|
Post by bellesofparisstan on Jan 26, 2022 6:19:25 GMT
Surprised no one here has mentioned almost summer by celebration, a top 30 hit in 1978.
|
|
|
Post by bellesofparisstan on Jan 26, 2022 6:35:50 GMT
But, again, I'm going by what I think THE FANS like or want. And, I really think most music fans - not Beach Boys' knowledgable or diehards - lump Pet Sounds (especially the singles from that album) and "Good Vibrations" in with the earlier stuff. I think the line of demarcation starts with Smiley Smile. I'd agree with that, and honestly, while the lyrical themes may have changed, I think there's a bit of a natural progression from All Summer Long to Pet Sounds, and then Smiley Smile is a bit of hard left. I very much agree with this, and it’s one of the biggest reasons that I still say to this day that, if smile were to have released in early 1967, it would’ve been commercially successful of course, but it would have left a lot of it’s audience just as confused as they were with Smiley Smile. Like him or hate him, Mike really really did have a point. “ wouldn’t it be nice if we were older, then we wouldn’t have to wait so long,” “I love The colorful clothes she wears, and the way the sunlight plays upon her hair,” and even “ Gonna love ya every single night, 'Cause I think you're too outta sight” are the kind of musical and lyrical ideas that people, even in early 1967, would have expected from a Beach Boys album. “Over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfields” is not, or at least wasn’t at the time. Keeping in mind that literally the latest thing that anyone had heard from that album was good vibrations, which was… not that lyrically different from anything they did previous. Sure it had weird sounds and more psychedelic type imagery, but it was still lyrically similar to the stuff they had been writing for the past four years. I love Smile/smiley but it really does stand alone in their catalog as something Lyricly very different from anything they had done previous, and wouldn’t be trying again anytime soon. In fact the lyrics of the very next album, wild Honey, couldn’t be more different from Smiley. No cornfields, vegetables, or heroes and villains to be found there.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 26, 2022 13:45:59 GMT
I'd agree with that, and honestly, while the lyrical themes may have changed, I think there's a bit of a natural progression from All Summer Long to Pet Sounds, and then Smiley Smile is a bit of hard left. I very much agree with this, and it’s one of the biggest reasons that I still say to this day that, if smile were to have released in early 1967, it would’ve been commercially successful of course, but it would have left a lot of it’s audience just as confused as they were with Smiley Smile. Like him or hate him, Mike really really did have a point. “ wouldn’t it be nice if we were older, then we wouldn’t have to wait so long,” “I love The colorful clothes she wears, and the way the sunlight plays upon her hair,” and even “ Gonna love ya every single night, 'Cause I think you're too outta sight” are the kind of musical and lyrical ideas that people, even in early 1967, would have expected from a Beach Boys album. “Over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfields” is not, or at least wasn’t at the time. Keeping in mind that literally the latest thing that anyone had heard from that album was good vibrations, which was… not that lyrically different from anything they did previous. Sure it had weird sounds and more psychedelic type imagery, but it was still lyrically similar to the stuff they had been writing for the past four years. I love Smile/smiley but it really does stand alone in their catalog as something Lyricly very different from anything they had done previous, and wouldn’t be trying again anytime soon. In fact the lyrics of the very next album, wild Honey, couldn’t be more different from Smiley. No cornfields, vegetables, or heroes and villains to be found there. I think that's a good assessment of Smile / Smiley Smile, and I've often said that even had Smile been released, I'm not sure the album itself would've blown people away at the time. Although, I do think a 1967 release of a completed Surf's Up might've helped the all time reputation of that song, even with the somewhat abstract lyrics.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jan 26, 2022 16:54:48 GMT
I'd agree with that, and honestly, while the lyrical themes may have changed, I think there's a bit of a natural progression from All Summer Long to Pet Sounds, and then Smiley Smile is a bit of hard left. I very much agree with this, and it’s one of the biggest reasons that I still say to this day that, if smile were to have released in early 1967, it would’ve been commercially successful of course, but it would have left a lot of it’s audience just as confused as they were with Smiley Smile. Like him or hate him, Mike really really did have a point.“ wouldn’t it be nice if we were older, then we wouldn’t have to wait so long,” “I love The colorful clothes she wears, and the way the sunlight plays upon her hair,” and even “ Gonna love ya every single night, 'Cause I think you're too outta sight” are the kind of musical and lyrical ideas that people, even in early 1967, would have expected from a Beach Boys album. “Over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfields” is not, or at least wasn’t at the time. Keeping in mind that literally the latest thing that anyone had heard from that album was good vibrations, which was… not that lyrically different from anything they did previous. Sure it had weird sounds and more psychedelic type imagery, but it was still lyrically similar to the stuff they had been writing for the past four years. I love Smile/smiley but it really does stand alone in their catalog as something Lyricly very different from anything they had done previous, and wouldn’t be trying again anytime soon. In fact the lyrics of the very next album, wild Honey, couldn’t be more different from Smiley. No cornfields, vegetables, or heroes and villains to be found there. What I bolded is a very broad statement. And a loaded one. You can take that a lot of places. I can think of some message boards (one, actually) where that topic would take up 73 pages.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 26, 2022 17:14:56 GMT
I think the contrast of the psychedelia of "Good Vibrations" with the lyrics of Smile is a very worthwhile point by those of you who did so.
