|
Post by kds on Sept 7, 2021 15:38:21 GMT
I don't really have any strong feelings for Mess of Help. I think it's an OK rocker, but nothing really special. And, to be 100% honest, I'm not really a huge fan of Carl's lead on it. I'm not a huge fan of when he goes for a "rough rocker" vocal. I actually think the song might've suited Dennis better, or even Blondie, but I don't think they'd want a new voice the lead off the first album and single with this lineup. They were really trying to change weren't they? New band members, the topical, relevant lyrics, a new "sound". Even if it might've been NOT who they were, they were trying...new things. But nobody was listening, at least not to the singles and albums. Endless Summer was looming in the shadows. Yes, and I imagine it was very frustrating for The Beach Boys, as their peers were able to evolve and still maintain a steady level of fans. But, not The Beach Boys.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Sept 7, 2021 15:43:19 GMT
I think it was combination of all three. I think The Beach Boys lost a large percentage of fans, progressively, with Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, and Friends. And, many of their old fans just "grew up" and moved on to other groups.
Yes, I do think many of the singles were NOT being heard. And, of course, without hit singles or even charting singles, the album sales are going to be adversely affected. One depends on the other, at least they did with a group like The Beach Boys. The tough thing about that is, the shedding of fans at some of those post-Pet Sounds albums wouldn't really have been an indicator, necessarily, about how those fans might have received some of these early '70s albums. Who's to say that just because someone hated Smiley Smile that they wouldn't have loved CATP, or that someone who wasn't into Friends mightn't have liked Surf's Up?
That's where it seems the promotional efforts would matter so much: because just because you stopped listening somewhere in the past, that doesn't mean you mightn't have found them appealing if you gave them a "second chance to make a first impression" (to use the old dandruff shampoo line!).
That is true, but when you get into a special category of fan, and that is the original, young, Beach Boys' fan circa 1962-66, it's magnified. We know why they were fans, what attracted them, and what they wanted - more surf, turf, and girls. And, once that dried up, they were gone. I think many fans of groups gravitate to a group because of a certain style of music, and once that group deviates from that style, they lose a certain percentage of their fans. I think that cost The Beach Boys - because of their specific, early style of their music - big time. You weren't gonna maintain or get those fans back, unless you give them MORE of the "old" music. And, as we know, that's what The Beach Boys faced and, ultimately succumbed to. It was tough to get them back for those post-Pet Sounds albums, as good as some of them were. Those albums were left to the diehards and maybe fans who appreciated music as much or more than simply fun Beach Boys' music. They enjoyed good music no matter what style it came in. You know...us!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 7, 2021 15:47:04 GMT
They were really trying to change weren't they? New band members, the topical, relevant lyrics, a new "sound". Even if it might've been NOT who they were, they were trying...new things. But nobody was listening, at least not to the singles and albums. Endless Summer was looming in the shadows. Yes, and I imagine it was very frustrating for The Beach Boys, as their peers were able to evolve and still maintain a steady level of fans. But, not The Beach Boys. I think part of that might have been how specific they were about what we'd now call "their brand." From the group's name to the atmosphere of the "hits years," it probably was tough for fans to watch the group change ... especially repeatedly, often, and dramatically from the mid-late '60s onward.
It's hard to expect fans to follow your evolution when it doesn't seem so much like natural evolution as a series of one-offs.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 7, 2021 15:50:34 GMT
Yes, and I imagine it was very frustrating for The Beach Boys, as their peers were able to evolve and still maintain a steady level of fans. But, not The Beach Boys. I think part of that might have been how specific they were about what we'd now call "their brand." From the group's name to the atmosphere of the "hits years," it probably was tough for fans to watch the group change ... especially repeatedly, often, and dramatically from the mid-late '60s onward.
It's hard to expect fans to follow your evolution when it doesn't seem so much like natural evolution as a series of one-offs.
