gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 10:25:56 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 31739 times)
Dove Nested Towers
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 877

Goodnight, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are!


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: July 30, 2017, 11:44:59 PM »

Hi is an obsequious, sycophantic irritant, a perfect representative of the most unabashedly commercial and superficial side of the band's dual identity. The living antithesis of the more artistic direction that the BBs (Dennis & Carl especially) were pursuing in the early to mid '70s. A toadying embodiment of cloying , generic superficiality who is indeed at best a pimple on the ass of what the group should be all about, and at worst, if Nelson Bragg's interpretation of his disingenuous concert shenanigans re: Forever a few years back are accurate, a dissembling, manipulative prick. In short, I don't care for him.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 02:45:06 AM by Dove Nested Towers » Logged

"The police aren't there to create disorder,
they're there to preserve disorder!" -Mayor
Daly, Chicago 1968
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #101 on: July 31, 2017, 01:54:49 AM »

Mike Love: "Why do many people not like me? Why am I not considered to be the Paul McCartney to my cousin Brian's John Lennon? Why, oh why am I not taken seriously by the rock community and critics at large?

(continues to use and whore out a mediocre sitcom star's celebrity, good looks, and good hair - for those assets only - to "promote" a once highly-prestigious brand name, and probably mainly to increase female head count at shows... for *decades* on end. *Decades*. Stamos has now been touring with The BBs for more countable years than Carl or Denny, and possibly even Brian and Al).

Shrug

I don't hate Stamos, because he doesn't seem like a jerk; I hate how he has been comically overused to a point of utter absurdity by Mike for perceived short-term gains. Mike is sadly maybe the biggest laughing stock in the history of the industry (relative to the fame of band) in part because of so many decisions like this, firmly associating the brand with shameless, crass ONGOING mediocrity, that makes it seem like he doesn't feel the music or live show can stand on its own sans sitcom star gimmicks.  

Even if Mike just plain likes having his buddy John around, and that there's no more to it than that, the fact that he wouldn't understand that this is the impression an ongoing association like that would make on the public is mindblowing, yet unsurprising for someone lacking self-awareness.  Having Stamos around for this many years could lead someone to believe that the sole purpose of Mike continuing to tour is to get the aforementioned demographic shift. Isn't there more to touring than more younger females at shows?  Or is that too irresistible a temptation?  I really feel like this gets to the core of why Stamos never goes away.  To me, he's more or less benign because I expect that from Mike at this point. I expect Mike's show to be drenched in tacky decisions, despite the best efforts of his able backing musicians to up the game in other ways.

Is Mike vicariously trying to live through John by John being there, and John being a completely willing, always agreeing fanboy?  It almost feels like maybe John reminds Mike of Denny being around, but in this case, there's no competition or conflict to get in the way of Mike reigning supreme.  Sort of a revisionist history wet dream where young Mike could robotically control Denny into helping Mike get chicks at shows. When you start to think about the psychology of it all, it kind of makes your head explode.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2017, 09:09:42 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
marcella27
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 430



View Profile
« Reply #102 on: July 31, 2017, 10:04:19 AM »

I feel like Stamos is living my life, or at least the life I wish I could lead.  There's the association with the Beach Boys, first of all.  Second, he's apparently big into Disney World and Disneyland and goes there all time (I am huge Disney lover).  Then he showed up on my favorite (contemporary) TV show, Scream Queens.  I'm waiting to go into my favorite restaurant one day and find him there, eating my favorite order. 

I used to hate him, but I have grudgingly come to think that he might be an okay-ish guy.  However, that does NOT mean that I want to see him in BB videos/concerts/etc...  He is NOT a beach boy and never will be.  I resent the association between the Beach Boys and Full House, etc...I would be extremely ticked if he were onstage at any M&B show I was at, and I probably would have walked out if he'd been at any of the C50 shows I went to.  He does not belong on that stage.  Period. 