GV is what seems to me like "normie" psychedelia. It's what I can imagine any teenager relating to, as it's still about romance, basically, and it's trendy: flowers, colorful clothes, etc. It's normal pop music playing in the psychedelic sandbox.
Smile (and then Smiley), bellesofparisstan is right, is so different. Those lyrics actually are far out. They actually are abstract. But I think it goes further, with the music increasingly far out as well. Smiley Smile in general has always struck me as the kind of thing that's fun when you're in on it, and tedious when you're not. It's the aural equivalent of being around your drunk (or in this case, stoned) friends. If you're not one of them, it's not really a good time. The laughing in "Little Pad," for me, is Exhibit A.
I know SS is beloved by some. I'm not necessarily knocking it. Just saying it sounds to me very much like an "in-crowd" album, and I think many Beach Boys fans at that time weren't in that crowd. Appealing to a few hipsters is great, but are are always hundreds of times as many normal people out there.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 26, 2022 17:26:52 GMT
I very much agree with this, and it’s one of the biggest reasons that I still say to this day that, if smile were to have released in early 1967, it would’ve been commercially successful of course, but it would have left a lot of it’s audience just as confused as they were with Smiley Smile. Like him or hate him, Mike really really did have a point.“ wouldn’t it be nice if we were older, then we wouldn’t have to wait so long,” “I love The colorful clothes she wears, and the way the sunlight plays upon her hair,” and even “ Gonna love ya every single night, 'Cause I think you're too outta sight” are the kind of musical and lyrical ideas that people, even in early 1967, would have expected from a Beach Boys album. “Over and over the crow cries uncover the cornfields” is not, or at least wasn’t at the time. Keeping in mind that literally the latest thing that anyone had heard from that album was good vibrations, which was… not that lyrically different from anything they did previous. Sure it had weird sounds and more psychedelic type imagery, but it was still lyrically similar to the stuff they had been writing for the past four years. I love Smile/smiley but it really does stand alone in their catalog as something Lyricly very different from anything they had done previous, and wouldn’t be trying again anytime soon. In fact the lyrics of the very next album, wild Honey, couldn’t be more different from Smiley. No cornfields, vegetables, or heroes and villains to be found there. What I bolded is a very broad statement. And a loaded one. You can take that a lot of places. I can think of some message boards (one, actually) where that topic would take up 73 pages. LOL. But, Mike was right here. Like you said earlier, there's a certain expectation about Beach Boys lyrical themes, and borderline pretentious (just IMO) psychedelic lyrics definitely aren't a part of that expectation.
|
|
sockit
The Surfer Moon
Posts: 234
Likes: 181
|
Post by sockit on Jan 29, 2022 19:43:43 GMT
Who here remembers the "New Coke" incident? In 1985 the Coca-Cola company reformulated the well known time honored soft drink and marketed it as "New Coke" in an attempt to be "progressive". It bombed. They quickly reinstated the original formula, calling it "Classic Coke" and offered the "New Coke" as "Coke II". "Coke II" wasn't bad (at least in my opinion) but the damage had been done, and it disappeared in just a little over a decade. Meanwhile, "Classic Coke" was able to regain its momentum and is doing well today.
My point is, I see Smile/Smiley as "New Coke". The formula got tweaked and John Q. Public wasn't ready for it. Unfortunately, I don't think the Beach Boys ever fully recovered once they got back to their nostalgic formula.
So, what would have been a better plan for the Boys in 1966? We can only speculate. Brian's progressive music was amazing, but perhaps it wasn't for the Boys and their fans. Obviously, the band wasn't 100% behind it and that did some degree of damage. Maybe Brian should have gone solo with it, or farmed it out to another group (with him producing, of course)? And meanwhile he could produce more Beach Boys-y music with his family, having them share in the writing, arranging, etc (which eventually happened anyway).
