it, but they weren't "singing" much at the time that was really moving. Maybe that's why "Somewhere Near Japan" is good, but slightly tained as not being the best production in the world.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I strongly suspect that Mike's contribution could be editing the song down from its original 20-odd verses.

Who wrote the 20-verse version? John Phillips?

Yup - the subject of the song is his daughter Mackenzie's honeymoon experience with her husband/pusher on Guam. The money & the drugs soon ran out, hence...

"Late last night I got an SOS
The fairytale girl's in deep distress
She said 'I don't know where I am
But it's near Japan'"

[brianc]

Awesome. Thanks, Andrew.

[Jason]

Lowest point in the BB career?

The entire Keepin' the Summer Alive album. They just didn't care one bit. An absolute travesty, coming off the heels of what was, truthfully, a fine LP for the band so late in their career. It's like a Serge Gainsbourg put-on, only it's nowhere near as funny, unless you like laughing at men when they're down. Can you blame Dennis for wanting nothing to do with it? Not even Carl could be counted on to deliver the goods like he had so wonderfully in 1970-73.

In the end it's an LP documenting a half drug-addled, half apathetic group. Of course, when you sink this low, there's nowhere else to go but up, but that came at a price.

The cover art is quite fitting. A worn out oldies act in their summery bubble isolated from the cold, bitter landscape that had long since rejected them creatively.

[KokoMoses]

I think it all comes down to everyone just being a bit too hard on The Beach Boys in general. Mike gets the worst of it, but it's not just him. Poor Brian has been punished for over 40 years for not staying 24 years old and writing Pet Sounds Part 2 every other year. Well, actually, he DID deliver Pet Sounds part 2, but it was called Love You. And the guy wasn't 24 years old anymore and life had taken a toll. A fascinating toll, of course, but a toll still.

I honestly don't think the "worst" Beach Boys stuff is half bad. And if I can like Summer In Paradise, I mean TRUELY like it, how in the hell am I supposed to despise Mike Love? It just doesn't work. Only Dennis was blessed with the ability to ONLY write great stuff. But of course he wasn't under the same sort of pressure the other guys were to deliver. It isn't easy to create perfect music for 10/20/30/40 years and to please the fans, let alone yourself. Can't we please give these guys a break. For my money, The Beach Boys have an insanely unbeaten streak of great stuff from 1961-1980. That's more than enough.

[MBE]

Lowest point in the BB career?

The entire Keepin' the Summer Alive album. They just didn't care one bit. An absolute travesty, coming off the heels of what was, truthfully, a fine LP for the band so late in their career. It's like a Serge Gainsbourg put-on, only it's nowhere near as funny, unless you like laughing at men when they're down. Can you blame Dennis for wanting nothing to do with it? Not even Carl could be counted on to deliver the goods like he had so wonderfully in 1970-73.

In the end it's an LP documenting a half drug-addled, half apathetic group. Of course, when you sink this low, there's nowhere else to go but up, but that came at a price.

The cover art is quite fitting. A worn out oldies act in their summery bubble isolated from the cold, bitter landscape that had long since rejected them creatively.

I think it hit a few lows, and was more cynical, but all that came after that was worse. It's the last Beach Boys album that really sounds like the Beach Boys even a little. L.A. Light is better as was basically everything to that point, but the feel was still there even if it was in dilluted form. No excuse for School Days,  Endless Harmony, or Oh Darlin though.

[MBE]

I think it all comes down to everyone just being a bit too hard on The Beach Boys in general. Mike gets the worst of it, but it's not just him. Poor Brian has been punished for over 40 years for not staying 24 years old and writing Pet Sounds Part 2 every other year. Well, actually, he DID deliver Pet Sounds part 2, but it was called Love You. And the guy wasn't 24 years old anymore and life had taken a toll. A fascinating toll, of course, but a toll still.

I honestly don't think the "worst" Beach Boys stuff is half bad. And if I can like Summer In Paradise, I mean TRUELY like it, how in the hell am I supposed to despise Mike Love? It just doesn't work. Only Dennis was blessed with the ability to ONLY write great stuff. But of course he wasn't under the same sort of pressure the other guys were to deliver. It isn't easy to create perfect music for 10/20/30/40 years and to please the fans, let alone yourself. Can't we please give these guys a break. For my money, The Beach Boys have an insanely unbeaten streak of great stuff from 1961-1980. That's more than enough.

I won't speak for anyone else, but my intent is not belittle the best years (though I would only go to 1973) but to try to understand why they ended before they had to. I think Mike has been treated poorly and deserves a defense but if I feel he did something artistically subpar I am not afraid to say it. With Brian I think through the Good Timin-California Feeling era he was great, but once the voice went his songs also took a hit. All but the most dedicated Brian fans have to admit that from 1975 on he didn't maintain previous standards. He still has some brilliant moments, but the handling of his career both as a Beach Boy and solo since that point has made people who care about him somewhat uncomfortable. I don't think there ever was a band as good as the Beach Boys in their prime and they should be seen as one of the all time greats by any knowledgeable music lover.  Yet here where we analyse everything as hard core fans, constructive criticism can be insightful for even the most knowledgeable among us. Note that I said constructive. Saying things like Mike Love is evil is just silly.

