|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 23, 2020 15:49:10 GMT
Despite the fad and the posing and whatever other inauthenticity people get from Surfin' Safari, to me it is exactly what it looks and sounds like it is - a group of inexperienced kids living out the opportunity of a lifetime. I doubt that when Dennis suggested they write a song about surfing, he was simply thinking about cashing in on a fad. The album, and the cover, is an expression of innocent, teenage fun. I bet the guys were absolutely thrilled, as they were when the first heard "Surfin'" on the radio, to be posing in that photo shoot, as if they were rock stars or celebrities. I don't disagree about that at all, other than my personal feelings about the end result. I'm sure the guys were absolutely thrilled, as they should have been!
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 23, 2020 17:38:40 GMT
I'll add Surfin' USA to those two, kds. Surf's Up has the adding advantage of having the ambience of the front cover leak onto the back, though without simply replicating it. Good call, Kapitan ! I included Surfin USA.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Feb 23, 2020 19:46:58 GMT
SJS, my assumption is that the Beach Boys left it to their record label throughout most of their career. (Which was a reasonable expectation on their part.) I'd bet you're right about that. Especially early on, we need to remember what the rock and roll record industry was: big labels capitalizing on a fad that nobody expected to last, and certainly a few years before the idea of the rock and roll auteur (or even artist) had developed. Not only do I agree that the band probably had very little to do with it, I doubt that much of anyone cared all that much. They certainly wouldn't have been thinking about these things as lasting images, any kind of essential components to anything.
"What gets these kids' attention these days?" "Surfing picture!" "OK, get the guys out there by a beach and take some pictures."
I agree with you guys. I wasn't necessarily referring to the first five or six albums when a) based on the subject matter of the songs, there wasn't much they could do "outside the box", and b) I was referring more to post-1964/65 when Brian and to some extent the band were in full control of the music direction and even their image (the break from the surf & turf stereotype). And, I am talking about even further down the road when they joined Reprise in 1970.
One more thing on Surfin' Safari's album cover. I think they made the right choice. Now, if you want to take exception to the quality of the photo(s), that's another thing. Where else could you possibly go with that album cover other than your standard group photos like below?
|
|
|
Post by jk on Feb 23, 2020 23:00:23 GMT
I'll add Surfin' USA to those two, kds. Surf's Up has the adding advantage of having the ambience of the front cover leak onto the back, though without simply replicating it. Good call, Kapitan ! I included Surfin USA. Yes I see now, you also mentioned the first three albums... sorry, kds, I wasn't paying attention (again).
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 24, 2020 3:40:08 GMT
Yes I see now, you also mentioned the first three albums... sorry, kds, I wasn't paying attention (again). No worries. SDV2 is also pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Feb 24, 2020 4:02:11 GMT
I don't think the Beach Boys had bad album covers. I don't know what really constitutes a great album cover, but I guess we all agree the Beatles had many of the best - Meet the Beatles, A Hard Days Night, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Abbey Road, Dr. Pepper..... Bob Dylan also had a series of album covers that seem iconic to me - Freewheelin', Bringing it All Back Home, Highway 61, Blonde on Blonde, Nashville Skyline, Blood on the Tracks, Before the Flood, the Basement Tapes... I don't rate the Beach Boys quite that high in terms of album art, but they certainly started off on the right foot with Surfin' Safari. Surfin' USA is okay, I guess, except that it could be the album cover of any surfing group. And why did they go back to the photo shoot for the first album for Surfer Girl? The ones I really like are Beach Boys Today, Summer Days, Pet Sounds (I guess it looks corny, doesn't match the music inside...but I like the fonts and personally, I like the photo, too), Smiley Smile (really matches the music inside), Sunflower (ditto). I even like 15 Big Ones. At least it shows them on the cover, unlike LY, MIU, LA, BB85, SC, etc. KTSA had that cartoonish cover art....I believe showing the artist on the cover is usually a positive. Why were the BB's show shy about appearing on their own album covers?
|
|
bellbottoms
Pacific Coast Highway
Posts: 727
Likes: 201
|
Post by bellbottoms on Feb 24, 2020 20:38:50 GMT
With album covers being multi-purpose, and one of the purposes being advertising, it makes sense that the guys appeared in photos on the album covers more often during their fresh faced, healthy young years, the first decade of their careers, more or less. By the 70s, they weren’t exactly boys anymore, so the shift to non-band photo covers isn’t surprising, because by this time their identity as a band was secure, and maybe it was best not to highlight just how “not boys” they were anymore.
