What if the Beach Boys had recorded "That Lucky Old Sun"?

[KokoMoses]

But it's rediculous just in principle!

I'd much rather listen to Brian, Carl, Al, Bruce, Dennis, Mike sing a little off than listen to someone do note perfect impersonations of them....

Hell, why doesn't Brian's band just go re-record the vocals on all the Beach Boys albums? They'd do a better job, right?

Sure, they might be "better" but they wouldn't be the Beach Boys.

No one in Brian's band can remotely touch Carl in terms of voice! Not even Brian!

[the captain]

There is nothing ridiculous about anything I have said, in principle or otherwise. And by hinting that anything I've said would imply that I think the band ought to go re-record Beach Boys albums just tells me this discussion may as well end, because you're not getting what I am saying at all.

[Dancing Bear]

Isn't that kind of like saying Beatlemania is better than the Beatles?

I mean, Beatlemania might BE better than the Beatles in terms of all their harmonies being spot on and note perfect every song/every time and their playing might be more polished and tighter than the actual Beatles...... BUT.....

........ they're NOT the Beatles.

.... Brian's band is NOT the Beach Boys....

It would be more like that if someone from Beatlemania had put together and gotten released an unfinished Sgt. Pepper, and another one had gotten together with Paul and co-written a very solid album. As much as people want the Wilson band to be nothing but soulless, lifeless karaoke machines, it just isn't true. Everyone is entitled to his opinion over which is better, but belittle the other in the process isn't really necessary.

Nah, it's like saying that McCartney's live band in the 2000s runs circles around the Beatles, because their Paperback Writer is spot on while the renditions in the 1966 world tour were a bit in the sloppy side.

Still, would anyone here exchange a time travel to the Candlestick farewell concert for a Paul solo gig in 2006? Step on, oh people who want to hear performances just-like-the-record!  

[the captain]

Isn't that kind of like saying Beatlemania is better than the Beatles?

I mean, Beatlemania might BE better than the Beatles in terms of all their harmonies being spot on and note perfect every song/every time and their playing might be more polished and tighter than the actual Beatles...... BUT.....

........ they're NOT the Beatles.

.... Brian's band is NOT the Beach Boys....

It would be more like that if someone from Beatlemania had put together and gotten released an unfinished Sgt. Pepper, and another one had gotten together with Paul and co-written a very solid album. As much as people want the Wilson band to be nothing but soulless, lifeless karaoke machines, it just isn't true. Everyone is entitled to his opinion over which is better, but belittle the other in the process isn't really necessary.

Nah, it's like saying that McCartney's live band in the 2000s runs circles around the Beatles, because their Paperback Writer is spot on while the renditions in the 1966 world tour were a bit in the sloppy side.

Still, would anyone here exchange a time travel to the Candlestick farewell concert for a Paul solo gig in 2006? Step on, oh people who want to hear performances just-like-the-record!  

No, it really isn't like that at all. And I don't think anyone said they necessarily want to hear performances just like the record. But I give up. Dennis was cute, Carl was an angel, Brian was a tortured genius, Mike didn't like to f*** with the formula, Blondie and Ricky added muscle to the live show, Bruce sucks ass and Al is short. Oh, and David was forgotten for a long time. There. Now I'm in lock-step with the orthodoxy. gods bless America.

[KokoMoses]

There is nothing ridiculous about anything I have said, in principle or otherwise. And by hinting that anything I've said would imply that I think the band ought to go re-record Beach Boys albums just tells me this discussion may as well end, because you're not getting what I am saying at all.

I completely get what you're saying! I just don't agree with it. "Getting" a point of view and agreeing with it are not mutually exclusive.

Compared to the original Beach Boys, Brian's band has performed only a mere fraction of the stage hours logged by Mike, Carl, Bruce, Brian, Dennis, Al (in whatever combination).... These guys kicked ass and kept the Beach Boys a valid concert attraction (through all the ups and downs) while Brian was in bed. It's insulting and stupid and blind to suggest that they could never match onstage what Brian's band does nowadays. Who cares if no one in Brian's band ever falls out of key at any time? There's so much more personality, authenticity, and history in what the original Beach Boys did, falling over drunk.

