|
Post by B.E. on Apr 30, 2022 1:41:17 GMT
Don't be scared, reunions are always a possibility, but is there a time you think it might have been best for the group to have officially broken up?
Personally, I'm undecided on the "when", so I'll need to think about it some more, but I definitely won't be selecting "never".
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Apr 30, 2022 2:27:42 GMT
Obviously never. Here it is 2022, they are all very old men, yet people still want them together - onstage, in the studio, whatever.
|
|
Emdeeh
Pacific Coast Highway
Posts: 520
Likes: 532
|
Post by Emdeeh on Apr 30, 2022 4:02:24 GMT
It's their decision and not for us to say.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 30, 2022 12:11:07 GMT
With the obvious disclaimer that this is just an alternate reality and we're voting on something we clearly have no actual say about, it's a fun thought experiment so I'm not going the "never" route.
I picked "other," with my thinking not totally refined, but either ~1969 or even better, ~1971-72. My thinking is that in some ways, in either case, this is a range of years in which they stopped being a band and became a collection of artists and bands--and of course especially, increasingly as time went on, a business entity.
The earlier date is a point when Brian really steps back. It's when Dennis begins bringing a lot of material, thinking about a solo career. Carl is producing and soon to be writing more on his own (rather than apparently minimal contributions to other people's songs). Al is stepping up. Mike and Bruce are increasingly disconnected from the Wilsons. There is clearly no real idea of who the band is, as we can see by the hodge podge that is 20/20. (I'm not saying the music on that album is bad, and I know it's a favorite to some. I just mean it's clearly not remotely unified in its vision.)
The later date is basically everything I've said above, but magnified even more. Bruce is no longer increasingly disconnected, he is gone. The group is literally working in separate studios on their own material, and "the group" now includes 1/2 of The Flame. Dennis has by now demonstrated a fully formed musical personality. Carl is now writing and producing. They still tour, sure, but the band is bigger and bigger, fleshed out by increasing numbers of hired sidemen. Brian is barely there.
If they break up prior to Carl & the Passions: So Tough, it gives them all time as relatively young men to reestablish themselves. They'll always be "former Beach Boys," but it isn't the same weight it would be five, 10, 15 years later. They haven't become a traveling jukebox yet. They haven't become a soap opera of lawsuits and countersuits yet. They haven't trotted out Brian the Dancing Bear in a desperate attempt to prove they've still got it. Nobody is quitting and rejoining (ok, there has been some of that, with Dave/Al, and Bruce...but nowhere near what there was with the Wilsons).
It's fun to speculate on next steps. Starting at the top, I think Brian commits to nothing whatsoever and, at least at first, proceeds just as he really did. He lays low, he does a lot of drugs, he doesn't know what to do. Dennis launches a solo career with Daryl Dragon as his musical partner. Carl, Ricky and Blondie join together as the core of a band. Mike--maybe with Bruce and/or Al?--does a folk-rock, environmentally themed sort of thing that evolves into an oldies band when it becomes clear people want to pay to hear those great old songs. (In other words, Mike proceeds roughly like the Beach Boys actually did.) Bruce, if he doesn't join Mike, does what he really did. Al is the hardest to guess. On a lifestyle level, we know he'd align with Mike and Bruce. But if those two don't align? Or if he just doesn't see the potential of that? I don't know whether he bites the bullet to tie himself to Carl's wagon, or just sits back to rethink life, or spends 30 years preparing his solo debut.
Both Dennis and Carl coax some material and possibly on-record contributions from Brian. Eventually, assuming he doesn't die, Brian makes a more full return to music. Whether that's on his own, or more likely in some form with a brother or two, I don't know. (Does Dennis eventually join Carl's group and maintain a solo career? Is this when a Wilson band happens?)
As fans are we better off with these sorts of developments? Yes and no. Yes in that it allows the band members to more fully realize their own creative visions rather than fighting amongst themselves, making constant compromises or wrestling control back-and-forth on what often end up scattershot or misguided projects. But no in that obviously there is more good stuff when you're (theoretically) picking everyone's best, and of course having all their voices together is always a good thing.
