gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
622476 Posts in 25035 Topics by 3555 Members - Latest Member: Spoonito December 10, 2017, 07:38:17 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Go Down Print
Author Topic: John Stamos: Love Him or Hate Him?  (Read 11970 times)
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4402


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


View Profile
« Reply #125 on: August 01, 2017, 04:39:54 PM »

Iím just going to copy/paste a response I made in another thread to someone with the same mindset:

A few thoughts on the word ďlegacyĒ after reading continuous talk of this elsewhere.

And before anyone reads this and feels like Iím beating a dead horse, itís just clarification of my own thoughts (mostly for my own benefit and for anyone else interested)...if anyone is tired of debate on this I totally understand: you donít have to respond with muppetís quotes or anything...as I said, this is mostly me thinking out loud to make sure Iím thinking about this correctly.

Iíd just like to clarify the definition of ďlegacyĒ as I think there are some glaring misconceptions about the word. ďLegacyĒ does not just mean that the music will always be there and will always hold up. Legacy is also all the baggage that is carried along with the music. Legacy includes thoughts, feelings, and memories about the entity in question...when you think about The Beach Boys do you have positive thoughts? Positive feelings? Good memories?

With The Beach Boys yeah, mostly all of the above. Do the last three decades of embarrassing antics hurt the 60s/70s music catalogue? Of course not, that music is solidified in time as some of the greatest ever made. Do the last three decades of embarrassing antics hurt the image of the band? Yes.

You see this when a music journalist writes about this band - they usually mention the fractious history of the band in their interviews. You can see this even on the official Beach Boys Facebook page in the comments of the DIA song post that mostly everyone hates. The public reads these articles and comments and their perception of band is altered.

As KDS mentioned yesterday, the Beatles quit after a decade - they didnít record disco, they didnít go on sitcom shows, they didnít have a nasty reunion breakup. They didnít have these things so their legacy is one of the brightest stars in the sky. But therein proves my point: the actions made by The Beach Boys over the past few decades have altered how bright their star is in the sky...the disco track, the sitcom appearances, etc have all added up the tackiness that is now part of the image of this band....ie part of their legacy.

When we think of The Beatles, we also think of Yoko Ono breaking up the band. That thought will be forever cemented with their legacy. See what Iím getting at? Itís not just the great music but the events that stand out. They could be good events or bad events, but each go hand in hand with the legacy.

The music is safe, and maybe thatís all some fans care about. Others of us care about the group that Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, Al, David, Bruce, Blondie, Ricky, belonged to at one point or another. This band is a device that created culture, created introspection, gave people dreams. The music of course is what we listen to and love, but the culture of this band goes right along with the music. And when the image of that band is tarnished time and time again, people remember that when they think of the music (like the Axl Rose example someone made above).

These embarrassing antics donít effect our enjoyment of the past music, they effect our perception on the vessel that gave us that music. And to some of us, that part of the legacy is almost as important as the music itself.

I have to disagree with this. When all is said and done I believe the group will largely be remembered for the first 10 years of its existence. Everything else will be a footnote at best.

Is that the case with Phil Spector? Or Ted Nugent? I'm not saying that the band (fortunately) has ever done anything on the level that Phil did, but the point is that legacies can be tarnished, and there is a spectrum for this ranging from "just a little bit" ---> all the way to "severely". This band, whose music I love and cherish, is on that spectrum *somewhere*, and due to just way, way, way, way too many boneheaded decisions which continue to occur mainly at the hands of one member, the brand name unfortunately doesn't quite reside in the "just a little bit" section when it comes to tarnishment.

The brand sadly is a joke to far too many people (perhaps you haven't encountered this viewpoint enough in person); just because there are plenty of people who don't care and don't mind, there are ALSO plenty of people who don't take the band seriously, in part because of the neverending stream of Stamos/Love nonsense (just for starters).

It's a cumulative thing.

No, I haven't encountered that perception in ages. Generally when I speak to people about the Beach Boys they mention Brian, Pet Sounds, etc. In other words all of the usual bullet points...except they will sometimes bring up Charlie Manson.
 
Which leads me to wonder....Dennis was buddies with Charlie Manson and even THAT couldn't damage the group's legacy. They even recorded one of Manson's songs and it's ALWAYS getting written about in those "Did you know?" articles online and and yet you guys think Stamos hurts the brand?

