50th anniversary latest

[Jon Stebbins]

Dave is an "original" according to Mike and Brian and Al, I guess they'd know. Also original according to Capitol legalities and the Calif. State Landmark. Not orig. according to the lifetime Grammy and not at first...but, kind of rehabilitated to orig. by R&R Hall Of Fame, but not all the way...or something like that. He wasn't on Surfin' and didn't play the first three or four gigs. So, some might argue that he was not a founder, but that gets blurry when you learn that he was already there learning songs from Brian, rehearsing with... and creating a BB's guitar style with Carl in 1958/59...before Al was involved. I look at it like this - There was a musical happening, Brian and his friends Mike and Al sang great, and Carl and his friend David played cool guitar. These things were germinating almost simultaneously, but separately. One day Dennis lit a fuse under their butts. The older guys got to choose who participated in the first session/gigs...Dave was 12 and stayed home ...but the younger guys had already created an instrumental style that the older guys dug...except for Al who did not at first. He left, making room for the kid who was kind of already there anyway. If Dave isn't a starter, then he's a sixth man who started in the preseason...sat out a few games...and then started again when the team started winning big.

[adamghost]

This is what Mike originally said (or what he was quoted as having said, and there's been no claim that he was misrepresented):

"We began in the fall of 1961, and our first tour was in 1962, and it’s been nonstop since then. Now we’re gearing up for the 50th anniversary, and Brian Wilson, who has been working on some unfinished Gershwin music project, will rejoin us. I’m sad that Carl Wilson passed away 11, 12 years ago from the same lung cancer problem that claimed the life of George Harrison. That was not a fun time for us. But I am happy that now my son Christian is in the group. Yes, the lineup has changed over the years, but it’s been pretty consistent the past several years. “

Here is a perfect example of where I struggle to deal with Mike.  I truly want to like him.  I love the Beach Boys in part because of him and what he contributed.  However, this is a perfect example (IMO) of where he uses poor tact.  Why does he always have to bring up the Beatles?  Whether its pointing out that he was in India (with John, Paul and George) in 68', or writing Back in USSR with the guys (so he claims), or here in this poorest of uses, comparing Carl's cause of death (lung cancer) with George's death.  People die of lung cancer all the time, every day, everywhere.  Sorry, but I really think Mike tries to include a link to the Beatles to gain public appreciation.  You may disagree, but ask yourself, why does he have to mention George's death?  Why couldn't he just say that Carl died of lung cancer?  Sorry, but I think its poor taste in conversation and its (unfortunately) typical of Mike.  Is it just me?  
 

It's not just you.  But boy, I'm surprised at how few people pick up on this.

[WWDWD?]

This is what Mike originally said (or what he was quoted as having said, and there's been no claim that he was misrepresented):

"We began in the fall of 1961, and our first tour was in 1962, and it’s been nonstop since then. Now we’re gearing up for the 50th anniversary, and Brian Wilson, who has been working on some unfinished Gershwin music project, will rejoin us. I’m sad that Carl Wilson passed away 11, 12 years ago from the same lung cancer problem that claimed the life of George Harrison. That was not a fun time for us. But I am happy that now my son Christian is in the group. Yes, the lineup has changed over the years, but it’s been pretty consistent the past several years. “

Here is a perfect example of where I struggle to deal with Mike.  I truly want to like him.  I love the Beach Boys in part because of him and what he contributed.  However, this is a perfect example (IMO) of where he uses poor tact.  Why does he always have to bring up the Beatles?  Whether its pointing out that he was in India (with John, Paul and George) in 68', or writing Back in USSR with the guys (so he claims), or here in this poorest of uses, comparing Carl's cause of death (lung cancer) with George's death.  People die of lung cancer all the time, every day, everywhere.  Sorry, but I really think Mike tries to include a link to the Beatles to gain public appreciation.  You may disagree, but ask yourself, why does he have to mention George's death?  Why couldn't he just say that Carl died of lung cancer?  Sorry, but I think its poor taste in conversation and its (unfortunately) typical of Mike.  Is it just me?  
 

It's not just you.  But boy, I'm surprised at how few people pick up on this.

Yeah, that is pretty disgusting. Sounds like he is saying saying "We're as good as the beatles, we even die the same way". Let the Beach Boys stand on their own merits, you don't need the Beatles to boost the Beach Boys status.

Anyways, back to the reunion... I like the idea of the old boys hangin out and harmonising together on film. Maybe recorded to tape as well. I can picture a CD release even of the boys/men/grandpa's doing a classy set around the piano consisting of beach boys songs, some favourite covers, some four freshman tunes... sung only by the beach boys (no backup musicians/vocalists) and done in a way that suits their current age. If done right, it could be a popular album (for the over 50s market). As long as they try and aim for the oldies market. Don't want to make anyone cringe, but I'm thinking of the success of such hits as the Rod Stewart "great amercian songbook" style (or whatever he did). But somehow the beach boys tend to miss the mark.

