|
Post by lonelysummer on Jun 13, 2021 7:09:26 GMT
Let's not forget that Guercio produced Carl's solo debut - an album none of you are wild about.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jun 13, 2021 11:41:50 GMT
Let's not forget that Guercio produced Carl's solo debut - an album none of you are wild about. Excellent point. Really no excuse for the...blandness, something you didn't find in his Chicago productions.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jun 13, 2021 12:38:40 GMT
In November 1974, Neil Sedaka released an album called Sedaka's Back. The album was a departure from Neil's previous Brill Building records. These songs took on a more mature theme from the younger, "poppier" hits like "Happy Birthday Sweet Sixteen" and "Calendar Girl". Sedaka's Back was a collection of songs from his previous three albums that were only released in England and included the singles "Laughter In The Rain", "The Immigrant" (dedicated to John Lennon), and "That's Where The Music Takes Me". Also included were "Solitaire" (a hit for The Carpenters), and "Love Will Keep Us together" (a huge hit for The Captain & Tennille).
"Laughter In The Rain" went to No. 1, Sedaka's Back was a hit album, and Neil Sedaka was indeed...back. Question: I wonder if, in late 1975, the whole concept of Neil Sedaka "coming back" - and specifically the album title, Sedaka's Back - influenced The Beach Boys, and specifically Steve Love, to devise the "Brian's Back" campaign? Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jun 13, 2021 19:35:40 GMT
In November 1974, Neil Sedaka released an album called Sedaka's Back. The album was a departure from Neil's previous Brill Building records. These songs took on a more mature theme from the younger, "poppier" hits like "Happy Birthday Sweet Sixteen" and "Calendar Girl". Sedaka's Back was a collection of songs from his previous three albums that were only released in England and included the singles "Laughter In The Rain", "The Immigrant" (dedicated to John Lennon), and "That's Where The Music Takes Me". Also included were "Solitaire" (a hit for The Carpenters), and "Love Will Keep Us together" (a huge hit for The Captain & Tennille).
"Laughter In The Rain" went to No. 1, Sedaka's Back was a hit album, and Neil Sedaka was indeed...back. Question: I wonder if, in late 1975, the whole concept of Neil Sedaka "coming back" - and specifically the album title, Sedaka's Back - influenced The Beach Boys, and specifically Steve Love, to devise the "Brian's Back" campaign? Just a thought.
I always hear Toni Tennille in my head singing "Sedaka is back!" And I thought May Pang was very cute. Much prettier than Yoko.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jun 13, 2021 19:36:21 GMT
Let's not forget that Guercio produced Carl's solo debut - an album none of you are wild about. Excellent point. Really no excuse for the...blandness, something you didn't find in his Chicago productions. I think they were going for a stripped down sound.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 10, 2021 1:14:10 GMT
"Shades of blue and purple haunt me."
So sings Brian Wilson on "It's Over Now," mostly otherwise sung by Carl. Does anyone know why Brian sang that line on the versions we have? It isn't as if it's a range issue. Somehow I never really wondered before. But suddenly listening tonight, I'm obsessed with it.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jul 10, 2021 1:30:09 GMT
"Shades of blue and purple haunt me."
So sings Brian Wilson on "It's Over Now," mostly otherwise sung by Carl. Does anyone know why Brian sang that line on the versions we have? It isn't as if it's a range issue. Somehow I never really wondered before. But suddenly listening tonight, I'm obsessed with it.
With that type of thing, I assume Brian sung the whole song (with or without the intention to give the lead to someone else), and...basically...that's all that survived the final mix. Whether due to other lines simply not being deemed usable or that there is a particular significance to have Brian sing that line. I don't know. Kind of a non-answer. But, I do tend to think that Brian singing that line or the opening line in the '78 version of "California Feelin'" or the title of "Goin' On"...things like that...probably has more to do with Brian not being able (or willing) to sing the whole song (or entire sections) to a high enough standard at the time. And, what do those songs all have in common? They are some of Brian's better songs of the period, so I'm sure Brian or the group were hoping his voice would be on them. (Then there are songs like "Tomboy" or "Our Team" which I think were deliberate pass-around-the-lead type songs.)