[KokoMoses]

Extremely well put, and I agree with everything. Please keep in mind, I'm not defending late era Beach Boys (80-95?) as being anywhere near them in their prime. I'm just saying that it's hard for people (because bands are just that: people) to maintain a constant level of greatness at nearly anything. At 45-50-60-65 ect, you're just not the same person you were when you were 24 or 34 and your life experiences shape you and distort and illuminate the past in various ways. If the Beach Boys in their 40s and 50s just wanted to be fun and light and make money and play shows, I just don't see anything wrong with it. And for a bunch of 40 or 50somethings in the late 80s and early 90s to have some less than wonderful ideas about what's cool/hip or commercial, doesn't strike me as at all odd or unexpected. Especially after what these guys have gone through. I just don't see any point in deriding Mike or the boys for not releasing Pet Sounds quality material in 1988 or 92. If Mike had a cynical outlook, think of all the highs and lows they'd had by that point. All those lows would certainly make anyone cynical at times. Especially when most of The Beach Boys highs were too often followed by soul crushing lows.

[KokoMoses]

And just to make it clear, Holland is my favorite Beach Boys album by far. So, to be honest, I consider anything and everything after that (other than Dennis' songs) to be a complete travisty in so many ways. But once I recover from that shock, I find a lot to enjoy in post 73 BBs and will defend it all. The Beach Boys were always a multifaceted band (easy when you have 5 singers/writers) and if they decided to focus on a particular facet from then on, well, I can live with it.

[the captain]

I think it all comes down to everyone just being a bit too hard on The Beach Boys in general. ...
I honestly don't think the "worst" Beach Boys stuff is half bad.

I feel exactly the opposite. I think fans are too easy on the Beach Boys, and that not only is the worst Beach Boys stuff really bad, but a lot of the stuff even in the prime years wasn't very good compared to their best. It isn't some big deal or hatred I have or anything, I'm just saying that's how I look at their music: some brilliant, a lot good, the majority in the upper mediocre range, quite a bit of bad and some absolute atrocities. No big deal, just opinions. Just funny how people's--even who are both fans--vary so dramatically over the same thing. As to the latter things though, about not being able to sustain greatness, I do agree with that. I don't think they (or much of anyone else) did, and it's ridiculous to expect them (or anyone) to. But choosing a lowest point doesn't have to be some mean-spirited thing, or an assault on the band in general. You could do a "choose the lowest point of Pet Sounds" if you felt like it, or "worst bit of your favorite song." It's all just for discussion; it's not like much of this--a fan message board devoted to a pop band--matters in the least.

[She Dont Know A Thing]

I think it all comes down to everyone just being a bit too hard on The Beach Boys in general. ...
I honestly don't think the "worst" Beach Boys stuff is half bad.

It's all just for discussion; it's not like much of this--a fan message board devoted to a pop band--matters in the least.

I don't anyone was pretending it did...

[Pretty Funky]

If there was 'Beach Boys 80/ 90s' album put out today I wonder if it would appeal to the same surf/ car singles clientele of the early 60s.

LOWEST ALBUM?

KOKOMO
GOIN ON
GETCHA BACK
CALIFORNIA DREAMIN
STILL CRUSIN
WIPE OUT
PROBLEM CHILD
HOT FUN IN THE SUMMERTIME
UNDER THE BOARDWALK
FOREVER (STAMOS)

In the mixed up world of the music biz...it might just have legs!

[John]

Goin' On doesn't deserve to be in that un-illustrious company. Swap it for Happy Endings...

[Pretty Funky]

Beach Boys album 101

Must always have at least one Brian gem.  

[NHC]

I think it's impossible to pick a specific low point. There are just to many, and it depends on the fan. Releasing a live album(their first one, specificly) filled with dumb covers (Monster Mash, Long Tall Texan, Pappa Ooo Mow Mow) instead of their great original songs(no Don't Worry Baby???) was a low point. To the hardcore surf fans, Pet Sounds was a low point. For the people that actually understood Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations, Smiley Smile was practically a slap in the face. I could go on and on. My point is, virtually every Beach Boys album/era was a low point to SOMEBODY.

I agree on one point - Smiley Smile.  Carl called it a bunt. I'd call it three straight called strikes, bat never leaving the shoulder, standing on the wrong side of the plate and back to the dugout.  Good Vibrations, Heros & Villains, sure, but the rest - - - - what a mess.

On the other hand, Beach Boys Concert was the first BB album I bought in 1965 and I loved it, every song.  The studio albums and the singles had the rest of the hits, this one also had some fun takes on other popular songs.  To me, it showed their versatility.  I was as hard core a fan as you could get in 1966 and I was absolutely knocked out with Pet Sounds. For this hard core fan it was the highest of a high point. I got it from the first note.  Absolutely overpowering, and nailed it but good.

Like you say, everybody has a different take on these things.  For me, it wasn't MIU or SIP (i like most of both those), etc., it was Carl's passing.   I realize the "low point" is most likely  considered to be regarding their actual history in terms of recording, touring, etc..  To me, that's stuff that comes and hopefully goes.  I'd probably say late 60's in terms of touring, or perhaps the personal problems plaguing them in the late 70's.  But the real low point was losing Carl for all the obvious reasons. Sure, it was out of everyone's hands and had nothing to do with decisions, output, etc., things they could control, but to me that was the end of it all.  I like the fact that Mike and Bruce are trying to keep the band alive but for most of us it will never be the same, and can't be.

[KokoMoses]

Beach Boys album 101

Must always have at least one Brian gem.  

Inarguable point, as much as I would love to argue it!

MIU: My Diane
Holland: Sail On Sailor
Carl ATP: Marcella
LA:........ Hmmmmm, well, I guess post 67 you can claim that an album must have a Dennis gem, therefore: Baby Blue
KTSA: Goin On
Summer In Paradise:....... never mind