I suppose so, and of course, I have the benefit of hindsight since I did not experience those years in real time. But, to me, other than the radical, and probably extremely ill advised, Smiley Smile album, it feels more like a natural progression if you listen to those albums in order. But, I'd suspect you're 100% about The Beach Boys brand. I was with my father this weekend, and as much as he loves The Beach Boys, he admits that he sort of checked out after Good Vibrations.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 7, 2021 15:59:37 GMT
But, to be, other than the radical, and probably extremely ill advised, Smiley Smile album, it feels more like a natural progression if you listen to those albums in order. I think there are always throughlines/similarities, but I don't think I quite agree with that. Even discounting Smiley, you have a basic rock/RnB album in Wild Honey, something more orchestrated and almsot chamber pop in Friends, a pretty wide variety on 20/20 then more toward highly produced pop for Sunflower (some of which does sound a lot like 20/20), then darker and introducing some other things like folk for Surf's Up, then the grittier rock on at least some of CATP (including this single).
At the very least, I'd say Wild Honey was a detour just as much as--though in a different direction than--Smiley Smile. Maybe after both of those were out of the way, you could say there was a more coherent progression before they almost returned to something like a grittier and better played Wild Honey again with this current 1972-73 sound.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 7, 2021 16:16:13 GMT
But, to be, other than the radical, and probably extremely ill advised, Smiley Smile album, it feels more like a natural progression if you listen to those albums in order. I think there are always throughlines/similarities, but I don't think I quite agree with that. Even discounting Smiley, you have a basic rock/RnB album in Wild Honey, something more orchestrated and almsot chamber pop in Friends, a pretty wide variety on 20/20 then more toward highly produced pop for Sunflower (some of which does sound a lot like 20/20), then darker and introducing some other things like folk for Surf's Up, then the grittier rock on at least some of CATP (including this single).
At the very least, I'd say Wild Honey was a detour just as much as--though in a different direction than--Smiley Smile. Maybe after both of those were out of the way, you could say there was a more coherent progression before they almost returned to something like a grittier and better played Wild Honey again with this current 1972-73 sound.
Yeah, I'd probably agree that both 1967 albums saw the band making a wide turn, even if both contained a couple classics each.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Sept 7, 2021 16:20:23 GMT
This/that is why SMiLE - or its non-release - was so crucial in the band's progression.
With The Beatles, they made the transition to "an album band" somewhat because Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper were great albums - back to back to back. You were going to like this progression whether you wanted it or not, whether you liked "She Loves You" or "She Said She Said" or "She's Leaving Home". It was consistent greatness.
With The Beach Boys, I'm sorry, but you weren't gonna make that transition from Pet Sounds to Smiley Smile to Wild Honey to Friends, and keep your fan base or increase it - for reasons we/I have discussed ad nauseam. Now, if you go from Pet Sounds to SMiLE...you had a chance, a good chance. At least it would've continued the greatness, like The Beatles did.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 7, 2021 16:22:51 GMT
I do agree with that. But, I also think it's pretty shitty that fans just sort of turned their backs en masse on The Beach Boys nearly instantly. But, fans are a fickle bunch.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 7, 2021 18:45:40 GMT
I enjoy Cuddle Up for about the first three minutes. I really don't think it needs to be a five and a half minute song. Agree entirely: the "Old Movie" version on Feel Flows feels about right, and, at 3:36, it's nearly two minutes shorter than the finished CATP version. That feels about right to me.
Interestingly, while they did do a different mix for the single B-side version of "Cuddle Up," they only trimmed it by 10 seconds, from 5:30 to 5:20. The Wiki entry for the song describes the single version as one that "features alternate mixing, additional string overdubs and backing vocals."
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 7, 2021 19:07:35 GMT
I enjoy Cuddle Up for about the first three minutes. I really don't think it needs to be a five and a half minute song. Agree entirely: the "Old Movie" version on Feel Flows feels about right, and, at 3:36, it's nearly two minutes shorter than the finished CATP version. That feels about right to me.
Interestingly, while they did do a different mix for the single B-side version of "Cuddle Up," they only trimmed it by 10 seconds, from 5:30 to 5:20. The Wiki entry for the song describes the single version as one that "features alternate mixing, additional string overdubs and backing vocals."