I also think that most serious music fans are not completely stupid and realize that the Beach Boys no longer exist.  

Funny, because people my age (late 20s) that I talk to seem to usually bring up Full House and Stamos when I bring up The Beach Boys. And I wish I was exaggerating. In the past, any girl I talked to about this band would giggle and talk about ĎForeverí being played in an episode (edit; wanted to clarify it was when I played the song forever would this be brought up).
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 04:41:17 PM by rab2591 » Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7742


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #126 on: August 01, 2017, 04:40:23 PM »

I also think that most serious music fans are not completely stupid and realize that the Beach Boys no longer exist.  

Surprised to see this comment. I'm glad I didn't write it.

But I have to ask a follow up - If this is the case, in your opinion then why not retire the name and be done with it, and why is there such a shitstorm about people arguing the license and all those related issues? If it's done, it's done...right?
Logged

"Every single person who criticized Brian for having She & Him, Kacey Musgraves, Sebu and Nate Ruess guesting on his solo album can now officially go heartily f*** themselves." - Wirestone

"I will never change with what I think happened in here and you will never convince me otherwise." - Dr. Beach Boy.
"There was no up front fees, period. swedishfrog  and I paid for the domain name. As of June 19, 2016 at 4:32pm edt, that is all I was charged for." - Dr. Beach Boy
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4402


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


View Profile
« Reply #127 on: August 01, 2017, 04:46:05 PM »

And the not-completely-stupid serious music fans were in for a shock when they were flipping through the stations on July 4th and saw Do It Again being butchered by the band that apparently no longer exists.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7669



View Profile
« Reply #128 on: August 01, 2017, 04:47:10 PM »

Yeah, that is real brand management... Roll Eyes
Logged

I don't see the point in punishing Brian's musical output solely because Mike wants to wow the President Elect with how long he can weeze "wheeeeeeen" into a microphone.- rab2591
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7742


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #129 on: August 01, 2017, 04:48:48 PM »

And the not-completely-stupid serious music fans were in for a shock when they were flipping through the stations on July 4th and saw Do It Again being butchered by the band that apparently no longer exists.

Just like they did a few years ago when they tuned into the Hollywood Christmas Parade and saw The Beach Boys performing/promoting a Mike Love solo Christmas single instead of a Beach Boys song.

Confusion? Nahh...not much. Just fun, fun, fun!
Logged

"Every single person who criticized Brian for having She & Him, Kacey Musgraves, Sebu and Nate Ruess guesting on his solo album can now officially go heartily f*** themselves." - Wirestone

"I will never change with what I think happened in here and you will never convince me otherwise." - Dr. Beach Boy.
"There was no up front fees, period. swedishfrog  and I paid for the domain name. As of June 19, 2016 at 4:32pm edt, that is all I was charged for." - Dr. Beach Boy
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



View Profile
« Reply #130 on: August 01, 2017, 04:58:48 PM »

I also think that most serious music fans are not completely stupid and realize that the Beach Boys no longer exist.  

Surprised to see this comment. I'm glad I didn't write it.

But I have to ask a follow up - If this is the case, in your opinion then why not retire the name and be done with it, and why is there such a shitstorm about people arguing the license and all those related issues? If it's done, it's done...right?

I've made that comment several times here and each time you respond the same way like you're surprised. Can you explain why you keep doing that?  

I'm all for retiring the name but it doesn't bother me that Mike and Bruce use it. Why would it? It didn't seem to bother Brian when he went to see The Four Freshmen and of course he knew it wasn't actually the REAL Four Freshmen but a sanctioned touring group and Bri said he just closed his eyes and pretended it was the Freshman and enjoyed it (as he wrote about in his book). I imagine fans who see Mike and Bruce do the same thing.  
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 04:59:40 PM by GhostyTMRS » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7742


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #131 on: August 01, 2017, 05:10:27 PM »

I also think that most serious music fans are not completely stupid and realize that the Beach Boys no longer exist.  

Surprised to see this comment. I'm glad I didn't write it.

But I have to ask a follow up - If this is the case, in your opinion then why not retire the name and be done with it, and why is there such a shitstorm about people arguing the license and all those related issues? If it's done, it's done...right?