[Carrie Marks]

Technically, "three surviving original Beach Boys" is correct - Brian, Michael, and Al. David replaced Al; Bruce obviously didn't come until 1965.

In recent years, Mike and Al have both announced David on stage (and in print) as an "original Beach Boy," so do you know something they don't?  

Besides, David didn't replace Al...Al was the bass player and sang, while David played guitar and didn't sing that much.  When Al left, Brian took over on bass and they added an electric guitar player and changed the sound of the band from a folk-oriented acoustic band, to a rock & roll garage band.  Al returned to replace Brian on bass, not David...and David and Al toured and recorded together for a little over 6 months.  The point is, they both had two very different roles in the Beach Boys and to say one replaced the other totally discounts their individual musical contributions.

[Andrew G. Doe]

What we need is one of Pete Frame's family trees for The Beach Boys. I'll have a word with him - be a nice 50th anniversay project.

Carrie, a question, not unrelated to what I've just said: when Alan went back to Hite Morgan mid-August 1961 and took Mike, Dennis, Carl & Brian with him, did David go along too ? I've never heard anything either way, but as David had been playing with Carl & Brian for some time by that point, I'd assume so.

[send me a picture and i'll tell you]

Found this on brianwilson.com:

Jun 22, 2010
Statement on the Beach Boys 50th Anniversary
As The Beach Boys approach 2011-2012 touring season, which will mark their 50th anniversary as a band, speculation continues to grow among fans and media as to reunion possibilities among all the original surviving members. In response to recent stories Mike Love had the following comments: "The Beach Boys continue to tour approximately 150 shows a year in multiple countries. At this time there are no plans for my cousin Brian to rejoin the tour.  He has new solo projects on the horizon and I wish him love and success.  We have had some discussions of writing and possibly recording together, but nothing has been planned.  I, as I¹m sure he is, am proud and honored that The Beach Boys music has endured these 50 years, but felt the need to clarify that there are no current 'reunion' tour plans."

[Don_Zabu]

What would be the most definite date for the Beach Boys becoming a band? I ask because whatever date that is would be a likely focal point for any given anniversary.

I'd say December 8, the day the Surfin' single was released. That gives our hopefulness at least till December 8, 2011 to hope for.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Historically, the band mark it as December 31st, long thought to be their first ever gig (actually, it was their 3rd)

"Surfin'/Luau" marks the first appearance of the name Beach Boys, and that was released mid-November on Candix 331.

First recording session was October 3rd

I myself would date it to the legendary (and quite possibly apocryphal) Labor Day weekend rehearsal sessions

Back in 1963/4, Brian said it all started back in late August 1961.

I know others push the date back, very plausibly, into the late 50s

So, take your pick.

[Awesoman]

Dave is an "original" according to Mike and Brian and Al, I guess they'd know. Also original according to Capitol legalities and the Calif. State Landmark. Not orig. according to the lifetime Grammy and not at first...but, kind of rehabilitated to orig. by R&R Hall Of Fame, but not all the way...or something like that. He wasn't on Surfin' and didn't play the first three or four gigs. So, some might argue that he was not a founder, but that gets blurry when you learn that he was already there learning songs from Brian, rehearsing with... and creating a BB's guitar style with Carl in 1958/59...before Al was involved. I look at it like this - There was a musical happening, Brian and his friends Mike and Al sang great, and Carl and his friend David played cool guitar. These things were germinating almost simultaneously, but separately. One day Dennis lit a fuse under their butts. The older guys got to choose who participated in the first session/gigs...Dave was 12 and stayed home ...but the younger guys had already created an instrumental style that the older guys dug...except for Al who did not at first. He left, making room for the kid who was kind of already there anyway. If Dave isn't a starter, then he's a sixth man who started in the preseason...sat out a few games...and then started again when the team started winning big.

Yeah, it's a bit of a gray area...I've always looked at David Marks as something of the "Pete Best" of the group.  He was there at the beginning, and even contributed to the sound.  And since he was present on several of the earlier albums, I have no qualms in identifying him as an original member.  It's just unfortunate that overall his tenure with the group was as brief as it was.  Still, should anything come out of this 50th anniversary, I would expect him to be involved.  

And no, Mrs. Marks, this was not in anyway intended as a knock against the guy.  ;-)

[Andrew G. Doe]

I've always looked at David Marks as something of the "Pete Best" of the group.  

A statement guaranteed to have Mr. Stebbins running around the room punching sundry inanimate object and kicking small dogs. 

David played in a band that released five singles on a major label: of those ten songs, three were Top 10 hits, two were Top 20 hits, two were Top 30 hits and two also made the Hot 100. David also played on four chart albums that peaked at #2, #4, #7 and #32.