I'll bet any of the guys (or gals) in Brian's band could certrainly sing the hell out of "You Are So Beautiful" and blow Dennis away note-wise, pitch-wise!

Right?

If that's what you want, go for it!

[Dancing Bear]

Isn't that kind of like saying Beatlemania is better than the Beatles?

I mean, Beatlemania might BE better than the Beatles in terms of all their harmonies being spot on and note perfect every song/every time and their playing might be more polished and tighter than the actual Beatles...... BUT.....

........ they're NOT the Beatles.

.... Brian's band is NOT the Beach Boys....

It would be more like that if someone from Beatlemania had put together and gotten released an unfinished Sgt. Pepper, and another one had gotten together with Paul and co-written a very solid album. As much as people want the Wilson band to be nothing but soulless, lifeless karaoke machines, it just isn't true. Everyone is entitled to his opinion over which is better, but belittle the other in the process isn't really necessary.

Nah, it's like saying that McCartney's live band in the 2000s runs circles around the Beatles, because their Paperback Writer is spot on while the renditions in the 1966 world tour were a bit in the sloppy side.

Still, would anyone here exchange a time travel to the Candlestick farewell concert for a Paul solo gig in 2006? Step on, oh people who want to hear performances just-like-the-record!  

No, it really isn't like that at all.

Ok, how isn't it?

[KokoMoses]

"But I give up. Dennis was cute, Carl was an angel, Brian was a tortured genius, Mike didn't like to foda with the formula, Blondie and Ricky added muscle to the live show, Bruce sucks ass and Al is short. Oh, and David was forgotten for a long time."


uh, no!!!!!

They WERE the fucking BEACH BOYS!!!!

[the captain]

No, you don't get what I'm saying. You're proving it further with every post. See, I didn't say that it's necessarily better to be note-perfect. Neither did I suggest the Beach Boys were an inferior band (which their body of work would easily refute, as much as I love the Wondermints...). All I've been saying is that 1) the Beach Boys didn't sing as accurately live, on stage, as the current band, and 2) the current band is nowhere near as faceless or soulless as they are constantly ragged on for being. That's it. I'm sorry I don't believe in the magic that some of you seem to, the undefinable quality (it's called "nostalgia" by the way) or blend that the old band had. The band--bands, really--was (were) great. But it wasn't Jesus, Buddha, Ganesha, Odin and Zeus up there: it was just a bunch of different guys over the years. They weren't a singularly angel-touched band. They were guys who sang well, played all right, wrote some great, a lot of good and some dogshit songs. Sometimes I think the post-Beatles breakup Lennon interviews should be daily required reading for everyone.

[the captain]

Isn't that kind of like saying Beatlemania is better than the Beatles?

I mean, Beatlemania might BE better than the Beatles in terms of all their harmonies being spot on and note perfect every song/every time and their playing might be more polished and tighter than the actual Beatles...... BUT.....

........ they're NOT the Beatles.

.... Brian's band is NOT the Beach Boys....

It would be more like that if someone from Beatlemania had put together and gotten released an unfinished Sgt. Pepper, and another one had gotten together with Paul and co-written a very solid album. As much as people want the Wilson band to be nothing but soulless, lifeless karaoke machines, it just isn't true. Everyone is entitled to his opinion over which is better, but belittle the other in the process isn't really necessary.

Nah, it's like saying that McCartney's live band in the 2000s runs circles around the Beatles, because their Paperback Writer is spot on while the renditions in the 1966 world tour were a bit in the sloppy side.

Still, would anyone here exchange a time travel to the Candlestick farewell concert for a Paul solo gig in 2006? Step on, oh people who want to hear performances just-like-the-record!  

No, it really isn't like that at all.

Ok, how isn't it?

It isn't in that I never said the current band runs circles around the Beach Boys. Never even implied it. If anything, you could have said something like "Paul's band is more technically accurate than the Beatles were," which may be true (although not paying attention to McCartney, I have no idea). The judgment calls are all your (that's plural--southern y'all, spanish vosotros) doing, not mine. I'm not talking about technical differences, not qualitative ones.