Yes, I agree. And I think I mentioned in the FF thread that it's a rare instance where I actually prefer the alternate version to the released version in the case of Cuddle Up.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Sept 7, 2021 19:48:50 GMT
Fans ARE very fickle. Combine that with a lack of promotion from the record company, and you're guaranteed a flop. This was true of nearly every group that emerged in 1963-65. Start off as a singles band, establish your fan base with simple but catchy 2 and a half minute singles. At some point, the music starts to change, become more complex, more of a focus on albums... and a percentage of fans cry that "you're not doing the fun songs anymore". Changes in the band lineup can affect things, too. I know a lot of Paul Revere and the Raiders fans who refuse to listen to anything they recorded after Drake Levin, Phil Volk and Mike Smith left in 1967. Even though the band (with new members) did evolve and grow, the fans of the 1965-67 just wanted more songs that sounded like Kicks, Hungry, Just Like Me, and Good Thing. On the one hand, they were criticized for changing their sound; at the same time, others criticized them for changing too much! I don't know how the Beatles did it - keep the fans interested all the way through. Did some fans turn their back on the Fab Four when John Lennon said they were more popular than Jesus? Did some fans hear stuff like Eleanor Rigby and Strawberry Fields Forever and decide "these guys are not for me anymore"?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 7, 2021 19:57:19 GMT
On the one hand, they were criticized for changing their sound; at the same time, others criticized them for changing too much! I don't know how the Beatles did it - keep the fans interested all the way through. Did some fans turn their back on the Fab Four when John Lennon said they were more popular than Jesus? Did some fans hear stuff like Eleanor Rigby and Strawberry Fields Forever and decide "these guys are not for me anymore"? On that first part, isn't that the way fans are? Keep up to date, but don't follow the trends! Stay true to your old sound, but don't get stuck in a rut!
As for the Beatles, they really are an outlier in that way, aren't they? Very few others maintained that high a level of output and kept so many fans. I do know a few people--my parents included--who didn't like "late Beatles," though. Or at least not nearly as much as earlier stuff. They associated it with "druggie music," which is funny considering the Beatles were popping pills in Hamburg...
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Sept 7, 2021 19:57:50 GMT
I’d love a reference book detailing the promotional history of the Beach Boys (that also compares/contrasts it with their peers). It’s a topic that comes up a lot but I don’t think anyone really knows too much about it.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 7, 2021 20:00:20 GMT
Fans ARE very fickle. Combine that with a lack of promotion from the record company, and you're guaranteed a flop. This was true of nearly every group that emerged in 1963-65. Start off as a singles band, establish your fan base with simple but catchy 2 and a half minute singles. At some point, the music starts to change, become more complex, more of a focus on albums... and a percentage of fans cry that "you're not doing the fun songs anymore". Changes in the band lineup can affect things, too. I know a lot of Paul Revere and the Raiders fans who refuse to listen to anything they recorded after Drake Levin, Phil Volk and Mike Smith left in 1967. Even though the band (with new members) did evolve and grow, the fans of the 1965-67 just wanted more songs that sounded like Kicks, Hungry, Just Like Me, and Good Thing. On the one hand, they were criticized for changing their sound; at the same time, others criticized them for changing too much! I don't know how the Beatles did it - keep the fans interested all the way through. Did some fans turn their back on the Fab Four when John Lennon said they were more popular than Jesus? Did some fans hear stuff like Eleanor Rigby and Strawberry Fields Forever and decide "these guys are not for me anymore"? I wouldn't be shocked if there were fans that abandoned The Beatles when they shifted to more daring material. Fanbases are funny like that when a band changes in any way. Just ask Metallica.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Sept 7, 2021 23:17:17 GMT
As for the single, I can't go lower than a 9. In fact, as I rank it, I've placed it as the highest 9 - above the likes of "Surfin' USA" and "Fun Fun Fun" (due to preferring both sides of this single over those B-sides). Fans always talk about the Beach Boys making poor decisions and picking the wrong songs...well...I think between this single and "Marcella" they chose 3 of the 4 best songs from CATP. Not much else you can do...
|
|