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 10, 2021 13:44:45 GMT
While Brian was notorious for moving on, he also never forgot a trick. He did the "small part sung by Brian but Carl sings the brunt" on "Good Vibrations" and I think "This Whole World"; maybe he was remembering THAT when he produced "It's Over Now". I'm thinking there's another example of this but I can't recall it right now.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 25, 2021 13:32:48 GMT
Sometimes when we're discussing legendary acts and their ongoing popularity (or decline in popularity), somebody mentions duration of the career. I think kds mentioned it recently, pointing out Zeppelin's or the Beatles' relatively brief careers as active bands as opposed to, say, the Stones or, yes, the Beach Boys.
Building on that idea from an angle I don't really remember talking about too much: what impact do you think the large and evolving band membership had on the Beach Boys' relative popularity?
The Beatles were John, Paul, George, and Ringo. Sure, you could talk about Stu Sutcliffe or Pete Best, but from the time they were recording artists, the band was set. Queen was Freddie, Brian, Roger, and John. Zeppelin were Robert, John Paul, John, and Jimmy.
The Beach Boys were Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, David, Al, Bruce, Blondie, and Ricky: nine "real" members over the years, and as many as seven at a time. But on stage, ever since the late '60s or early '70s, a casual fan could be forgiven by thinking people like Ed Carter, Billy Hinsche, Daryl Dragon, Dennis Dragon, Bobby Figueroa, Ron Altbach, Jeff Foskett, Scott Totten, John Stamos, or their kids like Christian Love and Matt Jardine, or any number of other sidemen were "in the group," too.
Does it seem like the Beach Boys have relative anonymity as individuals--partly because of the transitory nature of the group's membership--and do you think that hurt their popularity? If so, how much?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Aug 25, 2021 14:26:01 GMT
I don't think that the personnel hurt their popularity nearly as much as the poor artistic decisions they made.
And The Beach Boys weren't the only act who added a bunch of side musicians to fill out their sound in concert. The Who, Pink Floyd, and the Stones have all done so later in their careers. But, unlike the Boys, those bands members are a little easier to identify.
I do think that, to a certain degree, outside of Brian and Mike, The Beach Boys are somewhat anonymous as individuals, and that could play a part too. Especially on the albums where they had Carl, Dennis, and Al doing some of the heavy lifting in lieu of Brian. Although, in the 21st century, they've played far bigger venues when Brian, Al, and David were along for the ride that one summer.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Aug 26, 2021 0:15:45 GMT
I don't think The Beach Boys' relative anonymity as individuals hurt their popularity very much. I think the music - good or bad - will ultimately make or break a group. More on that later. If you think about it, not many groups from that era had all of their members known by name. Oh, after several years and when the groups became iconic and part of rock & roll history, and after reading their names over and over for a decade or so, yeah, their names became known. But they had already reached their zenith. Think about it. Other than John, Paul, George and Ringo, how many groups' members were known by their names. Other than Mick and Keith, were the other Stones known? Now, I'm talking about their early, popular years? The Kinks? The Who? The Dave Clark Five? Which one was Dave? Name another Four Season other than Frankie Valli. And take Herman's Hermits. They sold as many records as anybody in 1965-66. Name a Herman's Hermit other than Peter Noone. And, a lot of people referred to him as Herman. The Monkees were known by their names thanks to TV, but I think they would've still been popular based on their records. That was some fine music. Which leads me to my next point.
I think with the Beach boys, they were gonna live and die with their music. People knew what they wanted from The Beach Boys - fun, good-time rock & roll and emotional ballads. If the group delivered THAT, and in high quality obviously, nothing else mattered, including the band members' names. If The Beach Boys didn't deliver that - can you say 1967-1973 - they were gonna suffer the consequences. And they did. Look at the most popular records of that period. "Darlin'", "Do It Again", and "I Can Hear Music". All of the non-fun music stiffed. Carry that into the 70's and 80's. "Rock And Roll Music", "Almost Summer", "Come Go With Me", "The Beach Boys Medley", "Kokomo", and, yes, even "Good Timin'". Most people didn't know Brian from Carl from Dennis Wilson. Wasn't Brian Wilson the guy with the baseball hat who sang the nasal lead vocals on the fast songs? And, Al who? But you give them a quality "Beach Boys" song and the group will be popular again, whoever they are.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 27, 2021 0:20:06 GMT
I don't think The Beach Boys' relative anonymity as individuals hurt their popularity very much. I think the music - good or bad - will ultimately make or break a group. ...
I think with the Beach boys, they were gonna live and die with their music. People knew what they wanted from The Beach Boys - fun, good-time rock & roll and emotional ballads. If the group delivered THAT, and in high quality obviously, nothing else mattered, including the band members' names.
