|
Post by B.E. on Apr 5, 2024 11:58:59 GMT
B.E., in your above points regarding I Just Wasn't Made For These Times, you used the phrase - "What would be the point of that?" Again, I could apply that question to all of Brian's solo albums in general, and in keeping with the purpose of this thread, specifically the vocals on the albums. Over the years, I can't tell you how many times I've come to that...conclusion...or asked that question, but in another way. No offense meant, but I think saying "what's the point?" of all Brian's solo albums in general is wildly unfair and ultimately no different than a Beatles fan saying "what's the point?" of any of the Beatles solo albums. Or any other artist who (temporarily or permanently) left a popular group. My comment was made with the documentary in mind and that the album was full of Beach Boys covers. Brian got to a point in his Beach Boys' career where he basically stopped singing. Post-Friends and up to 15 Big Ones, Brian basically disappeared as a lead vocalist. He then sang (rather poorly at times) in 1976-77 and disappeared again. I would describe his 1985 and 1989 vocals as shouty. Then, in the late 1980s and again in the late 1990s, Brian (or somebody) decided he was gonna be a solo artist and he HAD to sing entire albums. And we were supposed to think or accept him as...qualified? I guess we did. We didn't have a choice.
It is my belief that Brian only "stopped" singing due to mental problems. He eventually got passed that. And that's another reason why I'd be so hesitant to, in essence, take that away. I also see no reason to believe that the "all-Brian" vocal approach was anyone's but Brian's. Think about it, it spanned over 15 years and multiple collaborators and projects. The common denominator was Brian. If anything, he might have had to be convinced by others to move away from that. And he had a history of replacing Beach Boys vocals in the mid 60s with his own (e.g. Pet Sounds and Smile) and doing pretty much everything himself (Love You).
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 5, 2024 12:11:14 GMT
B.E., in your above points regarding I Just Wasn't Made For These Times, you used the phrase - "What would be the point of that?" Again, I could apply that question to all of Brian's solo albums in general, and in keeping with the purpose of this thread, specifically the vocals on the albums. Over the years, I can't tell you how many times I've come to that...conclusion...or asked that question, but in another way. No offense meant, but I think saying "what's the point?" of all Brian's solo albums in general is wildly unfair and ultimately no different than a Beatles fan saying "what's the point?" of any of the Beatles solo albums. Or any other artist who (temporarily or permanently) left a popular group. My comment was made with the documentary in mind and that the album was full of Beach Boys covers. Apple and oranges. The Beatles broke up. The Beach Boys never did.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 5, 2024 13:13:36 GMT
No offense meant, but I think saying "what's the point?" of all Brian's solo albums in general is wildly unfair and ultimately no different than a Beatles fan saying "what's the point?" of any of the Beatles solo albums. Or any other artist who (temporarily or permanently) left a popular group. My comment was made with the documentary in mind and that the album was full of Beach Boys covers. Apple and oranges. The Beatles broke up. The Beach Boys never did. I'd say that, as a creative unit, you can argue that The Beach Boys did break up.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 5, 2024 13:24:02 GMT
Apple and oranges. The Beatles broke up. The Beach Boys never did. I'd say that, as a creative unit, you can argue that The Beach Boys did break up. I agree with this. They didn't technically break up, that's true. But to different degrees and in different ways, I'd say that they (figuratively or metaphorically) "broke up" incrementally from 1974 onward, in fits and starts, and in different ways. But after 85 especially, I wouldn't consider the Beach Boys much of an active artistic concern.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 5, 2024 13:52:08 GMT
I'd say that, as a creative unit, you can argue that The Beach Boys did break up. I agree with this. They didn't technically break up, that's true. But to different degrees and in different ways, I'd say that they (figuratively or metaphorically) "broke up" incrementally from 1974 onward, in fits and starts, and in different ways. But after 85 especially, I wouldn't consider the Beach Boys much of an active artistic concern. Right, then you pretty much have the divide of 1998. Carl died. Brian relaunched his solo career. Mike and Bruce took The Beach Boys on the road. Al did his Al thing.
|
|
Emdeeh
Pacific Coast Highway
Posts: 520
Likes: 532
|
Post by Emdeeh on Apr 5, 2024 13:52:31 GMT
Broke up in 1998, reunited for part of 2012, broke up again in late 2012.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 5, 2024 18:45:33 GMT
You can't pick out Al's vocals on Whatever Happened, Tell Me Why, The Right Time, Sail Away, or Somewhere Quiet (Deluxe)? No I can't. Maybe it's too much AutoTune. Hmm, not sure what to tell you about that. Maybe a refresher listen?