I also doubt that the reason Mike keeps bringing him in is to attract girls/women to the show.  Sure, Stamos is well-known as a heartthrob, but to an older generation of women.  I would be extremely surprised if any women younger than 35 (maybe even 40) were going to BB shows on the off-chance that Stamos might be there.  I think it's more likely that Mike thinks Stamos is cool and that he gets off on Stamos' adulation of the band.       

Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #103 on: July 31, 2017, 10:20:28 AM »



I also doubt that the reason Mike keeps bringing him in is to attract girls/women to the show.  Sure, Stamos is well-known as a heartthrob, but to an older generation of women.  I would be extremely surprised if any women younger than 35 (maybe even 40) were going to BB shows on the off-chance that Stamos might be there.  I think it's more likely that Mike thinks Stamos is cool and that he gets off on Stamos' adulation of the band.      


Even if your generational observation is accurate (I think it's only maybe half-accurate), I don't for a moment think that Mike is exactly unhappy at the prospect that Stamos likely brings in more 35/40-ish year old women at his shows, either. Do you dispute this? I think that's certainly *part* of why.

I agree with your second comment though.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2017, 10:47:28 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #104 on: July 31, 2017, 10:32:28 AM »

He's no Dave Coulier, but really, who is? 
Logged
marcella27
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 430



View Profile
« Reply #105 on: July 31, 2017, 11:00:55 AM »



I also doubt that the reason Mike keeps bringing him in is to attract girls/women to the show.  Sure, Stamos is well-known as a heartthrob, but to an older generation of women.  I would be extremely surprised if any women younger than 35 (maybe even 40) were going to BB shows on the off-chance that Stamos might be there.  I think it's more likely that Mike thinks Stamos is cool and that he gets off on Stamos' adulation of the band.      


Even if your generational observation is accurate (I think it's only maybe half-accurate), I don't for a moment think that Mike is exactly unhappy at the prospect that Stamos likely brings in more 35/40-ish year old women at his shows, either. Do you dispute this? I think that's certainly *part* of why.

I agree with your second comment though.

No, I imagine you're right that Mike would be pleased at the possibility of having more 35-40 year old women at the concerts.  Having said that, the recent Do It Again debacle has convinced me not to try to figure out how Mike's brain works.  Honestly.   

What I meant to get at is that I don't think Stamos is actually that much of a draw.  Yes, he might be popular with a certain demographic, but I don't think that anyone is buying tickets because they might see Stamos at a show.  However, I could be wrong.  Despite being part of the afore-mentioned demographic, Stamos never really did it for me, so perhaps I underestimate his popularity. 
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #106 on: July 31, 2017, 11:08:29 AM »



I also doubt that the reason Mike keeps bringing him in is to attract girls/women to the show.  Sure, Stamos is well-known as a heartthrob, but to an older generation of women.  I would be extremely surprised if any women younger than 35 (maybe even 40) were going to BB shows on the off-chance that Stamos might be there.  I think it's more likely that Mike thinks Stamos is cool and that he gets off on Stamos' adulation of the band.      


Even if your generational observation is accurate (I think it's only maybe half-accurate), I don't for a moment think that Mike is exactly unhappy at the prospect that Stamos likely brings in more 35/40-ish year old women at his shows, either. Do you dispute this? I think that's certainly *part* of why.

I agree with your second comment though.

No, I imagine you're right that Mike would be pleased at the possibility of having more 35-40 year old women at the concerts.  Having said that, the recent Do It Again debacle has convinced me not to try to figure out how Mike's brain works.  Honestly.   

What I meant to get at is that I don't think Stamos is actually that much of a draw.  Yes, he might be popular with a certain demographic, but I don't think that anyone is buying tickets because they might see Stamos at a show.  However, I could be wrong.  Despite being part of the afore-mentioned demographic, Stamos never really did it for me, so perhaps I underestimate his popularity. 

I'm when it's already announced that Stamos is going to be as a show, it probably helps sell a few tickets, but I highly doubt the numbers are that high. 