I've made that comment several times here and each time you respond the same way like you're surprised. Can you explain why you keep doing that?  

I'm all for retiring the name but it doesn't bother me that Mike and Bruce use it. Why would it? It didn't seem to bother Brian when he went to see The Four Freshmen and of course he knew it wasn't actually the REAL Four Freshmen but a sanctioned touring group and Bri said he just closed his eyes and pretended it was the Freshman and enjoyed it (as he wrote about in his book). I imagine fans who see Mike and Bruce do the same thing.  

I am surprised because most times the license and name issues get mentioned in this way, the usual response includes calls of "Mike bashing" and a general sense of rushing to defend Mike's live shows, it's been happening since late 2012 and even before like clockwork.

Your logic and opinion might be exactly what those other serious music fans who are not stupid share as well, agreeing with your statement "The Beach Boys no longer exist".

I'd also flip the question back again and say if that is the case, then why have there been so many mentions of Mike "carrying the torch" for the legacy or "upholding the legacy"...carrying the torch for what if in your words The Beach Boys no longer exist?

The difference is also that the Freshmen were a name nostalgia band licensing the name and the book of arrangements playing shows just like the Glenn Miller Orchestra - There are no original members, and it's a different level of bookings and expectations too.

I'll also bet if one of the new touring Freshmen decided to write an original tune or remake "Day By Day" with hip-hop beats and a guest artist, and have The Four Freshmen perform it for ticket buyers, his ass would be canned and they'd have to make the case for keeping the license to use it for bookings.
Logged

"Every single person who criticized Brian for having She & Him, Kacey Musgraves, Sebu and Nate Ruess guesting on his solo album can now officially go heartily f*** themselves." - Wirestone

"I will never change with what I think happened in here and you will never convince me otherwise." - Dr. Beach Boy.
"There was no up front fees, period. swedishfrog  and I paid for the domain name. As of June 19, 2016 at 4:32pm edt, that is all I was charged for." - Dr. Beach Boy
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4192



View Profile
« Reply #132 on: August 01, 2017, 05:17:48 PM »


Which leads me to wonder....Dennis was buddies with Charlie Manson and even THAT couldn't damage the group's legacy. They even recorded one of Manson's songs and it's ALWAYS getting written about in those "Did you know?" articles online and and yet you guys think Stamos hurts the brand?
 

Denny and Manson's association was:

a) accidental and inadvertent (Denny had completely zero knowledge he was associating with a guy who was capable of what we all later learned Manson was capable of)

b) Denny obviously regretted it and felt awful about such a connection/association in hindsight

c) it was a one-off freak occurrence

Mike continually does all sorts of stuff, which certainly not on the level of associating with Charles Manson, never shows an ounce of realization or regret (aside from the fake embarrassment he displayed when Brian mentioned Mike's solo album on their campfire TV appearance). And these "gifts" that Mike gives the world, be it a 30+ year neverending connection with Stamos, etc, just go on and on and are cumulative.

It's apples and oranges, but the point is that Stamos definitely hurts the brands in certain circles. Many. And understandably so. And Mike's answer to this is not to finally cease with the Stamos antics, but to disable Youtube comments.

Mike would rather be on stage with John Stamos than Brian Wilson. That fact in and of itself is perhaps the most laughable, yet sadly completely accurate statement in rock music history.

Maybe you're not associating with the crowds and circles that feel that way. Believe me: I know tons of musicians who love The BBs. And like clockwork, if you mention Mike Love's name to them, they'll almost universally scoff or make an eye rolling motion. Because he continues to poison the brand with garbage crapola. You know it, I know it. The Sunshine Tomorrow release was JUST the thing to finally get people like that to finally give Love an ounce of credit where credit was due. And DIA '17 followed it immediately afterwards. Like getting a Wolfgang Puck feast for dinner and immediately served a rotten poo emoji-shaped brownie afterwards.

And for just as many people I know like that (who actually know the band's music, love it, and just dislike Love), there are just as many other people who won't even give the music much of a chance in a deep, profound way, because the stale stench of Stamos-esque antics FOR DECADES has taken its toll. Their loss, I suppose. But it's not an imagined thing. It's a straight-up thing that occurs, regularly.  

Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos

Sunshine Tomorrow

Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos Stamos White Bedsheets Blacklight 
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 05:34:45 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



View Profile
« Reply #133 on: August 01, 2017, 05:29:33 PM »


I'd also flip the question back again and say if that is the case, then why have there been so many mentions of Mike "carrying the torch" for the legacy or "upholding the legacy"...carrying the torch for what if in your words The Beach Boys no longer exist?


That's not up to me to answer. I don't go to those shows so I can't relate to whatever emotional response a Mike & Bruce concert evokes in people, but obviously those performances DO move audiences in some way so why begrudge them? What can be gained from doing that?

And yes, I'm well aware that Brian has gone back and forth on this but recently said that he liked the idea of Mike "keeping the name out there", etc. What does that mean? Who knows? He likes seeing the name on a marquee as he rides past it on a bus? Doesn't really matter to me. I saw the group while Carl was alive and even then I felt like I wasn't truly seeing the proper "Beach Boys" because Dennis wasn't there. We make adjustments based on what we enjoy. For some people Mike & Bruce are enough. More power to those folks. I'm not losing any sleep over what other people enjoy.    

As for non-original members touring under the name The Beach Boys...we know that's coming (although Jason Brewer has an excellent tribute band called Sail On that will be tough to beat. Might as well give them the license).  
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7742


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #134 on: August 01, 2017, 05:41:59 PM »

Why can't all of what you described be done without billing these shows as "The Beach Boys" if in your own opinion (shared by similar serious music fans) The Beach Boys no longer exist? Does the right to use the name outweigh the concert experience itself, would people who bought tickets and had those emotional experiences have them any less if it weren't The Beach Boys on the marquee?

I'd also raise the issue again about performing songs under the band name that are not Beach Boys releases - especially on national television. There has to be a separation, and there simply is not.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 05:42:36 PM by guitarfool2002 » Logged

"Every single person who criticized Brian for having She & Him, Kacey Musgraves, Sebu and Nate Ruess guesting on his solo album can now officially go heartily f*** themselves." - Wirestone

"I will never change with what I think happened in here and you will never convince me otherwise." - Dr. Beach Boy.
"There was no up front fees, period. swedishfrog  and I paid for the domain name. As of June 19, 2016 at 4:32pm edt, that is all I was charged for." - Dr. Beach Boy
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4192



View Profile
« Reply #135 on: August 01, 2017, 05:45:13 PM »

Why can't all of what you described be done without billing these shows as "The Beach Boys" if in your own opinion (shared by similar serious music fans) The Beach Boys no longer exist? Does the right to use the name outweigh the concert experience itself, would people who bought tickets and had those emotional experiences have them any less if it weren't The Beach Boys on the marquee?

I'd also raise the issue again about performing songs under the band name that are not Beach Boys releases - especially on national television. There has to be a separation, and there simply is not.

I didn't have a problem with Carl singing Heaven with The BBs backing him at the 25th anniversary show in Hawaii. But of course, at the time, there wasn't a clearcut line set to avoid brand confusion, nor was the person singing the song lawsuit-happy to sue other band members claiming brand confusion - as opposed to wild ego issues - as the reason.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7742


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #136 on: August 01, 2017, 05:50:14 PM »

Why can't all of what you described be done without billing these shows as "The Beach Boys" if in your own opinion (shared by similar serious music fans) The Beach Boys no longer exist? Does the right to use the name outweigh the concert experience itself, would people who bought tickets and had those emotional experiences have them any less if it weren't The Beach Boys on the marquee?

I'd also raise the issue again about performing songs under the band name that are not Beach Boys releases - especially on national television. There has to be a separation, and there simply is not.

I didn't have a problem with Carl singing Heaven with The BBs backing him at the 25th anniversary show in Hawaii. But of course, at the time, there wasn't a clearcut line set to avoid brand confusion, nor was the person singing the song lawsuit-happy to sue other band members claiming brand confusion - as opposed to wild ego issues - as the reason.

When Carl was in the band there was no license to use the name because The Beach Boys were The Beach Boys and could play any song they wanted on stage.