[KokoMoses]

Why on earth are you a Beach Boys fan? Or are you just a Brian fan?

Either way!

??

[the captain]

No, I love the Beach Boys. Along with the Velvet Underground, Beatles and Tom Waits, they're my favorite band ever. But fandom doesn't have to equal worship. There's nothing wrong with cool-headedness. I can love (and I'm making these numbers up, which is hopefully obvious) 15%, like 50%, feel ambivalent toward 20% and actively hate 15% without the latter 15% affecting the positive 65% at all. It's not an all-or-nothing life. We don't all have to be little David Leafs.

[Dancing Bear]

Sometimes I think the post-Beatles breakup Lennon interviews should be daily required reading for everyone.

That wankfest by a bitter dude who thought way too much of himself? No thanks. If I want real myth-debunking, i go for National Lampoon's "Genius is Pain".

[the captain]

Yes, it's a wankfest. Yes, he was bitter. And yes, he thought way too much of himself. That said, the myth-busting is valuable. (Fits right into my theme of the moment of 'it's not all or nothing.')

[Dancing Bear]

Isn't that kind of like saying Beatlemania is better than the Beatles?

I mean, Beatlemania might BE better than the Beatles in terms of all their harmonies being spot on and note perfect every song/every time and their playing might be more polished and tighter than the actual Beatles...... BUT.....

........ they're NOT the Beatles.

.... Brian's band is NOT the Beach Boys....

It would be more like that if someone from Beatlemania had put together and gotten released an unfinished Sgt. Pepper, and another one had gotten together with Paul and co-written a very solid album. As much as people want the Wilson band to be nothing but soulless, lifeless karaoke machines, it just isn't true. Everyone is entitled to his opinion over which is better, but belittle the other in the process isn't really necessary.

Nah, it's like saying that McCartney's live band in the 2000s runs circles around the Beatles, because their Paperback Writer is spot on while the renditions in the 1966 world tour were a bit in the sloppy side.

Still, would anyone here exchange a time travel to the Candlestick farewell concert for a Paul solo gig in 2006? Step on, oh people who want to hear performances just-like-the-record!  

No, it really isn't like that at all.

Ok, how isn't it?

It isn't in that I never said the current band runs circles around the Beach Boys. Never even implied it. If anything, you could have said something like "Paul's band is more technically accurate than the Beatles were," which may be true (although not paying attention to McCartney, I have no idea). The judgment calls are all your (that's plural--southern y'all, spanish vosotros) doing, not mine. I'm not talking about technical differences, not qualitative ones.

Ok, fair enough. Goin' around in circles is making me feel dizzy anyway.  

[KokoMoses]

"We don't all have to be little David Leafs."

haha, low blow!!!!!!


Ok, ok, I'm of the opinion there was a wonderous magic there between the Wilson Brothers and Al and Mike that can never be replicated, just as the magic between John, Paul, George, and Ringo will never be replicated!

Call me a fanboy!!!!!!

[Dancing Bear]

Yes, it's a wankfest. Yes, he was bitter. And yes, he thought way too much of himself. That said, the myth-busting is valuable. (Fits right into my theme of the moment of 'it's not all or nothing.')

I'd agree with you if Mr. Lennon didn't point fingers at everyone who had been part of his life... but himself.

[the captain]

I'd agree that the music they made can't be replicated. But it's not magic. And other music can be made, should be made and deserves to be heard without the specter of both what was real and what is mythological casting an absurdly large shadow. In the case of certain bands who shall remain nameless (literally, actually), that's hard to do when one considers whose material they're doing most of the time.

[the captain]

Yes, it's a wankfest. Yes, he was bitter. And yes, he thought way too much of himself. That said, the myth-busting is valuable. (Fits right into my theme of the moment of 'it's not all or nothing.')

I'd agree with you if Mr. Lennon didn't point fingers at everyone who had been part of his life... but himself.

Which part don't you agree with? Mythbusting being valuable or that particular batch of it? Regardless, there's something essential about hearing someone say such things bluntly, whatever his other sins.

[Dancing Bear]

Yes, it's a wankfest. Yes, he was bitter. And yes, he thought way too much of himself. That said, the myth-busting is valuable. (Fits right into my theme of the moment of 'it's not all or nothing.')

