|
Post by lonelysummer on Jul 15, 2020 23:09:56 GMT
I haven't been listening much to the Beach Boys lately. Thankfully, 'The Beach Boys vs. Everybody' thread concept has kept them in mind. As I've been listening to other artists, I've been comparing their albums to contemporary or contextually similar Beach Boys albums. Unfortunately, it's underscored something we are all very familiar with: The Beach Boys went long stretches without releasing ANYTHING. Between the March, 1980 release of KTSA and today, they released 3 and a half studio albums. That's 40 years! Even when you factor in solo albums, there are major gaps. So, at the moment, it's not any of their releases that bother me, or that I consider blown opportunities, it's the inactivity, it's all the wasted time. I think the choice to not record a new album after KTSA was borne out of the lukewarm reception given to the albums after 15BO. They did a wierd album (Love You), a play it safe/go back to the themes of sun and surf album (MIU), a yacht rock album (LA) and KTSA, which was kind of a mishmash of MIU and LA styles. None of these sold anywhere near the numbers racked up by ES, SOA, and 15BO. So at that point, the guys throw their hands up and say "we give up" - except for Mike, who is always up for whatever - he records a solo album and some stuff for Radio Shack with Dean Torrance; and Carl, who does two solo albums, and still believes there is a way to move the group forward with contemporary material. By the time 1984 rolls around, the guys are willing to take a fresh approach to recording, which means, adopting a lot of the new technology used on the hits of the era; and unlike 15BO, there will be no big "Brian's back" campaign, because they all learned what a mistake that was first time around. When this album failed to bring them back to platinum status, the guys just kind of shrugged it off again, and only committed to doing the occasional soundtrack song, or a couple new tracks for a compilation. The success of Kokomo apparently caught everyone off guard, and instead of rushing out a complete new album to ride the newfound success, we got another compilation. And that's basically where our story ends, because there was never gonna be another opportunity for the band to get an across the board, multi-format smash.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 18, 2020 14:01:17 GMT
"Lady" has always been one of my favorite Dennis Wilson songs, but there are so many head-scratching questions attached to it.
1. "Lady" was only released in the U.K. Why was it not released in the U.S.A.?
2. "Lady" was released on December 4, 1970, and was performed on The David Frost Show which aired on February 25, 1971. I'm pretty sure the song was dead and gone by that time - it probably never really took off - so why would The Beach Boys, on national TV, A) perform a Dennis Wilson song, and B) perform a song that was only released in one country? It's not like the band was appearing on a lot of TV shows. I love the David Frost Show version but what was the point? Such a wasted opportunity to sing another one of their own songs...
3. So, "Lady" was basically...unreleased...and/or died a quick death in the U.K. Why wasn't it included on the next Beach Boys' album, Surf's Up, which was released on August 30, 1971? We know the background story about the non-inclusion of "(Wouldn't It Be Nice) To Live Again", but why wouldn't the group - and record company - insist on a Dennis Wilson-composed /performed song and include "Lady". Why wouldn't DENNIS want it on there. See next point.
4. There is no use trying to get inside the head of Dennis Wilson, but why would he not want "Lady" heard? It wasn't heard as a single, it wasn't included on any Beach Boys' studio albums, and when he released Pacific Ocean Blue, it was still absent (in any version).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 18, 2020 14:34:49 GMT
Was the David Frost Show a UK-only, US-only, or show seen in both? If the show aired in the UK, I can totally see why they'd play their couple-month-old single even (especially?) if it was failing in an attempt to give it some steam. (If it was US, I have no idea.)
As for Surf's Up, wasn't the story that because of the WIBNTLA sequencing argument, Dennis didn't want any of his songs on the album (not just that one)? If I'm remembering correctly, that could explain its absence there.
After that ... this is the Beach Boys, right? They let good songs sit on the shelf and used worse ones so many times, it's probably not worth puzzling over too much. Just Beach Boy Logic.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 18, 2020 15:05:49 GMT
Was the David Frost Show a UK-only, US-only, or show seen in both? If the show aired in the UK, I can totally see why they'd play their couple-month-old single even (especially?) if it was failing in an attempt to give it some steam. (If it was US, I have no idea.)
As for Surf's Up, wasn't the story that because of the WIBNTLA sequencing argument, Dennis didn't want any of his songs on the album (not just that one)? If I'm remembering correctly, that could explain its absence there.