Oddly enough, whenever The Beach Boys play with Stamos in my area, it's billed as "The Beach Boys featuring John Stamos."  Yet David Marks's playing with them in August 2015 wasn't advertised at all (though it was a very pleasant surprise).
Logged
marcella27
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 430



View Profile
« Reply #107 on: August 01, 2017, 07:21:11 AM »



I also doubt that the reason Mike keeps bringing him in is to attract girls/women to the show.  Sure, Stamos is well-known as a heartthrob, but to an older generation of women.  I would be extremely surprised if any women younger than 35 (maybe even 40) were going to BB shows on the off-chance that Stamos might be there.  I think it's more likely that Mike thinks Stamos is cool and that he gets off on Stamos' adulation of the band.      


Even if your generational observation is accurate (I think it's only maybe half-accurate), I don't for a moment think that Mike is exactly unhappy at the prospect that Stamos likely brings in more 35/40-ish year old women at his shows, either. Do you dispute this? I think that's certainly *part* of why.

I agree with your second comment though.

No, I imagine you're right that Mike would be pleased at the possibility of having more 35-40 year old women at the concerts.  Having said that, the recent Do It Again debacle has convinced me not to try to figure out how Mike's brain works.  Honestly.   

What I meant to get at is that I don't think Stamos is actually that much of a draw.  Yes, he might be popular with a certain demographic, but I don't think that anyone is buying tickets because they might see Stamos at a show.  However, I could be wrong.  Despite being part of the afore-mentioned demographic, Stamos never really did it for me, so perhaps I underestimate his popularity. 

I'm when it's already announced that Stamos is going to be as a show, it probably helps sell a few tickets, but I highly doubt the numbers are that high. 

Oddly enough, whenever The Beach Boys play with Stamos in my area, it's billed as "The Beach Boys featuring John Stamos."  Yet David Marks's playing with them in August 2015 wasn't advertised at all (though it was a very pleasant surprise).

Wow.  I didn't know they actually advertised Stamos.  I thought it was just sort of random and that he would pop up at shows here and there without any notice.  How depressing that he gets billing and David Marks doesn't.
Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #108 on: August 01, 2017, 07:22:29 AM »



I also doubt that the reason Mike keeps bringing him in is to attract girls/women to the show.  Sure, Stamos is well-known as a heartthrob, but to an older generation of women.  I would be extremely surprised if any women younger than 35 (maybe even 40) were going to BB shows on the off-chance that Stamos might be there.  I think it's more likely that Mike thinks Stamos is cool and that he gets off on Stamos' adulation of the band.      


Even if your generational observation is accurate (I think it's only maybe half-accurate), I don't for a moment think that Mike is exactly unhappy at the prospect that Stamos likely brings in more 35/40-ish year old women at his shows, either. Do you dispute this? I think that's certainly *part* of why.

I agree with your second comment though.

No, I imagine you're right that Mike would be pleased at the possibility of having more 35-40 year old women at the concerts.  Having said that, the recent Do It Again debacle has convinced me not to try to figure out how Mike's brain works.  Honestly.   

What I meant to get at is that I don't think Stamos is actually that much of a draw.  Yes, he might be popular with a certain demographic, but I don't think that anyone is buying tickets because they might see Stamos at a show.  However, I could be wrong.  Despite being part of the afore-mentioned demographic, Stamos never really did it for me, so perhaps I underestimate his popularity. 

I'm when it's already announced that Stamos is going to be as a show, it probably helps sell a few tickets, but I highly doubt the numbers are that high. 

Oddly enough, whenever The Beach Boys play with Stamos in my area, it's billed as "The Beach Boys featuring John Stamos."  Yet David Marks's playing with them in August 2015 wasn't advertised at all (though it was a very pleasant surprise).

Wow.  I didn't know they actually advertised Stamos.  I thought it was just sort of random and that he would pop up at shows here and there without any notice.  How depressing that he gets billing and David Marks doesn't.