That's the issue too - It's common sense as outlined in multiple posts above, but there is a separation, a brick wall is more like it, between then and now. Some do not think there is such a separation, and it also leads to watching The Beach Boys on July 4th promoting Mike's new single like they did a few Christmases ago. It's not a Beach Boys product, period.
Logged

"Every single person who criticized Brian for having She & Him, Kacey Musgraves, Sebu and Nate Ruess guesting on his solo album can now officially go heartily f*** themselves." - Wirestone

"I will never change with what I think happened in here and you will never convince me otherwise." - Dr. Beach Boy.
"There was no up front fees, period. swedishfrog  and I paid for the domain name. As of June 19, 2016 at 4:32pm edt, that is all I was charged for." - Dr. Beach Boy
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4192



View Profile
« Reply #137 on: August 01, 2017, 05:51:17 PM »

Why can't all of what you described be done without billing these shows as "The Beach Boys" if in your own opinion (shared by similar serious music fans) The Beach Boys no longer exist? Does the right to use the name outweigh the concert experience itself, would people who bought tickets and had those emotional experiences have them any less if it weren't The Beach Boys on the marquee?

I'd also raise the issue again about performing songs under the band name that are not Beach Boys releases - especially on national television. There has to be a separation, and there simply is not.

I didn't have a problem with Carl singing Heaven with The BBs backing him at the 25th anniversary show in Hawaii. But of course, at the time, there wasn't a clearcut line set to avoid brand confusion, nor was the person singing the song lawsuit-happy to sue other band members claiming brand confusion - as opposed to wild ego issues - as the reason.

When Carl was in the band there was no license to use the name because The Beach Boys were The Beach Boys and could play any song they wanted on stage.

That's the issue too - It's common sense as outlined in multiple posts above, but there is a separation, a brick wall is more like it, between then and now. Some do not think there is such a separation, and it also leads to watching The Beach Boys on July 4th promoting Mike's new single like they did a few Christmases ago. It's not a Beach Boys product, period.

Totally.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4192



View Profile
« Reply #138 on: August 01, 2017, 05:53:38 PM »

One reason I definitely don't hate Stamos (just begrudge his needless insertion at the expense of folks like, oh, I dunno... Brian Wilson and Al Jardine) is that Stamos, as I recall, said something to the effect in some interview that if he were just a fan - and not John Stamos - that he'd be irked at the presence of some fanboy who got to be in the band for no particular reason. At least Stamos has self-awareness and humbleness, it would certainly seem.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 06:33:53 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 684



View Profile
« Reply #139 on: August 01, 2017, 06:02:19 PM »

Why can't all of what you described be done without billing these shows as "The Beach Boys" if in your own opinion (shared by similar serious music fans) The Beach Boys no longer exist? Does the right to use the name outweigh the concert experience itself, would people who bought tickets and had those emotional experiences have them any less if it weren't The Beach Boys on the marquee?

I'd also raise the issue again about performing songs under the band name that are not Beach Boys releases - especially on national television. There has to be a separation, and there simply is not.


It definitely could be done that way but BRI didn't do a survey of hardcore fans and ask their permission for what they think is acceptable. I mean, you're asking me the question as if we, as fans, have any authority over how they run their business. Heck, even Al couldn't get that authority.

Truth be told, when all this went down nearly 20 years ago I was enraged about it but I've long since made my peace with it because all that nerd rage was a waste of energy and in the end it doesn't really matter. The touring entity does what it does and to me, The Beach Boys are a recording act first and foremost. When they ceased to make records, they ceased to be IMO.   
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4192



View Profile
« Reply #140 on: August 01, 2017, 06:25:15 PM »

Famous_Amos_e1464320052859" border="0
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4402


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


View Profile
« Reply #141 on: August 01, 2017, 06:28:54 PM »

LOL LOL LOL
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7742


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #142 on: August 01, 2017, 06:38:07 PM »

Why can't all of what you described be done without billing these shows as "The Beach Boys" if in your own opinion (shared by similar serious music fans) The Beach Boys no longer exist? Does the right to use the name outweigh the concert experience itself, would people who bought tickets and had those emotional experiences have them any less if it weren't The Beach Boys on the marquee?

I'd also raise the issue again about performing songs under the band name that are not Beach Boys releases - especially on national television. There has to be a separation, and there simply is not.