After that ... this is the Beach Boys, right? They let good songs sit on the shelf and used worse ones so many times, it's probably not worth puzzling over too much. Just Beach Boy Logic.
I think The David Frost Show was only televised in the U.S.
While the "big issue" probably centered around "Wouldn't It Be Nice) To Live Again" only, I wouldn't be surprised if Dennis pulled all of his potential songs. But "potential" is the key word. Was "4th Of July" even being considered for Surf's Up? "Lady" probably wasn't.
One thing the "Lady" performance on The David Frost Show" proves - or disproves - about The Beach Boys' (disrespectful) treatment of Dennis' music. Performing an obscure Dennis Wilson single on National TV when the band could've performed one of their own was a pretty bold (and IMO stupid) move.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 20, 2020 0:24:37 GMT
Random thought.
Are there any artists who've blown it as often as The Beach Boys who are still legends?
Sure, The Beatles, Stones, Who, Floyd, Zeppelin, Doors, Queen, etc made mistakes along the way. But not nearly as often.
Most bands who stumble as much as The Beach Boys are merely afterthoughts as a result.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 20, 2020 12:33:15 GMT
Random thought. Are there any artists who've blown it as often as The Beach Boys who are still legends? Sure, The Beatles, Stones, Who, Floyd, Zeppelin, Doors, Queen, etc made mistakes along the way. But not nearly as often. Most bands who stumble as much as The Beach Boys are merely afterthoughts as a result. That's a good question. I think there are countless bands who have screwed up similarly to any of the Beach Boys' screw-ups, but as you say, usually that is the end of it. Smaller bands don't have much leeway at all; bigger ones might get a couple chances.
The Beach Boys might be unique, the top of the mountain, for most "career-killing" screw-ups without fully killing their career.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 20, 2020 13:02:14 GMT
Creedence Clearwater Revival's career was relatively short (1967-72), but they had some controversies during that time and especially after the band broke up.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 20, 2020 13:26:30 GMT
Actually, I have another one: KISS.
Within the first few years, they hit their artistic and commercial peak.
Two members immediately struggle with serious chemical dependency issues. They use studio musicians to cover up for their shortcomings.
They release simultaneous, mediocre solo albums on the same day.
These "hard rock Beatles" in kabuki makeup start playing disco and radio-friendly soft pop.
They replace their drummer (or don't; it wasn't clear at the time what was going on, and Peter Criss remained officially a member).
They unofficially replace their guitarist, though he's still in the touring band and in the press.
They record a proggy concept album.
They officially replace their guitarist.
They immediately fight with their new guitarist.
They remove their makeup and make a play for mainstream metal acceptance.
They fire their guitarist. They are forced to fire their new guitarist for health reasons.
They abandon the "heavy" of heavy metal and go for hair-band pop metal.
Their bassist/co-founder spends much of the decade dating famous women, making movies, and producing other bands.
Their drummer dies of cancer; the band reportedly was anything but supportive.
They try to go heavier to pander to grunge trends. (They again work with another fired guitarist during this period.)
They reintegrate their founding, fired members and put the makeup back on.
Their "new" album with the original lineup is almost entirely a fiction done by studio musicians.
After years of "he's in, he's out," they finally re-re-re-re-fire drummer and guitarist and replace them with guys dressed in their costumes, pretending to be them.
Too many controversial statements than I can even name.
A constant, almost heretical blending of crass commercialism and marketing with rock and roll.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 20, 2020 13:46:18 GMT
Creedence Clearwater Revival's career was relatively short (1967-72), but they had some controversies during that time and especially after the band broke up. I think the biggest mistake they made was when John reluctantly let Tom, Stu, and Doug do some writing on their final album. But, other than that, their issues never really affected their music like with TBB.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 20, 2020 13:54:23 GMT
I think you can make a case with KISS, but it seemed like whenever they tried to jump on a trend (disco, glam metal, unplugged albums, reunion tours), they were usually pretty successful.