Sadly, to the casual fan, John Stamos is more well known than David Marks. 
Logged
Emdeeh
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2980



View Profile
« Reply #109 on: August 01, 2017, 07:56:34 AM »

The difference is that David Marks is an actual Beach Boy, not a special guest. His being at an M&B show means you get three Beach Boys, instead of the usual two.

I've met Stamos on a couple of occasions. The first time I had no clue who he was. He seems like a pretty nice guy.

On the other hand, he is not a draw for me as far as concerts go. It genuinely puzzles me when Mike brings him up in the BTTYS schtick, when Stamos isn't there. Seems pointless.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 07:57:04 AM by Emdeeh » Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #110 on: August 01, 2017, 08:02:35 AM »

The difference is that David Marks is an actual Beach Boy, not a special guest. His being at an M&B show means you get three Beach Boys, instead of the usual two.

I've met Stamos on a couple of occasions. The first time I had no clue who he was. He seems like a pretty nice guy.

On the other hand, he is not a draw for me as far as concerts go. It genuinely puzzles me when Mike brings him up in the BTTYS schtick, when Stamos isn't there. Seems pointless.

Right, when I saw them in 2015 with David, there was no fanfare about David being there.  Finally, about ten or so songs in, they did Getcha Back with David on lead vocals, and Mike said "Mr. David Lee Marks!!!!"   
Logged
Michael Edward Osbourne
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 666


My name is Lovecifer. Please take my hand. \m/


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: August 01, 2017, 08:50:43 AM »

Stamos seems like a nice guy but I'm never extra excited just because he's there. I've seen him a few times with them but the shows would've still been a kick ass show whether he was there or not. I was never a fan of his television shows or movies so for me it's pointless.

I don't hate him or love him.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 08:56:02 AM by Mike Garneau » Logged
KDS
Guest
« Reply #112 on: August 01, 2017, 08:56:15 AM »

Keeping Stamos on the road with the band might actually keep him from producing that All Summer Long movie he mentioned a few years ago, which was the musical movie in the vein of Mamma Mia and Rock of Ages with a story loosely based around The Beach Boys catalog.

So, for those looking for a silver lining in Stamos's presence with The Beach Boys, there it is.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #113 on: August 01, 2017, 10:55:42 AM »

They do often prominently advertise Stamos's participation in Mike's shows. Here's an ad for a recent gig:



What I find funny is that those who dig Stamos and/or defend his participation with the Beach Boys will cite something like this as a reason why his presence is justified (e.g. "look how famous he is and how much people must like him and how he must help sell tickets?"), while those put off by his presence are trying to say ads like this are part of the reason why his participation is objectionable.

Any person as famous as the band, or any TV or movie star, could also be put on such an advertisement and potentially help sell tickets.

Having to use a b-level TV star (albeit still with plenty of mostly female fans) to sell tickets doesn't make your band look good to observers, and having an amateur (in the literal sense) musician on stage doesn't add anything to the music.

But it was clear LOOOOOONG ago that Mike doesn't care about critical laurels. It's just a big fun rich-dude laugh for Mike and Stamos. Whereas some old guys sip their whiskey while chortling in private, Mike and Stamos do it on stage and on TV an in public. 

I've said it many times; there was an interview with David Marks from around maybe 2000 or so, not too long after his mid-1999 departure from Mike's band, where Dave talked about Stamos. I'm loosely paraphrasing based on old memory, but my recollection is that Dave was trying to be as nice and polite as possible in pointing out that Stamos was a nice guy and all, but because he doesn't practice or hone his skill, his musicianship (drums and guitar mainly) is at an amateur level.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
JL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


View Profile
« Reply #114 on: August 01, 2017, 11:17:36 AM »

^ Dang, that is prominent. LOL Stamos looks good for his age, too. I like the guy, I honestly don't have a strong opinion about him either way. I do find his association with Mike Love's Beach Boys to be sorta funny, though.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #115 on: August 01, 2017, 11:31:38 AM »

Make no mistake, my gut is that I think Foskett and Stamos would LOVE to take over the license when/if they had/have the chance when Mike retires or is otherwise no longer touring.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


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


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: August 01, 2017, 11:50:27 AM »

Fantastic post above, HeyJude.