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Apr 7, 2024 16:35:44 GMT
It's too bad the Beach Boys didn't have an effective manager in 1998. Actually they never had an effective manager. One bad decision after another by the group. Too many to count. And, God knows, the guys needed a good, intelligent, effective manager. The group was either incapable of making smart decisions or were in too much of an altered state to make them.
In 1998, after Carl Wilson died, this is what I would've done (emphasis on I). I would've called in David Marks to replace Carl Wilson on lead guitar - and kept Al Jardine in the band. Then, in concert, you're back to four "original" or real Beach Boys. And, as we know, David is an excellent musician. They could've featured him on some songs and put the spotlight on his guitar playing. It would've added a new dimension to the shows, one we saw a little of in 2012.
The next thing I would've done would've been to keep... or lock up ...Jeff Foskett and give him a big salary increase. Why? He would've been the band's new musical director! Also, I would've featured him on some select songs such as "Don't Worry Baby", "Darlin'", "Good Vibrations", "God Only Knows", "I Can Hear Music", and "The Warmth Of The Sun". Yes, he would've inherited Carl Wilson's lead vocals, but it could've been incorporated or presented as an actual tribute to Carl. I'm sure Jeff's performances would've been a highlight of the shows. He was that good.
What would've I done? I would've "worked" the guys. By that I mean I would've talked to them, humored them, kissed their asses, demanded things from them, played politics, gotten outside people (i.e. accountants) involved, and I would've made sure the vote went through to approve what I just proposed above. None of that bullshit like kicking Al out the band. No ignoring David Marks anymore. No friggin' Mike & Bruce shows. No license for you, Dr. Love. They want to call themselves The Beach Boys, well, then present The Beach Boys, not some tribute band. I would've demanded a BRI vote that gives the people what they want. A vote that will stick. A vote that makes sense. What actually happened accomplished one thing - it made them all easy money. Easy. Money. Yep, they put money before the music, before the legacy, and before the fans.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Apr 7, 2024 19:26:08 GMT
SJS, I'd fear for your safety!
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Apr 7, 2024 20:27:28 GMT
It's too bad the Beach Boys didn't have an effective manager in 1998. Actually they never had an effective manager. One bad decision after another by the group. Too many to count. And, God knows, the guys needed a good, intelligent, effective manager. The group was either incapable of making smart decisions or were in too much of an altered state to make them.
In 1998, after Carl Wilson died, this is what I would've done (emphasis on I). I would've called in David Marks to replace Carl Wilson on lead guitar - and kept Al Jardine in the band. Then, in concert, you're back to four "original" or real Beach Boys. And, as we know, David is an excellent musician. They could've featured him on some songs and put the spotlight on his guitar playing. It would've added a new dimension to the shows, one we saw a little of in 2012.
The next thing I would've done would've been to keep... or lock up ...Jeff Foskett and give him a big salary increase. Why? He would've been the band's new musical director! Also, I would've featured him on some select songs such as "Don't Worry Baby", "Darlin'", "Good Vibrations", "God Only Knows", "I Can Hear Music", and "The Warmth Of The Sun". Yes, he would've inherited Carl Wilson's lead vocals, but it could've been incorporated or presented as an actual tribute to Carl. I'm sure Jeff's performances would've been a highlight of the shows. He was that good.