Eventually, inevitably, there are reunions. And the benefit is, it is for something that has been gone a while, not just bringing back prodigal sons. The group never devolved (image-wise) into a traveling jukebox, and so its return is more universally celebrated. It is--whenever it occurs, be it 1980, 1990, 1995 (which is the longest I'd guess they go without doing it)--a massive success. If that mid-90s era of reunions had been the time, maybe at their 30th anniversary, it would have been huge.
So that's my choice: they break up after Surf's Up.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 30, 2022 13:40:55 GMT
I'm going to vote Never for two reasons. First, WHO ARE The Beach Boys and HOW MANY members are necessary to constitute "The Beach Boys", and second, who or how many Beach Boys' fans and music fans in general REALLY care(d).
The history books (and the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame ) will show that The Beach Boys' "official" lineup was Brian, Mike, Dennis, Carl, and Al. But, if you take a closer look, in the 60-year history of the band, how many years was that lineup intact? The answer is 3 - the end of 1963 and 1964, and about half of 1976 and 1977. That's it. The remaining 57 years were comprised of multiple lineups. So, who can really say, "Well that's not The Beach Boys" or "This qualifies as The Beach Boys". There is no definitive version! Probably the more valid question would be - how many Beach Boys do you need in the band to qualify them as The Beach Boys? Recording-wise, that's harder to answer. I think it's safe to say that after Carl's death, no record company - and BRI would probably never approve of - a new Beach Boys' album comprised of just Mike, Al, and Bruce. Brian Wilson's participation would be mandatory. And, guess what? They pulled it off in 2012, and/so just mathematically speaking, it is STILL a possibility for a Beach Boys' album. With all due respect to David Marks, his participation, while welcomed and encouraged, was not mandatory.
My second point...who or how many fans really cared in 1962, 1972, 1982, 1992, and 2012, and 2022? I think Mike and Bruce are proving that not too many fans do care, at least with live performances. Hell, I just saw The Beach Boys last week and had a great time. And, with no Brian, Dennis, Carl, Al, David, Blondie, or Ricky. I shelled out the time and money, so I guess despite my longtime fandom, I accept it. Not to repeat what I posted above, but there were so many different configurations recording the various albums, and each one featured someone/something different. Did record companies stop signing the group? No. Were the fans revolting or boycotting the group? No. Sales declined, not because of the number of members, but various other reasons. It was just one NEW Beach Boys' album after another. I wonder how many past (original) Beach Boys' albums even listed the individual band members' names? On various message boards, I've read the comments, "What if Paul, George, and Ringo came back without John Lennon. Would they still be The Beatles?" or "Could Paul and Ringo tour and record as The Beatles". Apples and oranges. With The Beatles, the answers are "No". With The Beach Boys, if you substituted the names and inserted Brian, Dennis, and Carl, you just might be able to answer..."Yes".
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Apr 30, 2022 14:15:06 GMT
Fantastic post, Kapitan. So many interesting and important points to consider! If they break up prior to Carl & the Passions: So Tough, it gives them all time as relatively young men to reestablish themselves. They'll always be "former Beach Boys," but it isn't the same weight it would be five, 10, 15 years later. They haven't become a traveling jukebox yet. They haven't become a soap opera of lawsuits and countersuits yet. They haven't trotted out Brian the Dancing Bear in a desperate attempt to prove they've still got it. Nobody is quitting and rejoining (ok, there has been some of that, with Dave/Al, and Bruce...but nowhere near what there was with the Wilsons). I think this is so important. That, with the exception of Brian, they were all young enough, ambitious enough, and (most likely) capable enough to succeed outside of the Beach Boys. You also touch on their image/reputation in that they haven't become a traveling jukebox yet. And you allude to the fact that a lot of the interpersonal nastiness hasn't occurred yet. I really don't think that should be overlooked or underestimated when considering the totality of their careers, and relationships, and how everything has played out. Eventually, inevitably, there are reunions. And the benefit is, it is for something that has been gone a while, not just bringing back prodigal sons. The group never devolved (image-wise) into a traveling jukebox, and so its return is more universally celebrated. It is--whenever it occurs, be it 1980, 1990, 1995 (which is the longest I'd guess they go without doing it)--a massive success. If that mid-90s era of reunions had been the time, maybe at their 30th anniversary, it would have been huge. Yeah, I agree with these sentiments. I mean, heck, even if they broke up in the fall of 1971, they might have had a "Brian (and the Boys) are Back" type return as early as the late '70s. And maybe it lasts a few years, and because they had broken up once before and the world didn't end, maybe they take another extended break, only to return again later when the time is right. I think an important part of all this is that they were family, and as a result it kept them together (and affected how they managed themselves)--to an unhealthy extent--when other bands would have broken up. So that's my choice: they break up after Surf's Up.