It definitely could be done that way but BRI didn't do a survey of hardcore fans and ask their permission for what they think is acceptable. I mean, you're asking me the question as if we, as fans, have any authority over how they run their business. Heck, even Al couldn't get that authority.

Truth be told, when all this went down nearly 20 years ago I was enraged about it but I've long since made my peace with it because all that nerd rage was a waste of energy and in the end it doesn't really matter. The touring entity does what it does and to me, The Beach Boys are a recording act first and foremost. When they ceased to make records, they ceased to be IMO.   

The points you stated are more or less what has gotten other fans who care about this music deeply labeled as trolls or "haters" in the past, especially since late 2012.

I agree 100% about making records. The last time they did that was TWGMTR in 2012 when all surviving members were on board, and released what I thought was a pretty damned good album that sounded like The Beach Boys as much as that is possible considering those who are no longer with us. It's too bad Mike didn't share the same enthusiasm about the project, maybe we would have gotten more studio recordings featuring the Beach Boys making original music in the studio with all surviving members on board.

Consider that these same notions are what fans having this same kind of emotional attachment and bond with the music and the records share, and bristle at if not get outright pissed off at Mike when they see The Beach Boys on television on July 4th 2017 promoting a Mike Love solo release with no attempt to draw a line between then and now for those casual fans watching and hearing The Beach Boys mime to a Mike Love remake with Mark McGrath instead of a real Beach Boys recording.
Logged

"Every single person who criticized Brian for having She & Him, Kacey Musgraves, Sebu and Nate Ruess guesting on his solo album can now officially go heartily f*** themselves." - Wirestone

"I will never change with what I think happened in here and you will never convince me otherwise." - Dr. Beach Boy.
"There was no up front fees, period. swedishfrog  and I paid for the domain name. As of June 19, 2016 at 4:32pm edt, that is all I was charged for." - Dr. Beach Boy
bonnevillemariner
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 417



View Profile
« Reply #143 on: August 01, 2017, 06:51:07 PM »

Speaking of things/connections/events that may or may not hurt the Beach Boys legacy, while I was reading this thread-- the very page with the Manson comments, no less-- the latest episode of The Way I Heard It, Mike Rowe's podcast came up on my podcast playlist.  I won't spoil it, but the title of the episode is "Charlie's Big Break," and it's not necessarily too kind to Melcher and Dennis.  Funny coincidence.
Logged
♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 9719


🍦🍦 Not Dead and Not For Sale ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #144 on: August 01, 2017, 11:45:17 PM »

One reason I definitely don't hate Stamos (just begrudge his needless insertion at the expense of folks like, oh, I dunno... Brian Wilson and Al Jardine) is that Stamos, as I recall, said something to the effect in some interview that if he were just a fan - and not John Stamos - that he'd be irked at the presence of some fanboy who got to be in the band for no particular reason. At least Stamos has self-awareness and humbleness, it would certainly seem.

Exactly.  I don't hate him, although he annoys the hell out of  me at times
Logged

Hi there. I am Billy. I am Smiley Smile's  resident left-wing ambassador. A snowflake if you will.
♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 9719


🍦🍦 Not Dead and Not For Sale ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #145 on: August 01, 2017, 11:54:48 PM »

Why can't all of what you described be done without billing these shows as "The Beach Boys" if in your own opinion (shared by similar serious music fans) The Beach Boys no longer exist? Does the right to use the name outweigh the concert experience itself, would people who bought tickets and had those emotional experiences have them any less if it weren't The Beach Boys on the marquee?

I'd also raise the issue again about performing songs under the band name that are not Beach Boys releases - especially on national television. There has to be a separation, and there simply is not.


It definitely could be done that way but BRI didn't do a survey of hardcore fans and ask their permission for what they think is acceptable. I mean, you're asking me the question as if we, as fans, have any authority over how they run their business. Heck, even Al couldn't get that authority.

Truth be told, when all this went down nearly 20 years ago I was enraged about it but I've long since made my peace with it because all that nerd rage was a waste of energy and in the end it doesn't really matter. The touring entity does what it does and to me, The Beach Boys are a recording act first and foremost. When they ceased to make records, they ceased to be IMO.   