Where the entire array of albums covers is concerned (well, the studio ones at least), while they’ve had a few duds, I think they’ve had some really great ones. My favourites would be Love You, Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, All Summer Long, Summer Days (and Summer Nights), Surf’s Up, Sunflower, LA Light Album, and yes, even Pet Sounds – but I’ll reserve my comments about that one for when we get into a more focussed discussion on it.
I rather like the Surfin’ Safari album cover, for the reasons given by B.E. The cool, grey background contrasted with the warm yellow of the woodie wagon is eye-catching. A blue sky might have worked just as well, but I have no problem with the overcast sky – it certainly helps that wagon stand out. And the staged posing of the group is charming. I think it’s very effective and exactly what was needed for their debut album cover – those boys doing those poses in those Pendleton jackets is exactly the kind of thing that is going to set the hearts of the early teen girl fan base aflutter, and get them putting their money down on the counter to buy it.
It is a mystery to me why the Surfin’ USA album cover doesn’t have their photos on the front. The wave and surfer photo is beautiful, and sure the music is much more "surfy", but the Beach Boys were still just on the cusp of reaching their peak popularity, they deserved to be featured on that cover. I think Surfin' USA could have had the Surfer Girl cover, and another photo shoot could have been done for Surfer Girl, or maybe another photo from that shoot.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Feb 24, 2020 21:55:48 GMT
It is a mystery to me why the Surfin’ USA album cover doesn’t have their photos on the front. The wave and surfer photo is beautiful, and sure the music is much more "surfy", but the Beach Boys were still just on the cusp of reaching their peak popularity, they deserved to be featured on that cover. I think Surfin' USA could have had the Surfer Girl cover, and another photo shoot could have been done for Surfer Girl, or maybe another photo from that shoot.
Well, you read my mind, bellbottoms. That's exactly what I think about the Surfin' U.S.A. album cover. First, yes, the guys' pictures should've been on the front of the album. When you had young California guys that looked like Dennis Wilson, Brian Wilson, and Mike Love - you feature them. Let's be honest, they were a boy band at that stage, attracting just as many girls as guys. Show 'em. Second, yes again, the Surfer Girl album cover would've been better for Surfin' U.S.A. (more on the Surfer Girl album cover later). And, it looks like Capitol used photos from the Surfin' Safari album cover shoot for the back of Surfin' U.S.A. Come on! Six months had gone by. Cheap skates. So, for all of those reasons, I think the Surfin' U.S.A. album cover is below average to poor.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 24, 2020 23:47:34 GMT
By the 70s, they weren’t exactly boys anymore, so the shift to non-band photo covers isn’t surprising, because by this time their identity as a band was secure, and maybe it was best not to highlight just how “not boys” they were anymore. You might be being tactful, but I'll be a bit more blunt: not only were they aging, they weren't exactly aging well from the perspective of rock-star looks. The Beach Boys might be one of the least stereotypically/traditionally attractive bands ever to reach superstar status, Dennis notwithstanding. And as they aged, I can't imagine the record labels (or teenage fans) were clamoring for bald, balding, and/or bearded fat men on the covers of albums. (I say this as an aging man who could lose some pounds and whose destiny is baldness.)
We know Brian was sensitive about his weight: it's obvious from him talking about it during and after some of those periods in the '70s. I wouldn't be surprised if Carl were similarly self-conscious. Although he never got as big as Brian, he started off as a pudgy kid, and that kind of self-image is hard to shake.