I'd agree with you if Mr. Lennon didn't point fingers at everyone who had been part of his life... but himself.

Which part don't you agree with? Mythbusting being valuable or that particular batch of it? Regardless, there's something essential about hearing someone say such things bluntly, whatever his other sins.

That particular batch. Saying such things bluntly is alright with me, but when everyone else is wrong and you were always right, why bother?

What the hell, Luther? You were going on and on about sacred cows, and now you're going out of your way to defend that wankfest. You really need some 'Genius is Pain'. 

[KokoMoses]

I'd agree that the music they made can't be replicated. But it's not magic. And other music can be made, should be made and deserves to be heard without the specter of both what was real and what is mythological casting an absurdly large shadow. In the case of certain bands who shall remain nameless (literally, actually), that's hard to do when one considers whose material they're doing most of the time.

Don't make me quote Mick n keith: "It's the singer, not the song"!!

Of course it's not magic as in some Warlock in a castle somewhere stewing a pot of pig's feet and baby hearts, but music IS alchemy to a large extent. To make music, one has to manipulate the elements (air, electricity, ect) and the human soul/mind/heart/body and combine it all into something that gets pushed through wires and tubes and splatters itself on a vinyl record or a CD or MP3 or be sung/played out through speakers n mics, drums, guitars on a stage..... There's nothing wrong with being touched in a deep, spiritual way via communication through music.....I mean, I could drop quote after quote from Brian and Carl and Dennis blathering on and on about such things.... Of course, one can take a more academic remove and say it's all by and by and anyone can sing play and touch the world just as much as the Beatles and The Beach Boys did, but it's simply not true and not half as fun!!!!! I mean,  IF the Beach Boys music has touched me in such a profound way (assuming I'm not the only one)......  just what are the real chances that it has NOTHING to do with the individuals who wrote sang and played on the records and performed onstage?

[the captain]

That particular batch. Saying such things bluntly is alright with me, but when everyone else is wrong and you were always right, why bother?

What the hell, Luther? You were going on and on about sacred cows, and now you're going out of your way to defend that wankfest. You really need some 'Genius is Pain'. 

I'm not defending anything except the practice of bringing things down to earth.

[the captain]

I'd agree that the music they made can't be replicated. But it's not magic. And other music can be made, should be made and deserves to be heard without the specter of both what was real and what is mythological casting an absurdly large shadow. In the case of certain bands who shall remain nameless (literally, actually), that's hard to do when one considers whose material they're doing most of the time.

Don't make me quote Mick n keith: "It's the singer, not the song"!!

Of course it's not magic as in some Warlock in a castle somewhere stewing a pot of pig's feet and baby hearts, but music IS alchemy to a large extent. To make music, one has to manipulate the elements (air, electricity, ect) and the human soul/mind/heart/body and combine it all into something that gets pushed through wires and tubes and splatters itself on a vinyl record or a CD or MP3 or be sung/played out through speakers n mics, drums, guitars on a stage..... There's nothing wrong with being touched in a deep, spiritual way via communication through music.....I mean, I could drop quote after quote from Brian and Carl and Dennis blathering on and on about such things.... Of course, one can take a more academic remove and say it's all by and by and anyone can sing play and touch the world just as much as the Beatles and The Beach Boys did, but it's simply not true and not half as fun!!!!! I mean,  IF the Beach Boys music has touched me in such a profound way (assuming I'm not the only one)......  just what are the real chances that it has NOTHING to do with the individuals who wrote sang and played on the records and performed onstage?

The song may be nothing without the singer, but the converse is just as true, all that "sing the phonebook" bullshit notwithstanding.

[KokoMoses]

Hmmmmmmm, yes, the converse is indeed true, but I can listen to (and frequently do) Carl sing "Livin With A Heartache" over and over again and get so much joy out of it, the damm song might as well be "God Only Knows'!

[the captain]

There's no accounting for taste. And I don't mean that as an insult.

[KokoMoses]

haha! no offense taken!!! my fingers actually hurt in shame while typing the sentence regarding Living With A Heartach!