What would've I done? I would've "worked" the guys. By that I mean I would've talked to them, humored them, kissed their asses, demanded things from them, played politics, gotten outside people (i.e. accountants) involved, and I would've made sure the vote went through to approve what I just proposed above. None of that bullshit like kicking Al out the band. No ignoring David Marks anymore. No friggin' Mike & Bruce shows. No license for you, Dr. Love. They want to call themselves The Beach Boys, well, then present The Beach Boys, not some tribute band. I would've demanded a BRI vote that gives the people what they want. A vote that will stick. A vote that makes sense. What actually happened accomplished one thing - it made them all easy money. Easy. Money. Yep, they put money before the music, before the legacy, and before the fans.
It's a great idea, ultimately, better for the fans, but I wonder...how would the guys feel about it? If Mike and Al truly despise each other, I wouldn't want to force them into being onstage together for all eternity. I don't know what happened with David. I thought he was back in the band around the time Carl died, then some time later, he was fired or quit? I just wasn't following closely, because, for me, when Carl died, the band died. The ideal situation would have been for Mike, Al, Bruce and David to be on the road, while Brian stayed at home making records with ...who? Darian? Scott? Probyn? Of course, based on his output as a solo artist, I'm not convinced that Brian could still come up with a new record of original songs for the group every year, or even every two years.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 7, 2024 21:00:12 GMT
Of course, based on his output as a solo artist, I'm not convinced that Brian could still come up with a new record of original songs for the group every year, or even every two years. I don't think that would matter, though: who else in popular music--to say nothing of legacy bands--was releasing new albums every 1-2 years from 1998 onwards? One every four or five years would be more than enough compared to many of their peers. He came up with sufficient new material as a solo artist, and that's not including other songwriters in the group contributing. They'd have been fine. Not consistently great, those days were long-since over. But fine. Very enjoyable.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 11, 2024 16:14:47 GMT
In the News, Interviews, Etc., thread, Sheriff John Stone said: I also think he's trying to appear cool and anti-square. Mike's always been considered the antithesis of Brian, Dennis , and Carl. I think Mike was always insecure in that way, not that he had to be. I think he’s right that Mike has often been positioned against the Wilsons—which in some ways is fair and accurate—but to such a reflexive degree that it becomes a caricature of reality, as if you were either one of them or against them. Yes, the group did get into (evolving to some degree, but relatively stable) factions eventually. But that doesn’t mean the lines were clear and it was all or nothing, a straight party-line ticket from top to bottom. Specifically what I’m thinking (and I don’t believe I’m anywhere near the first to say this) about how Mike and Dennis were similar in a lot of ways. They were gregarious, they were charismatic, they were natural-born leaders. And they were … shall we say rascals? In 1960, Mike got his girlfriend pregnant. According to Peter Ames Carlin’s book, Mike had a “plan to sneak off to Tijuana for a quick abortion” (p25), which changed rapidly when her parents found out, told the Loves about it, and insisted Mike marry their 18-year-old daughter. Maureen Love is quoted as saying their mother had thrown all of Mike’s things out the window in a rage. “It had always been tense with them, with his sneaking and lying and cheating.” (p26) Now, does that sound like the stereotype of Mike Love? Or does it sound like a story about Dennis Wilson? Remember, as Mike says in the new book, “around this time, Dennis and I moved in together … it was an upstairs two-bedroom apartment. There were a lot of parties and chicanery going on. We had parties even when we weren’t there.” (p75, discussing 1963) “‘I could see the rivalry between Mike and Dennis for chicks,’ David Marks says, thinking back all the way to 1963. ‘Just dumb ego clashing, which escalated into dumb fistfights, typical shit.’” (Carlin, p220) Carlin also tells how, in 1964, Mike “ended up spending a night in a German jail on that tour, either because he tried to intervene in a violent domestic squabble or because he got into a fight with a pimp whose hooker he tried to bed. The former version comes from Mike, the latter from [Earl] Leaf [Capitol publicist], who uncorked it for Rolling Stone in 1971. (p63) In Rishikesh, according to Barry Miles’s paraphrase and then quote of Paul McCartney, Love “had come equipped with crates of batteries, film, and other Western staples he was willing to sell at a premium. ‘He reminded me of a dealer,’ McCartney told his biographer. ‘I think he might even