In an industry that's ruthless in its demands for physical beauty, I just don't think the band's likenesses were their best selling points in the '70s and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Feb 24, 2020 23:59:54 GMT
This thread has reminded me that the back cover of Love You and MIU feature nearly the exact same photo. Shirtless Al, Mike, and Brian, no less...
|
|
bellbottoms
Pacific Coast Highway
Posts: 727
Likes: 201
|
Post by bellbottoms on Feb 25, 2020 0:33:20 GMT
By the 70s, they weren’t exactly boys anymore, so the shift to non-band photo covers isn’t surprising, because by this time their identity as a band was secure, and maybe it was best not to highlight just how “not boys” they were anymore. You might be being tactful, but I'll be a bit more blunt: not only were they aging, they weren't exactly aging well from the perspective of rock-star looks. The Beach Boys might be one of the least stereotypically/traditionally attractive bands ever to reach superstar status, Dennis notwithstanding. And as they aged, I can't imagine the record labels (or teenage fans) were clamoring for bald, balding, and/or bearded fat men on the covers of albums. (I say this as an aging man who could lose some pounds and whose destiny is baldness.)
We know Brian was sensitive about his weight: it's obvious from him talking about it during and after some of those periods in the '70s. I wouldn't be surprised if Carl were similarly self-conscious. Although he never got as big as Brian, he started off as a pudgy kid, and that kind of self-image is hard to shake.
In an industry that's ruthless in its demands for physical beauty, I just don't think the band's likenesses were their best selling points in the '70s and beyond.
I agree, with the exception of Carl. While the rest of the band definitely aged out of their looks beginning in the 70s, I'd say Carl was the only one who actually aged into his looks. Bearded post-1970 Carl was a handsome dude! Missed opportunity not putting him on the cover of Carl and The Passions - So Tough. Though I agree with you that he probably wouldn't have felt all that comfortable with it himself. But I'd even argue that he kind of maintained a base level of handsomeness into the 90s. He really rocked that beard.
|
|
bellbottoms
Pacific Coast Highway
Posts: 727
Likes: 201
|
Post by bellbottoms on Feb 25, 2020 0:34:48 GMT
This thread has reminded me that the back cover of Love You and MIU feature nearly the exact same photo. Shirtless Al, Mike, and Brian, no less... Yeah, that photo choice is an odd one.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Feb 25, 2020 0:44:43 GMT
This thread has reminded me that the back cover of Love You and MIU feature nearly the exact same photo. Shirtless Al, Mike, and Brian, no less... Yeah, that photo choice is an odd one. And those albums are so unalike. They shouldn't share anything! (In regard to presentation.)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 25, 2020 0:46:08 GMT
I agree, with the exception of Carl. While the rest of the band definitely aged out of their looks beginning in the 70s, I'd say Carl was the only one who actually aged into his looks. Bearded post-1970 Carl was a handsome dude! Missed opportunity not putting him on the cover of Carl and The Passions - So Tough. Though I agree with you that he probably wouldn't have felt all that comfortable with it himself. But I'd even argue that he kind of maintained a base level of handsomeness into the 90s. He really rocked that beard. I basically agree, including that Carl, some fluctuating notwithstanding, generally became more attractive. But as noted by us both, it's easy to imagine him not feeling great about his appearance.
For that angle on things, they should have probably just spent the decade showing off Dennis and whoever he happened to be coupled with at any given time. Not everyone "sees" the beauty of brilliant vocal harmony arrangements.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Feb 25, 2020 1:07:15 GMT
Back in 1976 when the Brian Is Back campaign was in full bloom, The Beach Boys - and specifically their picture - was everywhere. As you know they even made the cover of People magazine. Now, I won't go as far as saying that Brian was necessarily attractive in 1976 (though some of his handsomeness did come through), but I will say that in some ways the band came off as cool. Yes, there were the obligatory age jokes about The Beach BOYS becoming Beach MEN (looking back they weren't THAT old), and the receding hairlines of Mike and Al were duly noted. But with the full beards (which were "in" around that time), the colorful wardrobe including the Hawaiian shirts and white cotton pants, and, yes, in the way they exuded that California lifestyle, The Beach Boys did come across as rock stars - again in a mature but still handsome way. 15 Big Ones and Love You did them no favors, but if you look at the People magazine cover, yeah, they were cool. And I'll confess that, even though I was from a younger generation, I started seeking out clothes like theirs, and even grew a full beard!
Look at these handsome guys. Rock Stars!
|
|