Pete Best... did none of these. In fact, he never even recorded with the others as The Beatles.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

PLus Best was a mediocre drummer, and that's if I'm being extra kind.

[Jon Stebbins]

Anybody who thinks of Dave as the "Pete Best" of the Beach Boys has a complete lack of logic or no grasp of the facts, whether or not it was meant as a knock...its just plain a poor comparison. As AGD stated the Beach Boys with Dave Marks went from a local curiosity to the biggest band in the U.S. with a string of hit records that are still regarded as classics...they were the top American Rock group...4 hit LPs...playing sold-out arenas...then he quit. The Beatles with Pete Best were a club band with no hit records...then he was fired. I just don't get the similarity.

[bossaroo]

you can argue the point endlessly, which has been done very well...


and yet the comparison will always remain.

[Andrew G. Doe]

you can argue the point endlessly, which has been done very well...


and yet the comparison will always remain.

Then, we must strive to change this perception, and here seems as good a place to start as any. 

[Awesoman]

Oh, lord.    Ok I will clarify - Sure, there are obvious differences between the two; Marks certainly had more to contribute to the Beach Boys than Best did the Beatles.  But can anyone deny that both of them had involvement in the creation of their respective bands?  And, regardless of the reasons, is anyone willing to dispute that both musicians' tenures in said bands were extremely short?  Yes there are differences, but you can most certainly draw comparisons between them.  

Again, this was not intended as a knock against David Marks.  But let's not blow things out of proportion.  In their near-50 year career, David Marks was active with them for a little over one year (not factoring in the post-Carl Wilson days when the band had long since succumbed to the oldies circuit).  That was hardly enough time for him (or for that matter, *any* of the band members) to come into his own.  Hell, he was barely a teenager at the time!

And isn't it a bit absurd to call Pete Best a "mediocre drummer" when Ringo Starr is considered to be "the luckiest guy in the world"?    

 

[Andrew G. Doe]

And isn't it a bit absurd to call Pete Best a "mediorce drummer" when Ringo Starr is considered to be "the luckiest guy in the world"?    

I've also heard that term applied to one Graham Nash. 

[Awesoman]

And isn't it a bit absurd to call Pete Best a "mediorce drummer" when Ringo Starr is considered to be "the luckiest guy in the world"?    

I've also heard that term applied to one Graham Nash. 

Awwww...unfair.  At least Nash could sing in tune.   

[Jon Stebbins]

Oh, lord.    Ok I will clarify - Sure, there are obvious differences between the two; Marks certainly had more to contribute to the Beach Boys than Best did the Beatles.  But can anyone deny that both of them had involvement in the creation of their respective bands?  And, regardless of the reasons, is anyone willing to dispute that both musicians' tenures in said bands were extremely short?  Yes there are differences, but you can most certainly draw comparisons between them.  

Again, this was not intended as a knock against David Marks.  But let's not blow things out of proportion.  In their near-50 year career, David Marks was active with them for a little over one year (not factoring in the post-Carl Wilson days when the band had long since succumbed to the oldies circuit).  That was hardly enough time for him (or for that matter, *any* of the band members) to come into his own.  Hell, he was barely a teenager at the time!

And isn't it a bit absurd to call Pete Best a "mediocre drummer" when Ringo Starr is considered to be "the luckiest guy in the world"?    

 

Again, saying it is or isn't a "knock" is irrelevant. Its just a poor comparison. Dave was "active" with the Wilson musically starting in 1958, that's five years to end of his tenure...not really that short. Four LPs. Not one single, or one tour...but the pre=Beach Boys through their rise to fame is the U.S. Also, saying the perception will always be there...because...um...some people insist on making a poor comparison...is not a reason, its just laziness. Learn, and you will know there is no real similarity other than the shallow knee jerk reaction, which everyone had when they didn't know better. Examine the facts, Pete Best never had a whiff of national fame or major success, David was there when the BB's happened, he was also there before, and he joined up again for awhile after. Best was fired, David quit. Best played on nothing, Marks played on classics. Tell me again why there is a similarity?

[Howie Edelson]

How is it that of all the conversations to have on a message board, THIS ONE keeps popping up??? First of all, Pete Best isn't even considered a Beatles CO-FOUNDER. Although he drummed with them for a solid year, he literally did nothing that anybody else couldn't do (and did on countless nights). He played no role in their musical development, kept decent bar band amateur time, and went on to be the weak link at both their Decca and EMI auditions. He was DUMPED. Never got on record, never got on an LP sleeve, never got on the charts.

NONE of the above pertains to David Marks.