Those same people claim that the legacy can’t be hurt by anything. Yet look at this advert! Same sh*t with the remake of DIA that many fans didn’t even bat an eye about because we’re so used to a constant stream of bad choices and mediocre behavior when it comes to this band. The quality control seems to be nonexistent.

Here we have John Stamos bigger than anyone in the flippin band in an advertisement. Yeah yeah, it’s most likely the venue’s advert - but aren’t The Beach Boys touring group supposed to look over all that stuff to make sure it’s kosher? And therein lies the problem: no one gives a sh*t that The Beach Boys themselves aren’t the main draw but rather a yoghurt salesperson who was once famous for his role in a 90s sitcom.

I think Stamos is enjoying a great ride, and he’s making every moment count. I have no issues with him. Same that someone said in this thread or another: I don’t blame Stamos for the forever remake, or his guest spots with The Beach Boys...I blame whoever thinks this sh*t is actually a good idea for the history of the band.

Everything that happens with this band is a part of their history, be it Mike’s wonderful contributions to the C50 or his years of writing classic lyrics, be it Brian’s love for harmony and the timeless songs he created. Or be it the bad, tacky, ridiculous crap that keeps happening with this band in its latter years. It’s all part of the history of the group now.

The Beach Boys as an actual group could’ve ridden out their final years doing some amazing concerts, recording some amazing albums...but Mike couldn’t get into a room with Brian? is that the flimsy excuse for why the c50 ended? (Yes we know there’s more to it than that yet this ridiculous excuse is what Mike touts when he’s asked about it). What could’ve been and instead we get robotuned DIA ‘17 and the biggest draw for a Beach Boys concert these days is apparently John Stamos. Yeah, that legacy sure is on a high note right now Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 11:57:43 AM by rab2591 » Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 722



View Profile
« Reply #117 on: August 01, 2017, 02:44:52 PM »

Fantastic post above, HeyJude.

Those same people claim that the legacy can’t be hurt by anything. Yet look at this advert! Same sh*t with the remake of DIA that many fans didn’t even bat an eye about because we’re so used to a constant stream of bad choices and mediocre behavior when it comes to this band. The quality control seems to be nonexistent.

Here we have John Stamos bigger than anyone in the flippin band in an advertisement. Yeah yeah, it’s most likely the venue’s advert - but aren’t The Beach Boys touring group supposed to look over all that stuff to make sure it’s kosher? And therein lies the problem: no one gives a sh*t that The Beach Boys themselves aren’t the main draw but rather a yoghurt salesperson who was once famous for his role in a 90s sitcom.

I think Stamos is enjoying a great ride, and he’s making every moment count. I have no issues with him. Same that someone said in this thread or another: I don’t blame Stamos for the forever remake, or his guest spots with The Beach Boys...I blame whoever thinks this sh*t is actually a good idea for the history of the band.

Everything that happens with this band is a part of their history, be it Mike’s wonderful contributions to the C50 or his years of writing classic lyrics, be it Brian’s love for harmony and the timeless songs he created. Or be it the bad, tacky, ridiculous crap that keeps happening with this band in its latter years. It’s all part of the history of the group now.

The Beach Boys as an actual group could’ve ridden out their final years doing some amazing concerts, recording some amazing albums...but Mike couldn’t get into a room with Brian? is that the flimsy excuse for why the c50 ended? (Yes we know there’s more to it than that yet this ridiculous excuse is what Mike touts when he’s asked about it). What could’ve been and instead we get robotuned DIA ‘17 and the biggest draw for a Beach Boys concert these days is apparently John Stamos. Yeah, that legacy sure is on a high note right now Roll Eyes

Nonsense. The Beach Boys were putting out videos like "Problem Child" and appearing on Full House which were much MUCH higher profile than some random ad for a gig and yet were undergoing a critical renaissance at the EXACT same time. More recently, there was so much talk of the legacy being in tatters after Mike posing with Trump that you would think not a single soul would've bought Sunshine Tomorrow and yet....they did, and with impressive sales figures for an archival release like that AND glowing reviews.
The music recorded by the group in the 60's and 70's is all that matters and THAT is the legacy.
Logged
Dove Nested Towers
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 877

Goodnight, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are!