I know Eddie Trunk, who is a huge KISS fan, has said that the events of the last 20 years have made it pretty difficult to be a fan. And, I can definitely see that, but by and large, for a legacy act, they still seem to be doing pretty well.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jul 20, 2020 17:45:30 GMT
I haven't been listening much to the Beach Boys lately. Thankfully, 'The Beach Boys vs. Everybody' thread concept has kept them in mind. As I've been listening to other artists, I've been comparing their albums to contemporary or contextually similar Beach Boys albums. Unfortunately, it's underscored something we are all very familiar with: The Beach Boys went long stretches without releasing ANYTHING. Between the March, 1980 release of KTSA and today, they released 3 and a half studio albums. That's 40 years! Even when you factor in solo albums, there are major gaps. So, at the moment, it's not any of their releases that bother me, or that I consider blown opportunities, it's the inactivity, it's all the wasted time. I think the choice to not record a new album after KTSA was borne out of the lukewarm reception given to the albums after 15BO. They did a wierd album (Love You), a play it safe/go back to the themes of sun and surf album (MIU), a yacht rock album (LA) and KTSA, which was kind of a mishmash of MIU and LA styles. None of these sold anywhere near the numbers racked up by ES, SOA, and 15BO. So at that point, the guys throw their hands up and say "we give up" - except for Mike, who is always up for whatever - he records a solo album and some stuff for Radio Shack with Dean Torrance; and Carl, who does two solo albums, and still believes there is a way to move the group forward with contemporary material. By the time 1984 rolls around, the guys are willing to take a fresh approach to recording, which means, adopting a lot of the new technology used on the hits of the era; and unlike 15BO, there will be no big "Brian's back" campaign, because they all learned what a mistake that was first time around. When this album failed to bring them back to platinum status, the guys just kind of shrugged it off again, and only committed to doing the occasional soundtrack song, or a couple new tracks for a compilation. The success of Kokomo apparently caught everyone off guard, and instead of rushing out a complete new album to ride the newfound success, we got another compilation. And that's basically where our story ends, because there was never gonna be another opportunity for the band to get an across the board, multi-format smash. Sorry for the late response. Great summary of the era. I guess that's exactly my frustration - they'd give up. That, or they simply ran out of ideas and/or inspiration (which is understandable, but undesirable from a fan perspective). I especially hope that it wasn't lukewarm record sales (i.e. pride), that kept them from creating. Doing nothing wasn't going to turn things around or keep them going. I don't think it's out-of-bounds to suggest that they had a history of giving up. From individual members to the group collectively. Obviously, this is a very dysfunctional group that loosely hung together for a very long time.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 20, 2020 22:38:37 GMT
Creedence Clearwater Revival's career was relatively short (1967-72), but they had some controversies during that time and especially after the band broke up. I think the biggest mistake they made was when John reluctantly let Tom, Stu, and Doug do some writing on their final album. But, other than that, their issues never really affected their music like with TBB. I agree about the sharing of writing duties on the final album, Mardi Gras. However, Tom Fogerty did leave the band in early 1971 after recording Pendelum due to dissatisfaction over his lack of vocal and songwriting contributions to the group - and other problems with brother, John. So, that's a little Beach Boyish.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jul 21, 2020 2:58:45 GMT
I think the choice to not record a new album after KTSA was borne out of the lukewarm reception given to the albums after 15BO. They did a wierd album (Love You), a play it safe/go back to the themes of sun and surf album (MIU), a yacht rock album (LA) and KTSA, which was kind of a mishmash of MIU and LA styles. None of these sold anywhere near the numbers racked up by ES, SOA, and 15BO. So at that point, the guys throw their hands up and say "we give up" - except for Mike, who is always up for whatever - he records a solo album and some stuff for Radio Shack with Dean Torrance; and Carl, who does two solo albums, and still believes there is a way to move the group forward with contemporary material. By the time 1984 rolls around, the guys are willing to take a fresh approach to recording, which means, adopting a lot of the new technology used on the hits of the era; and unlike 15BO, there will be no big "Brian's back" campaign, because they all learned what a mistake that was first time around. When this album failed to bring them back to platinum status, the guys just kind of shrugged it off again, and only committed to doing the occasional soundtrack song, or a couple new tracks for a compilation. The success of Kokomo apparently caught everyone off guard, and instead of rushing out a complete new album to ride the newfound success, we got another compilation. And that's basically where our story ends, because there was never gonna be another opportunity for the band to get an across the board, multi-format smash. Sorry for the late response. Great summary of the era. I guess that's exactly my frustration - they'd give up. That, or they simply ran out