I much prefer this to the earlier 1969 break up that you proposed. After all, part of this is expressing what we simply can't let go of...and I'm clinging to Sunflower.
|
|
|
Post by jk on Apr 30, 2022 14:50:42 GMT
I also voted for "Other" -- my explanation being "it is what it is".
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Apr 30, 2022 15:13:07 GMT
First, I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your points, so if that's the case...I apologize. I'm going to vote Never for two reasons. First, WHO ARE The Beach Boys and HOW MANY members are necessary to constitute "The Beach Boys", and second, who or how many Beach Boys' fans and music fans in general REALLY care(d). The history books (and the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame ) will show that The Beach Boys' "official" lineup was Brian, Mike, Dennis, Carl, and Al. But, if you take a closer look, in the 60-year history of the band, how many years was that lineup intact? The answer is 3 - the end of 1963 and 1964, and about half of 1976 and 1977. That's it. The remaining 57 years were comprised of multiple lineups. So, who can really say, "Well that's not The Beach Boys" or "This qualifies as The Beach Boys". There is no definitive version! Probably the more valid question would be - how many Beach Boys do you need in the band to qualify them as The Beach Boys? Recording-wise, that's harder to answer. I think it's safe to say that after Carl's death, no record company - and BRI would probably never approve of - a new Beach Boys' album comprised of just Mike, Al, and Bruce. Brian Wilson's participation would be mandatory. And, guess what? They pulled it off in 2012, and/so just mathematically speaking, it is STILL a possibility for a Beach Boys' album. With all due respect to David Marks, his participation, while welcomed and encouraged, was not mandatory. I understand your point that the lineups have changed so much that it could be argued that there is no definitive lineup, but I've always viewed the changing/expanding lineups as a negative, and if anything more of a reason to break up than to stay together. I think it hurt them in ways that's hard for me to explain (but, admittedly, it helped them in others). Either way, I'm not really sure why that would convince you that they should never have broken up...that there was no point in time in which they might have been better off to do so. My second point...who or how many fans really cared in 1962, 1972, 1982, 1992, and 2012, and 2022? I think Mike and Bruce are proving that not too many fans do care, at least with live performances. Hell, I just saw The Beach Boys last week and had a great time. And, with no Brian, Dennis, Carl, Al, David, Blondie, or Ricky. I shelled out the time and money, so I guess despite my longtime fandom, I accept it. Not to repeat what I posted above, but there were so many different configurations recording the various albums, and each one featured someone/something different. Did record companies stop signing the group? No. Were the fans revolting or boycotting the group? No. Sales declined, not because of the number of members, but various other reasons. It was just one NEW Beach Boys' album after another. I wonder how many past (original) Beach Boys' albums even listed the individual band members' names? So, you're saying that because they've (whoever that happens to be at any given point in time) continued to have success throughout the decades that that's reason enough to keep "The Beach Boys" going and to not officially break up or retire the name? Along that line of thinking, though: Don't you think you would have had just as much fun at the show last week if it were called "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of the Beach Boys" or whatever else? Also, you say "it was just one new Beach Boys' album after another", but how many Beach Boys albums have there been since 1980? And before that, how many solo projects could there have been? It's possible that the existence of the group kept members from persuing and completing other projects. And in certain eras, or after a certain point, perhaps more music was lost than gained.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Apr 30, 2022 15:34:50 GMT
On various message boards, I've read the comments, "What if Paul, George, and Ringo came back without John Lennon. Would they still be The Beatles?" or "Could Paul and Ringo tour and record as The Beatles". Apples and oranges. With The Beatles, the answers are "No". With The Beach Boys, if you substituted the names and inserted Brian, Dennis, and Carl, you just might be able to answer..."Yes".