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: August 01, 2017, 03:38:41 PM »

Fantastic post above, HeyJude.

Those same people claim that the legacy can’t be hurt by anything. Yet look at this advert! Same sh*t with the remake of DIA that many fans didn’t even bat an eye about because we’re so used to a constant stream of bad choices and mediocre behavior when it comes to this band. The quality control seems to be nonexistent.

Here we have John Stamos bigger than anyone in the flippin band in an advertisement. Yeah yeah, it’s most likely the venue’s advert - but aren’t The Beach Boys touring group supposed to look over all that stuff to make sure it’s kosher? And therein lies the problem: no one gives a sh*t that The Beach Boys themselves aren’t the main draw but rather a yoghurt salesperson who was once famous for his role in a 90s sitcom.

I think Stamos is enjoying a great ride, and he’s making every moment count. I have no issues with him. Same that someone said in this thread or another: I don’t blame Stamos for the forever remake, or his guest spots with The Beach Boys...I blame whoever thinks this sh*t is actually a good idea for the history of the band.

Everything that happens with this band is a part of their history, be it Mike’s wonderful contributions to the C50 or his years of writing classic lyrics, be it Brian’s love for harmony and the timeless songs he created. Or be it the bad, tacky, ridiculous crap that keeps happening with this band in its latter years. It’s all part of the history of the group now.

The Beach Boys as an actual group could’ve ridden out their final years doing some amazing concerts, recording some amazing albums...but Mike couldn’t get into a room with Brian? is that the flimsy excuse for why the c50 ended? (Yes we know there’s more to it than that yet this ridiculous excuse is what Mike touts when he’s asked about it). What could’ve been and instead we get robotuned DIA ‘17 and the biggest draw for a Beach Boys concert these days is apparently John Stamos. Yeah, that legacy sure is on a high note right now Roll Eyes

Nonsense. The Beach Boys were putting out videos like "Problem Child" and appearing on Full House which were much MUCH higher profile than some random ad for a gig and yet were undergoing a critical renaissance at the EXACT same time. More recently, there was so much talk of the legacy being in tatters after Mike posing with Trump that you would think not a single soul would've bought Sunshine Tomorrow and yet....they did, and with impressive sales figures for an archival release like that AND glowing reviews.
The music recorded by the group in the 60's and 70's is all that matters and THAT is the legacy.

It is indeed the heart and soul of the band's legacy, but to say that it's "all that matters" is reductionist. Mosy other truly great bands guard the basic dignity and image of their brand diligently. If course there's a fine line between uptight stuffiness (Ginger Baker, Jimmy Page) and devil-may-care fun, but any cheapening of the brand becomes part of the legacy.
Logged

"The police aren't there to create disorder,
they're there to preserve disorder!" -Mayor
Daly, Chicago 1968
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


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


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: August 01, 2017, 03:42:41 PM »

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

A few thoughts on the word “legacy” after reading continuous talk of this elsewhere.

And before anyone reads this and feels like I’m beating a dead horse, it’s 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 don’t have to respond with muppet’s quotes or anything...as I said, this is mostly me thinking out loud to make sure I’m thinking about this correctly.

I’d just like to clarify the definition of “legacy” as I think there are some glaring misconceptions about the word. “Legacy” 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 didn’t record disco, they didn’t go on sitcom shows, they didn’t have a nasty reunion breakup. They didn’t 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 I’m getting at? It’s 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 that’s 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 don’t 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.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 722



View Profile
« Reply #120 on: August 01, 2017, 03:59:05 PM »

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

A few thoughts on the word “legacy” after reading continuous talk of this elsewhere.