Just some thoughts.....
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 29, 2022 20:21:33 GMT
I love that post, sockit. First of all, it's a great analogy! You build something that becomes classic; to avoid stagnating, you develop it; and if it fails, you bring back Classic TM.
But I also love it because it demonstrates that these things aren't preordained. There was no "right path." Sticking with the original is bound to lead to stagnation, to fade away, to become irrelevant. But there's no surefire change that's going to work, either. The band did what they did as best they could in the situations they faced.
Second-guessing is a LOT of fun, living it real-time must have been maddening (as it has been in these latter days), but the reality is, they were and are Coca-Cola. One minute you're doing well, the next minute you've got Pepsi and RC challenging your dominance so you change it up. Do you stick to your change or go back, and if you go back, how?
|
|
sockit
The Surfer Moon
Posts: 234
Likes: 181
|
Post by sockit on Jan 29, 2022 20:50:45 GMT
I just thought of that New Coke analogy this morning. I remember that whole situation quite well as a 20 year old with Coke as my beverage of choice. Although I'm more of an RC man now, when I can find it.
You are absolutely right, Kapitan, in that there was no way of predicting what the public reception would be for New Coke or in the case of this thread, any new Beach Boys music in 1966-67.
It certainly is a paradox in the music bizz, that you want to continue to produce music that fans love you for, but yet you must grow or you will stagnate and fans will become bored.
One success story I can think of right off is The Police, who in 6 years grew from a simple reggae punk rock group to a big-sounding synth new wave concept 80s band selling massive amounts of their last two studio albums. And then Sting went on to more success with his solo jazz/blues music.
At the moment I can't think of a good example of an artist or band that overstayed their welcome with too much of the same stuff, but I'm sure there are plenty!
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Jan 30, 2022 21:13:15 GMT
It still puzzles me that the Beatles could go from Chuck Berry/Carl Perkins style rock and roll to other things and never lose their audience. People say "that's because they were just so darn great!", but do we not believe our Boys were just as great? To go from Love Me Do to Eleanor Rigby in just four years is mindblowing. But the Beach Boys can't go from Surfin' to Surf's Up? BTW, I'm a Pepsi drinker, and I thought New Coke tasted like Pepsi. So there was no reason to buy it - but I did buy it occasionally as a novelty. Anyone remember what year it was pulled from the shelves?
|
|
|
Post by carllove on Jan 31, 2022 0:04:27 GMT
Who here remembers the "New Coke" incident? In 1985 the Coca-Cola company reformulated the well known time honored soft drink and marketed it as "New Coke" in an attempt to be "progressive". It bombed. They quickly reinstated the original formula, calling it "Classic Coke" and offered the "New Coke" as "Coke II". "Coke II" wasn't bad (at least in my opinion) but the damage had been done, and it disappeared in just a little over a decade. Meanwhile, "Classic Coke" was able to regain its momentum and is doing well today. My point is, I see Smile/Smiley as "New Coke". The formula got tweaked and John Q. Public wasn't ready for it. Unfortunately, I don't think the Beach Boys ever fully recovered once they got back to their nostalgic formula. So, what would have been a better plan for the Boys in 1966? We can only speculate. Brian's progressive music was amazing, but perhaps it wasn't for the Boys and their fans. Obviously, the band wasn't 100% behind it and that did some degree of damage. Maybe Brian should have gone solo with it, or farmed it out to another group (with him producing, of course)? And meanwhile he could produce more Beach Boys-y music with his family, having them share in the writing, arranging, etc (which eventually happened anyway). Just some thoughts..... Well, I love Smile, but hate Smiley Smile. The versions of the songs from Smiley Smile, that eventually ended up improved on Smile, are so much better on Smile. Yes, that is hindsight, but I love the Smile versions of “Vegetables”, “Wind Chimes” and “Wonderful”. On Smiley Smile - nope. Hate them. I know the avid Beach Boys fan agrees, but I think the general public would also agree. Would it have been a big hit - probably no - but since “Good Vibrations” was part of Smiley Smile, I’m almost certain that the album would have done better, with better versions of those songs.