of ideas and/or inspiration (which is understandable, but undesirable from a fan perspective). I especially hope that it wasn't lukewarm record sales (i.e. pride), that kept them from creating. Doing nothing wasn't going to turn things around or keep them going. I don't think it's out-of-bounds to suggest that they had a history of giving up. From individual members to the group collectively. Obviously, this is a very dysfunctional group that loosely hung together for a very long time. i really can't fault the guys for giving up. The old hits never went out of style; year after year, there were new fans wanting to hear those songs played in the concerts. So it's gotta be very discouraging, knowing the fan base is there, and they're not responding (at least not in large numbers) to the new music. I'm sure the guys thought the 1985 album could return them to platinum status; and it's worth noting that it was their highest charting album since 15BO; but sales were far below what they'd hoped for, and Getcha Back peaked just outside the top 20 (although #1 on the AC chart). The only one who seemed to be energized about recording after that was Brian; yet his solo debut did no better than BB85. The media was more interested in his relationship with Landy than his new music.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 21, 2020 3:29:56 GMT
Sorry for the late response. Great summary of the era. I guess that's exactly my frustration - they'd give up. That, or they simply ran out of ideas and/or inspiration (which is understandable, but undesirable from a fan perspective). I especially hope that it wasn't lukewarm record sales (i.e. pride), that kept them from creating. Doing nothing wasn't going to turn things around or keep them going. I don't think it's out-of-bounds to suggest that they had a history of giving up. From individual members to the group collectively. Obviously, this is a very dysfunctional group that loosely hung together for a very long time. i really can't fault the guys for giving up. The old hits never went out of style; year after year, there were new fans wanting to hear those songs played in the concerts. So it's gotta be very discouraging, knowing the fan base is there, and they're not responding (at least not in large numbers) to the new music. I'm sure the guys thought the 1985 album could return them to platinum status; and it's worth noting that it was their highest charting album since 15BO; but sales were far below what they'd hoped for, and Getcha Back peaked just outside the top 20 (although #1 on the AC chart). The only one who seemed to be energized about recording after that was Brian; yet his solo debut did no better than BB85. The media was more interested in his relationship with Landy than his new music. It always bothered me...for two reasons. First, the guys were still so young (ages ranging from mid-30's to mid-40's) and, second, that was their life. From what we've learned about the group from numerous books, interviews, and documentaries, the guys didn't really have many hobbies or do much outside of music and their careers. Music was their life. It would always be. It's mystifying why they weren't more involved in things like consistent songwriting (Mike, Al, Bruce, and even Carl), the production of the albums (they eventually went to outside producers), and yes, as I have spoken about ad nauseum - the final album, the product, the album cover, etc. I just never understood how they could just pass those things onto others and not be more hands on.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 21, 2020 12:14:00 GMT
i really can't fault the guys for giving up. The old hits never went out of style; year after year, there were new fans wanting to hear those songs played in the concerts. So it's gotta be very discouraging, knowing the fan base is there, and they're not responding (at least not in large numbers) to the new music. I'm sure the guys thought the 1985 album could return them to platinum status; and it's worth noting that it was their highest charting album since 15BO; but sales were far below what they'd hoped for, and Getcha Back peaked just outside the top 20 (although #1 on the AC chart). The only one who seemed to be energized about recording after that was Brian; yet his solo debut did no better than BB85. The media was more interested in his relationship with Landy than his new music. It always bothered me...for two reasons. First, the guys were still so young (ages ranging from mid-30's to mid-40's) and, second, that was their life. From what we've learned about the group from numerous books, interviews, and documentaries, the guys didn't really have many hobbies or do much outside of music and their careers. Music was their life. It would always be. It's mystifying why they weren't more involved in things like consistent songwriting (Mike, Al, Bruce, and even Carl), the production of the albums (they eventually went to outside producers), and yes, as I have spoken about ad nauseum - the final album, the product, the album cover, etc. I just never understood how they could just pass those things onto others and not be more hands on. Good point about CCR, and add the current live situation of John v. CCRevisited, then you have some BB parallels there. The other thing that maybe the Boys should've let some experts handle (or found better ones) was their image in the late 80s. Artists like McCartney, Clapton, Billy Joel, Floyd, etc in the late 80s were aging with a certain level of style and class. A sharp blazer or a collared shirt made these aging rockers look "cool" despite a touch of gray. Meanwhile, The Beach Boys dressed like there were going to a backyard cookout.
|
|