And before anyone reads this and feels like I’m beating a dead horse, it’s 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 don’t have to respond with muppet’s quotes or anything...as I said, this is mostly me thinking out loud to make sure I’m thinking about this correctly.

I’d just like to clarify the definition of “legacy” as I think there are some glaring misconceptions about the word. “Legacy” 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 didn’t record disco, they didn’t go on sitcom shows, they didn’t have a nasty reunion breakup. They didn’t 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 I’m getting at? It’s 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 that’s 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 don’t 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.
Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #121 on: August 01, 2017, 04:08:36 PM »

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

A few thoughts on the word “legacy” after reading continuous talk of this elsewhere.

And before anyone reads this and feels like I’m beating a dead horse, it’s 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 don’t have to respond with muppet’s quotes or anything...as I said, this is mostly me thinking out loud to make sure I’m thinking about this correctly.

I’d just like to clarify the definition of “legacy” as I think there are some glaring misconceptions about the word. “Legacy” 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 didn’t record disco, they didn’t go on sitcom shows, they didn’t have a nasty reunion breakup. They didn’t 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 I’m getting at? It’s 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 that’s 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 don’t 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. And it's unfortunate and makes me sad, because I'm frankly sick of having to defend this band when their great music is SO great.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 04:21:03 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #122 on: August 01, 2017, 04:11:10 PM »

From Mike using the name for quick cash for too long a time....
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
GhostyTMRS
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 722



View Profile
« Reply #123 on: August 01, 2017, 04:22:42 PM »

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

A few thoughts on the word “legacy” after reading continuous talk of this elsewhere.

And before anyone reads this and feels like I’m beating a dead horse, it’s 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 don’t have to respond with muppet’s quotes or anything...as I said, this is mostly me thinking out loud to make sure I’m thinking about this correctly.

I’d just like to clarify the definition of “legacy” as I think there are some glaring misconceptions about the word. “Legacy” 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 didn’t record disco, they didn’t go on sitcom shows, they didn’t have a nasty reunion breakup. They didn’t 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 I’m getting at? It’s 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 that’s 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 don’t 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.  
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5865


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


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: August 01, 2017, 04:34:26 PM »

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

A few thoughts on the word “legacy” after reading continuous talk of this elsewhere.

And before anyone reads this and feels like I’m beating a dead horse, it’s 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 don’t have to respond with muppet’s quotes or anything...as I said, this is mostly me thinking out loud to make sure I’m thinking about this correctly.

I’d just like to clarify the definition of “legacy” as I think there are some glaring misconceptions about the word. “Legacy” 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 didn’t record disco, they didn’t go on sitcom shows, they didn’t have a nasty reunion breakup. They didn’t 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 I’m getting at? It’s 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 that’s 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 don’t 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.

I mean, that doesn’t really disagree with what I’m saying. They will be largely remembered for their first 10 years of music of course, but especially in the age of the internet where you can search for anything, their entire history will follow them around. As an example, take Van Gogh for instance. His artwork is celebrated and known by most everybody in the western world and he is mostly remembered for that art, but whenever you think of Van Gogh you usually think of some nut cutting his ear off.

And like CD, I’m not comparing these events to what The Beach Boys have done, but merely pointing out that anything stupidly embarrassing will follow any legacy around...no matter how great that legacy is.

A little over a year ago I was at a county festival where part of it was held in an elementary school. I was walking through the music room where they were selling some milkshakes or something, and on the wall was this timeline of the music greats (it was one of those timelines you order from a teachers catalogue). From Beethoven to Mozart, Bach, Copland, up to The Beatles etc. At the tail end of the timeline was the name Brian Wilson. It wasn’t The Beach Boys, it was just Brian Wilson. I truly wonder if The Beach Boys had centered more around the art they could’ve created instead of pandering to commercial interests if that timeline would’ve read the band name instead. The Beatles were up there on that same timeline, not the names John and Paul. Yet The Beach Boys were left out and Brian’s name was there. Makes you wonder.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
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 0.945 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!