I was also thinking about the Beatles comparison. I sure as hell would have been 100% against the Beatles break up in 1970 and I would have been dying for them to get back together throughout the 70s. But, as individuals, they kinda needed to break up. The group wasn't functioning like it was meant to anymore. And they were young and ambitious enough to succeed outside the group. I mean, All Things Must Pass, Plastic Ono Band, Imagine, Ram, Band on the Run, none of these would have existed if they didn't break up. For decades now it seems that most people kind of agree that they broke up at the right time. And if you were to poll all the heartbroken-over-the-breakup-Beatles-fans over the past 30 years if they would have preferred they'd soldiered on (like the Beach Boys) all these years, after John's death, after George's death, and now with Ringo touring as "The Beatles" and Paul touring as a solo artist performing Beatles songs...how do you think that poll would turn out? I don't think the different makeup of the groups (which really weren't that different in the '60s) disqualifies such an analogy. Also, "The Beatles" name could absolutely have been used after 1970, it's simply a legal matter. In that respect, no different than the Beach Boys situation. I find it interesting, that in light of this, only 1 of the 7 votes thus far has entertained a break up.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 30, 2022 15:45:13 GMT
First, I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your points, so if that's the case...I apologize. I'm going to vote Never for two reasons. First, WHO ARE The Beach Boys and HOW MANY members are necessary to constitute "The Beach Boys", and second, who or how many Beach Boys' fans and music fans in general REALLY care(d). The history books (and the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame ) will show that The Beach Boys' "official" lineup was Brian, Mike, Dennis, Carl, and Al. But, if you take a closer look, in the 60-year history of the band, how many years was that lineup intact? The answer is 3 - the end of 1963 and 1964, and about half of 1976 and 1977. That's it. The remaining 57 years were comprised of multiple lineups. So, who can really say, "Well that's not The Beach Boys" or "This qualifies as The Beach Boys". There is no definitive version! Probably the more valid question would be - how many Beach Boys do you need in the band to qualify them as The Beach Boys? Recording-wise, that's harder to answer. I think it's safe to say that after Carl's death, no record company - and BRI would probably never approve of - a new Beach Boys' album comprised of just Mike, Al, and Bruce. Brian Wilson's participation would be mandatory. And, guess what? They pulled it off in 2012, and/so just mathematically speaking, it is STILL a possibility for a Beach Boys' album. With all due respect to David Marks, his participation, while welcomed and encouraged, was not mandatory. I understand your point that the lineups have changed so much that it could be argued that there is no definitive lineup, but I've always viewed the changing/expanding lineups as a negative, and if anything more of a reason to break up than to stay together. I think it hurt them in ways that's hard for me to explain (but, admittedly, it helped them in others). Either way, I'm not really sure why that would convince you that they should never have broken up...that there was no point in time in which they might have been better off to do so. My second point...who or how many fans really cared in 1962, 1972, 1982, 1992, and 2012, and 2022? I think Mike and Bruce are proving that not too many fans do care, at least with live performances. Hell, I just saw The Beach Boys last week and had a great time. And, with no Brian, Dennis, Carl, Al, David, Blondie, or Ricky. I shelled out the time and money, so I guess despite my longtime fandom, I accept it. Not to repeat what I posted above, but there were so many different configurations recording the various albums, and each one featured someone/something different. Did record companies stop signing the group? No. Were the fans revolting or boycotting the group? No. Sales declined, not because of the number of members, but various other reasons. It was just one NEW Beach Boys' album after another. I wonder how many past (original) Beach Boys' albums even listed the individual band members' names? So, you're saying that because they've (whoever that happens to be at any given point in time) continued to have success throughout the decades that that's reason enough to keep "The Beach Boys" going and to not officially break up or retire the name? Along that line of thinking, though: Don't you think you would have had just as much fun at the show last week if it were called "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of the Beach Boys" or whatever else? Also, you say "it was just one new Beach Boys' album after another", but how many Beach Boys albums have there been since 1980? And before that, how many solo projects could there have been? It's possible that the existence of the group kept members from persuing and completing other projects. And in certain eras, or after a certain point, perhaps more music was lost than gained. Yes, that is what I meant regarding the multiple lineups. How can you say "Well, that's not The Beach Boys!" when there's been about a dozen different configurations? I mean, you can question it, but each lineup had something different - and, yes, good - to offer. I guess it depends if you viewed the glass as half-full as the different lineups were assembled and presented. My point was - I don't think the overwhelming majority of fans cared.