But see, that's us. Unfortunately,  for many various reasons , to the general public the Beach Boys are a novelty nostalgia act at best, and a guilty pleasure. I'd even prefer the attitude that they're washed up, because at least that'd give validity to their peak (s). This is a band that should be looked at as the same level as  the Beatles, but aren't.  The 90s and beyond,  with the exception of 2012, have been brutal. The timing of the new DIA couldn't be worse  with Sunshine Tomorrow coming out.



And how can Mike use the BB name on something like this? Doesn't thst violate the license? And doesn't Brian have a right to sue in a case much stronger than the bullshit Mike pulled in 2005? At the very least I'm hearing quite a bit of the 2012 track on this one, right down to the backup vocals.  Doesnt that seem a bit questionable to anyone else?
Logged

Hi there. I am Billy. I am Smiley Smile's  resident left-wing ambassador. A snowflake if you will.
Rocky Raccoon
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2199



View Profile
« Reply #146 on: August 02, 2017, 12:49:11 AM »

While it seems like a minor detail now in the grand scheme of their career, Stamos did appear in the Kokomo video.  I imagine that video got some major MTV airplay and a lot of people were probably hearing of the Beach Boys for the first time when Kokomo came out.  So in that context, his appearances with the band isn't that strange to a certain audience, an audience whose first memories of the band involve him.  But it's just the cheap gimmick of it all that bothers me.  Stamos doesn't appear at these shows because he's a great musician or even for his history with the band.  He's asked to appear because he's a good looking C-list celebrity who starred on a bad sitcom in the 90s and people get nostalgic for that sort of thing and supposedly that sells tickets.  It's part of what differentiates Mike Love's interpretation of what the Beach Boys is from the ambitious group that made Pet Sounds.  Here's an interesting quote from a Rolling Stone article about the 2012 reunion.

Quote from: The Beach Boys' Last Wave by Jason Fine
So, the first night at the Beacon, no new songs are added. To make matters worse, at least to those who want the Beach Boys reunion tour to differentiate itself from Mike Love's tour using the Beach Boys name, John Stamos is in the house and jumps onstage for several songs Ė including one awkward moment when he pulls a petrified-looking little girl from the audience and dances with her on his shoulders. Later, several band members mull around glumly at the afterparty. One calls the show a "travesty." He says, "If they want theater, we can do theater. But I thought this was a rock & roll show."
« Last Edit: August 02, 2017, 08:52:47 AM by Rocky Raccoon » Logged

♩♬☮ Billy C ♯♫♩☮
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 9719


🍦🍦 Not Dead and Not For Sale ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #147 on: August 02, 2017, 01:22:48 AM »

That about sums it up
Logged

Hi there. I am Billy. I am Smiley Smile's  resident left-wing ambassador. A snowflake if you will.
JK
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4113


Perhaps I put too much faith in atmosphere


View Profile
« Reply #148 on: August 02, 2017, 03:30:22 AM »

CenturyDeprived!  LOL
Logged

"I don't want to go out. I want to stay in. Get things done." (David Bowie)
KDS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3698


View Profile
« Reply #149 on: August 02, 2017, 05:29:45 AM »

Why can't all of what you described be done without billing these shows as "The Beach Boys" if in your own opinion (shared by similar serious music fans) The Beach Boys no longer exist? Does the right to use the name outweigh the concert experience itself, would people who bought tickets and had those emotional experiences have them any less if it weren't The Beach Boys on the marquee?

I'd also raise the issue again about performing songs under the band name that are not Beach Boys releases - especially on national television. There has to be a separation, and there simply is not.


It definitely could be done that way but BRI didn't do a survey of hardcore fans and ask their permission for what they think is acceptable. I mean, you're asking me the question as if we, as fans, have any authority over how they run their business. Heck, even Al couldn't get that authority.

Truth be told, when all this went down nearly 20 years ago I was enraged about it but I've long since made my peace with it because all that nerd rage was a waste of energy and in the end it doesn't really matter. The touring entity does what it does and to me, The Beach Boys are a recording act first and foremost. When they ceased to make records, they ceased to be IMO.   

I tend to agree.  Like many other legacy artists on tour with minimal original members, it's a touring only nostalgia band. 


Logged

Any opinions posted by me regarding the music of The Beach Boys, and their members, is in no way a show of disrespect towards any member of The Beach Boys, past or present.
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.103 seconds with 21 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!