I understand that people need to categorize him, and it's difficult to, but saying he's the "Pete Best" is an insult. Truly. For several reasons; David was the best musician in The Beach Boys, Pete Best was the the poorest. David Marks was beloved by his bandmates who considered him family and never wanted him to leave. The Beatles could not wait to fire Pete Best (and his overbearing micromanaging mother). The manager of the Beatles wanted to have sex with Pete Best. The manager of the Beach Boys wanted to have sex with . . . um, David Marks' MOM.

If you need to compare him with someone, I GUESS Brian Jones would be slightly better, but even he turned into a liability and was rendered useless. There's really no comparison, but the main fact is that David quit AFTER the band made it. He contributed. He helped them make it. He got signed.

Imagine all of a sudden buying BEATLES FOR SALE, or BEATLES VI and now seeing someone other than Ringo or George on the cover. That's what it was like. He was a member who split. All that kids in 1964 knew of Pete Best was that famous 1961 Albert Marion shot of the band best known for the cover of Mersey Beat. Even "Ain't She Sweet" featured dubbed-over drums.

If you can't understand why people get uptight over this it's basically because you're calling a winner a loser. Stop doing it already. It's an incorrect and offensive analogy. He's not The Beach Boys' "Pete Best' -- he's The Beach Boys' David Marks.

[bgas]

Oh, lord.     Ok I will clarify - Sure, there are obvious differences between the two; Marks certainly had more to contribute to the Beach Boys than Best did the Beatles.  But can anyone deny that both of them had involvement in the creation of their respective bands?  And, regardless of the reasons, is anyone willing to dispute that both musicians' tenures in said bands were extremely short?  Yes there are differences, but you can most certainly draw comparisons between them. 

Tell me again why there is a similarity?

If you can't understand why people get uptight over this it's basically because you're calling a winner a loser. Stop doing it already. It's an incorrect and offensive analogy. He's not The Beach Boys' "Pete Best' -- he's The Beach Boys' David Marks.

[Don_Zabu]

If there's any comparison to be made, Pete Best was better looking than the rest of the Beatles, and David Marks was worse looking than the rest of the Beach Boys.

[lupinofan]

If there's any comparison to be made, Pete Best was better looking than the rest of the Beatles, and David Marks was worse looking than the rest of the Beach Boys.

Not so sure about that. A few years ago my wife, looking at the sleeve of "Surfer Girl," singled out Marks. She asked me who he was and why she didn't recognise him from their other album sleeves. I explained that he'd left shortly after recording that album. She then asked me whether he'd been fired out of jealousy as she said he was clearly "the cute one."

[Wirestone]

I think part of the problem is that the BBs were a vocal group from very early on -- I mean, if you want to date the group's start, it's really whenever Brian started making Carl and Dennis sing with him -- and Dave was not really part of that continuum. He didn't sing on any of the BB sessions, right? And the group didn't stay as a garage-surf band for long. Even Blondie and Ricky contributed to the vocal blend -- you can pick them out on the records.

It seems like Dave was crucial for the group actually becoming a working rock band, but he just doesn't fit with folks' primarily vocal or wrecking crew-centric conception of the group -- so people search for ways to pigeonhole or dismiss him.

[Awesoman]

Sheesh, guys.  Seriously.  I didn't realize there was an anti-Pete Best establishment going on here.  :-)

Comparing Marks to Best is by no means an attempt to pigeon-hole, marginalize, or dismiss what he had contributed to the group in the brief period he was involved with them.  I'm simply drawing the comparison in the short amount of time both people were involved in their respective bands.  That point alone is not an unfair comparison.  Yes, David Marks had more to do with the Beach Boys than Pete Best did with the Beatles.  Marks was there at the beginning, he played on the hits, he made his contribution to the sound.  That is not in question.  But neither Marks nor Best were with their respective bands long enough to really make a name for themselves.  They are alike in that they both missed the boat to a successful music career.  Only difference was it was by choice for Marks, not so with Best.  And both bands had success without them.  If you don't like this comparison, we can agree to disagree.  It sticks for me though. 

[Howie Edelson]

Awesoman, the thing is that it's an INCORRECT comparison. It's not merely a case of "you say potato, I say po-tahto." It's wrong. It's like picking up a tire and holding it next to a grapefruit and saying, "Y'see -- it's the same!" By using the "Pete Best" analogy, it's not saying "he wasn't with the band long enough to really make a name for himself" it's actually saying: "He fu cked up. He got fired because he didn't fit in and couldn't play. He sucked. They liked Al better." That's what "Pete Best" stands for. If one so desperately needs a Beatles analogy -- use Stu Sutcliffe, which is far more apropos. "Pete Best" = failure, missed the boat, fired, lost the lottery, didn't matter, forgotten, amateur.

As for not making a name for himself after splitting from the Beach Boys, wasn't Dave and The Marksmen the first rock act signed to A&M -- or was that the PETE BEST FOUR???