|
|
sockit
The Surfer Moon
Posts: 234
Likes: 181
|
Post by sockit on Jan 31, 2022 3:19:57 GMT
Who here remembers the "New Coke" incident? In 1985 the Coca-Cola company reformulated the well known time honored soft drink and marketed it as "New Coke" in an attempt to be "progressive". It bombed. They quickly reinstated the original formula, calling it "Classic Coke" and offered the "New Coke" as "Coke II". "Coke II" wasn't bad (at least in my opinion) but the damage had been done, and it disappeared in just a little over a decade. Meanwhile, "Classic Coke" was able to regain its momentum and is doing well today. My point is, I see Smile/Smiley as "New Coke". The formula got tweaked and John Q. Public wasn't ready for it. Unfortunately, I don't think the Beach Boys ever fully recovered once they got back to their nostalgic formula. So, what would have been a better plan for the Boys in 1966? We can only speculate. Brian's progressive music was amazing, but perhaps it wasn't for the Boys and their fans. Obviously, the band wasn't 100% behind it and that did some degree of damage. Maybe Brian should have gone solo with it, or farmed it out to another group (with him producing, of course)? And meanwhile he could produce more Beach Boys-y music with his family, having them share in the writing, arranging, etc (which eventually happened anyway). Just some thoughts..... Well, I love Smile, but hate Smiley Smile. The versions of the songs from Smiley Smile, that eventually ended up improved on Smile, are so much better on Smile. Yes, that is hindsight, but I love the Smile versions of “Vegetables”, “Wind Chimes” and “Wonderful”. On Smiley Smile - nope. Hate them. I know the avid Beach Boys fan agrees, but I think the general public would also agree. Would it have been a big hit - probably no - but since “Good Vibrations” was part of Smiley Smile, I’m almost certain that the album would have done better, with better versions of those songs. Oh I agree 100%. Two completely different animals in my book. But I lumped the two together in my analogy to identify the era, more than anything. To be honest you could even include Pet Sounds in that era, to some extent. Don't forget, Pet Sounds only went to #10 on the American charts, to Brian's disappointment.
|
|
sockit
The Surfer Moon
Posts: 234
Likes: 181
|
Post by sockit on Jan 31, 2022 3:22:38 GMT
It still puzzles me that the Beatles could go from Chuck Berry/Carl Perkins style rock and roll to other things and never lose their audience. People say "that's because they were just so darn great!", but do we not believe our Boys were just as great? To go from Love Me Do to Eleanor Rigby in just four years is mindblowing. But the Beach Boys can't go from Surfin' to Surf's Up? BTW, I'm a Pepsi drinker, and I thought New Coke tasted like Pepsi. So there was no reason to buy it - but I did buy it occasionally as a novelty. Anyone remember what year it was pulled from the shelves? According to Wiki, Coke II was discontinued permanently in 2002.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jan 31, 2022 18:15:05 GMT
Who here remembers the "New Coke" incident? In 1985 the Coca-Cola company reformulated the well known time honored soft drink and marketed it as "New Coke" in an attempt to be "progressive". It bombed. They quickly reinstated the original formula, calling it "Classic Coke" and offered the "New Coke" as "Coke II". "Coke II" wasn't bad (at least in my opinion) but the damage had been done, and it disappeared in just a little over a decade. Meanwhile, "Classic Coke" was able to regain its momentum and is doing well today. My point is, I see Smile/Smiley as "New Coke". The formula got tweaked and John Q. Public wasn't ready for it. Unfortunately, I don't think the Beach Boys ever fully recovered once they got back to their nostalgic formula. So, what would have been a better plan for the Boys in 1966? We can only speculate. Brian's progressive music was amazing, but perhaps it wasn't for the Boys and their fans. Obviously, the band wasn't 100% behind it and that did some degree of damage. Maybe Brian should have gone solo with it, or farmed it out to another group (with him producing, of course)? And meanwhile he could produce more Beach Boys-y music with his family, having them share in the writing, arranging, etc (which eventually happened anyway). Just some thoughts..... I like the Coke analogy, and honestly didn't realize Coke II existed as long as it did. While I think most of us here enjoy the albums Wild Honey and Friends, I'm not sure if they were strong enough to rally the record buying public around The Beach Boys and give them that big Coca Cola Classic moment.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 31, 2022 18:17:54 GMT
It still puzzles me that the Beatles could go from Chuck Berry/Carl Perkins style rock and roll to other things and never lose their audience. People say "that's because they were just so darn great!", but do we not believe our Boys were just as great? To go from Love Me Do to Eleanor Rigby in just four years is mindblowing. But the Beach Boys can't go from Surfin' to Surf's Up? BTW, I'm a Pepsi drinker, and I thought New Coke tasted like Pepsi. So there was no reason to buy it - but I did buy it occasionally as a novelty. Anyone remember what year it was pulled from the shelves? According to Wiki, Coke II was discontinued permanently in 2002. I would have guessed 1987, maybe 1988! I remember seeing both on the shelves for a little while, but I can't remember the last time I noticed "New Coke." 2002!? Amazing.
|
|