have had booze in there. “Hey man, come to Mr. Love!” … All in all it was good fun.’” (p135) And of course, famously, in the early ‘80s, Mike and Dennis let their anger toward one another spill over on stage, when Carlin writes “an off-mike comment from Mike enraged Dennis so much that he kicked over his drums and flew off the riser at the group’s lead singer, spurring a fistfight that raged in full view of the increasingly horrified arena.” (p240) Mike has been married and divorced many times. (His wiki page says five; Carlin wrote eight. I don’t know.) He clearly had numerous dalliances through the years. He was athletic. He could be arrogant. He was charismatic. He worked hard. He enjoyed himself. Doesn’t that sound like Dennis? Of course I have to speculate, but I really think those two were every bit as alike as Brian was with Carl … which is to say, in many ways, but not in all ways. Mike seems to have had a wilder life as a young man before growing up in many ways, probably beginning with his embrace of TM. He increasingly seems to have kept an eye on business and his idea of how public relations ought to work. By the ‘80s, he wanted to project the All-American Band image as opposed to the countercultural stuff he was willing to flirt with publicly (regardless of his actual feelings) in the early ‘70s. And so by 1987, we see “Mike “loosened up for the show by downing a procession of Heinekens, which he poured carefully into a tall soda cup between visits with admirers. Asked to pose for a picture, the self-proclaimed teetotaler would make sure to hide his beer behind his back.” (Carlin, p250) By many aspects of his nature, I think he was largely akin to Dennis; but by others, he was very different. And the distance between them obviously increased through the years—for obvious reasons! What is my question? (After all, this is the Questions, Questions, Questions thread.) I don’t have one. But I didn’t know where else to ramble about this topic that’s been on my mind. So if I had to make this into a question, how about: How do you feel, or what do you think, about any disparity between Mike Love’s image and Mike Love, especially as it compares or contrasts to the Wilson brothers (who are so often cast as the heroes of every Beach Boys story)?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 12, 2024 13:52:32 GMT
Mike's image is a weird nut to crack. He's like that old Dad who wants so desperately to be cool, but for the life of him, can't figure out how to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 12, 2024 14:10:05 GMT
What's funny to me is, Brian Wilson is at least equally uncool. When you actually read or listen to what he says, it might get weird sometimes, but it's rarely "cool." His musical taste is not cool. When he talks about politics or social issues (which are often a barometer of how cool a music/celeb is), he barely even makes sense. (Voting for a Republican, the late Sen. John McCain, because he liked his smile? When leaning Republican is often a kiss of death for coolness?) They've both talked about a major objective in their careers being money and chart success: other people say Brian doesn't care about money or chart success; Brian has repeatedly said he does.
Yet Brian Wilson is cool and Mike Love is not cool.
And what's more despite everything I read and write about how it's not so simple, I think Brian Wilson is cool and Mike Love is not cool.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 12, 2024 14:58:43 GMT
What's funny to me is, Brian Wilson is at least equally uncool. When you actually read or listen to what he says, it might get weird sometimes, but it's rarely "cool." His musical taste is not cool. When he talks about politics or social issues (which are often a barometer of how cool a music/celeb is), he barely even makes sense. (Voting for a Republican, the late Sen. John McCain, because he liked his smile? When leaning Republican is often a kiss of death for coolness?) They've both talked about a major objective in their careers being money and chart success: other people say Brian doesn't care about money or chart success; Brian has repeatedly said he does. Yet Brian Wilson is cool and Mike Love is not cool. And what's more despite everything I read and write about how it's not so simple, I think Brian Wilson is cool and Mike Love is not cool. I think Brian is perceived as cool because he doesn't have that Dad/Uncle vibe that Mike has. That, and Mike comes across as a bully at times. From the RNRHOF Speech to the stuff he continues to say in interviews about the Wilsons. That, and rock stars just don't look cool on stage with baseball caps. And, let's not get into the short shorts and stripped socks in the 80s. Personally, I don't think any of the living classic Beach Boys are cool. Mike's Mike. Brian's always been pretty awkward. Al definitely looks like somebody who might've been a dentist if not for music. Dennis and Carl were the cool ones IMO. Dennis was the rock star. Carl was always the one guy on stage who didn't look like a total dork in the late 80s and early 90s.
|
|