I think this sums it up, but I also think it leaves open the possibility that led me to ask the question. Because the Beach Boys weren't necessarily as personality-driven as some groups--because it couldn't even be semi-seriously said that the specific members were the essential, defining characteristic of the group--it had to be more what you say. It had to be that the songs fit a certain style. Because rather than the band (and the sound) being "X person's journey," it had to be "Brand X."
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 24, 2021 18:08:42 GMT
This is one I've occasionally wondered about but never gotten around to asking:
Why the hell were the Beach Boys popular in the Netherlands even as their popularity tanked elsewhere?
Checking the wikipedia discography, which shows performance of singles and albums by country, there was nothing until "Barbara Ann," meaning I assume they weren't releasing singles there. But they had 10 Top 20 singles from then through the end of the '60s. "Cottonfields" did pretty well there, at #14. "Tears in the Morning" hit #4 there while it failed to chart anywhere else. The two Carl and the Passions singles both made the Top 30 there while failing to chart most everywhere else.
And then of course the band went there to record Holland; "Sail On Sailor" reached #28.
Then nothing for the rest of the '70s.
Anyone have any insight? Was there some popular DJ who championed their cause? Did they make a point of playing there often on their international tours? Does Bruce speak Dutch?
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Sept 26, 2021 13:03:55 GMT
In 1971, while talking about the upcoming Surf's Up album, Van Dyke Parks said something like, and I'm paraphrasing, "If they call the album Surf's Up, it'll pre-sell 150,000 copies." Or something like that. Really, Van Dyke?
This is my question, or questions. It appears that Van Dyke was more confident of "Surf's Up"'s notoriety than the average fan. And let's look at the average fan. First, the average music fan. Wouldn't most average music fans see the song title, "Surf's Up", and immediately conjure up thoughts of "Surfin' Safari" and "Surfin' U.S.A."? You know, The Beach Boys + their past hit surfing records = "Surf's Up". Or, if that connection wasn't made, and the average music wasn't making that connection, then what were they thinking?
OK, now look at the Beach Boys' fans. Keeping in mind this is pre-internet, pre-Beach Boys' biographies, and keeping in mind that "Surf's Up" was NEVER HEARD, how were music fans to know or anticipate that "Surf's Up" was this legendary SMiLE track? A snippet of the song was broadcast four years earlier on a Leonard Bernstein-hosted TV show, not about The Beach Boys, but popular music in general. How many people watched that show? What were the ratings? How many people hung with the show and saw Brian's stripped performance of "Surf's Up"? We know it wasn't caught later on YouTube. While Leonard might've been impressed, or so he said, how do we know Brian blew anybody away with his performance? Directly, how many music fans thought, "Ooh, that legendary SMiLE song, "Surf's Up" is being released on the new Beach Boys' (1971) album. I gotta get it!"
What's my point? Well, was "Surf's Up" really the best album title for their 1971 album? Did the album title pre-sell any units? And, finally, was Surf's Up a good title for the actual music on the album? It seems to me that other titles might've been more appropriate for the "feel" of the album. You know, Landlocked wouldn't have been such a bad album title. How about Long Promised Road? Lookin' At Tomorrow? Or, um, (cough)...Feel Flows?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 26, 2021 13:26:10 GMT
That's a good question, but I actually DO think Surf's Up was a good title, regardless of whether people recognized the song from its reputation. The best title? I don't know ... I don't know that there is a "best" when it comes to these things, really--at least not objectively, ahead of time. But good.
Like it or not, striped shirts or not, songs explicitly about surfing or not, they were always going to have that association of California, surfing, waves, girls, the ocean, etc. That was just baked in. I think that the title could serve as a sort of tongue-in-cheek title that could imply different things to different people.
One, it's the best song on the album (and of the era, and arguably of their career).
Two, it historically meant the waves were good, so it could be seen as a welcome of sorts.
Three--and this might be a stretch, but it's what I always think of--it's almost ironic. In the song lyric, it's tied to a tidal wave. "The waves are good, all right..." But it calls to my mind the phrase "time's up," too. It's like a term that for me calls to mind the end of the surfing era and image. Anyone who had seen them in the previous few years would of course already know this and thus be in on the joke.
So I'm fine with it, even though I don't think many people probably knew about the legendary song.
|
|