Your point about enjoying the concert last week if it was billed as "Mike Love and Bruce Johnston of the Beach Boys" is a good one, and a complicated one. It matters because, yes, it would affect ticket sales which would contradict my point about who or how many people care. I believe all of the solo shows - including Brian Wilson's - suffer somewhat because they are solo instead of Beach Boys' shows. So, I think "the billing" does matter in that respect. But, when attending an actual Beach Boys' show - regardless of who is in the band - I think fans can...overlook (rationalize?)...what was and what could be - and enjoy it! I'm not trying to be wishy-washy, but at the same time I'm having a hard time explaining my point. It does matter how you bill the surviving Beach Boys (I think Al is experiencing some of that), but when it comes to "The Beach Boys", it just isn't scrutinized significantly. Now, it will and my opinion will change when Mike Love passes, but then again it might not depending on who steps in (though I'm not expecting anybody to). That's the best I can do, B.E.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 30, 2022 16:20:17 GMT
An early breakup might also have made any eventual reunions more fruitful, longer lasting. I think it's possible that the guys would have liked one another better had they taken time away earlier. A lot of the real animus began after my 1971-72 breakup. Maybe had they had a more complete chance to pursue their own interests (without having first grown to almost hate one another at times), they would have more fully appreciated their time and prospects together.
Now I know, I know: during each marketing campaign for new product, they all say they really get along very well. Mmm-hmm. OK. (Pretty hard to believe that when it is said during those product-driven moments, after which they all go to their respective corners.)
|
|
sockit
The Surfer Moon
Posts: 234
Likes: 181
|
Post by sockit on Apr 30, 2022 22:51:09 GMT
This is a rather complex question due to the fact that there were so many factors in play during any given year, especially in the band's first two decades. Riding the wave of Good Vibrations may have presented an opportunity for Brian to stretch out and go solo, but let's not forget he was already headed down the rabbit hole. Would he have been able to handle the pressure on his own without his family at his side in the studio? And were the brothers, cousin, and high school buddy ready to function without Brian's leadership (which they did a few years later)?
Based solely on their studio output I would vote for 1970, right after Sunflower, as I could live without any further offerings from the group, the Beach Boys. I mean let's face it, the beach boy thing was passe at that point and was only fueled by nostalgia after Endless Summer. But again, there is the problem of Brian's condition. Would the potential of a solo gig with complete control have pulled him out of his funk, or driven him further into seclusion? The rest of the group would have possibly fared well....if they played their cards right. Beach/Flame could have found a substantial place with a new identity and a new direction. And of course, all involved could have enjoyed solo outings and collaborations with other artists.
Of course this is all merely speculation.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Apr 30, 2022 23:12:22 GMT
Interesting, I clearly should have added a few more poll options as sockit zeroed-in on after Sunflower (or pre-Rieley) and Kapitan zeroed-in on after Surf's Up (or pre-Blondie/Ricky).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 30, 2022 23:21:34 GMT
Well to be fair, whatever might leap out as an obvious time for a breakup, anybody could pick anytime for the best time for a breakup!
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 30, 2022 23:26:23 GMT
You guys gave a lot more credit, or retrospectively had more confidence in the Beach Boys as potential solo artists than I ever would've given them - even in 1970-71 before the rot set in.
|
|