|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 5, 2021 19:20:27 GMT
But (and now I'm at risk of repeating myself) they couldn't or didn't decide any of those things, or correct those mistakes. So that's really my whole argument: let them split, let them go their own ways, and let them decide whether the grass was greener. I think we'd all have been better off in the long run, including the Beach Boys brand.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 5, 2021 19:24:33 GMT
When you think about, it really is hard to believe that there was never really a moment in time since late 1961 that some version of The Beach Boys didn't exist (except maybe a brief period before Mike got the touring rights in 1998). No break ups. No self imposed hiatuses.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Oct 5, 2021 19:45:02 GMT
When you think about, it really is hard to believe that there was never really a moment in time since late 1961 that some version of The Beach Boys didn't exist (except maybe a brief period before Mike got the touring rights in 1998). No break ups. No self imposed hiatuses. I think they were too obsessed with the money. Their lifestyles, unfortunately, depended on it. They had no other ways of generating income. They needed that constant flow of $$$$$$$$$$ FROM TOURING AS The Beach Boys. Oh, they could - and did - stop recording for long periods of time. But, touring, no. And, look at their solo efforts. Not a lot of money made there.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 5, 2021 19:50:58 GMT
Just imagine if they would have had a comeback/reunion in, say, 1995. Around the Eagles' reunion tour time frame. Imagine it had been about 20 years of solo projects, other bands, etc. Imagine the money they could have made with that.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 5, 2021 19:51:25 GMT
When you think about, it really is hard to believe that there was never really a moment in time since late 1961 that some version of The Beach Boys didn't exist (except maybe a brief period before Mike got the touring rights in 1998). No break ups. No self imposed hiatuses. I think they were too obsessed with the money. Their lifestyles, unfortunately, depended on it. They had no other ways of generating income. They needed that constant flow of $$$$$$$$$$ FROM TOURING AS The Beach Boys. Oh, they could - and did - stop recording for long periods of time. But, touring, no. And, look at their solo efforts. Not a lot of money made there. And, that goes back to poor management. Granted, I know very little about their finances, but I'd think they could've done some creative branding to keep the income flowing rather than playing show after show after show.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 12, 2021 23:15:00 GMT
This just struck me and I'll admit it's not necessarily my opinion. Not really. But what the hell, it's something I might argue for fun. So...
The Beach Boys' career, however flawed fans tend to see and describe it, went just about as well as (or even better than) anyone could have reasonably expected it might, even making those predictions as late as "Good Vibrations."
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Oct 12, 2021 23:39:24 GMT
This just struck me and I'll admit it's not necessarily my opinion. Not really. But what the hell, it's something I might argue for fun. So...
The Beach Boys' career, however flawed fans tend to see and describe it, went just about as well as (or even better than) anyone could have reasonably expected it might, even making those predictions as late as "Good Vibrations."
Boy, what a topic this could be.
OK, simply, coming from a long-time diehard who lived through close to 50 years of The Beach Boys' career, and who researched it about as much as is humanly possible, I would describe it in two words - disappointing and tragic. The Beach Boys set standards for dysfunction that will never be equaled. Keeping in mind the abusive family relationships they experienced as children, one could/would/should expect...problems. However, this band exceeded what anybody's predictions could've been as far as problems go, and most were brought on by the individuals themselves. Out of 60 years, how many were successful (however you want to define "successful"). And, how long has it been since they were actually...happy...as The Beach Boys? 1966?
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Oct 13, 2021 0:28:36 GMT
This just struck me and I'll admit it's not necessarily my opinion. Not really. But what the hell, it's something I might argue for fun. So...
The Beach Boys' career, however flawed fans tend to see and describe it, went just about as well as (or even better than) anyone could have reasonably expected it might, even making those predictions as late as "Good Vibrations."
Good luck making that argument, Kapitan! Considering Brian’s trajectory from ”Surfin’” through “Good Vibrations” (as an all-around record maker) and the near-identical trajectory of their critical and commercial fortunes, I just don’t think you could reasonably predict, circa 1966, the trajectories that followed. Things certainly could have been expected to be a little better. At some later point, though, I think you could make that argument pretty convincingly. Edit: The big thing is - Brian’s problems hadn’t gotten in the way of his record making yet. Once that becomes apparent, “your” argument gets much stronger, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 13, 2021 12:14:44 GMT
This just struck me and I'll admit it's not necessarily my opinion. Not really. But what the hell, it's something I might argue for fun. So...
The Beach Boys' career, however flawed fans tend to see and describe it, went just about as well as (or even better than) anyone could have reasonably expected it might, even making those predictions as late as "Good Vibrations."
I would actually agree with this, especially since the GV single predates the non release of Smile. There are great bands who would've killed to have the run The Beach Boys had from 1962-1966 (I usually refer to 1963-66 as their peak "classic era," but they did have some hits in 1962).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 13, 2021 12:54:55 GMT
With a few initial reactions noted, I thought I ought to at least try to make the case to “my” opinion.
I first and foremost want to emphasize exactly what I said, which is that you could argue the Beach Boys’ career went about as well as could reasonably have been expected by someone predicting right up through “Good Vibrations.”
Obviously, that moment is when the band’s career generally turned south, with both artistic and commercial highs and lows over the next 55 years. So how can I say it couldn’t reasonably have been expected to go better than it did?
Well, in 1966, do you think many fans—or even the Beach Boys themselves—thought they would still be a powerful draw in 2021? That they would have fans continuing to turn out to see two related groups on the road in theaters, at festivals and fairgrounds, and even in large venues (a la during C50)? When rock and roll was still considered kid stuff, it seems unlikely that much of anyone would have suspected this group could have a career capable of sustaining itself for another five-plus decades.
What’s more, it isn’t as if they barely kept it going that whole time. Consider that after that dividing line previously drawn, they had: - 18 new studio albums, not including live albums, hits compilations, or novelty (e.g. Stack o Tracks, Royal Philharmonic Orchestra) albums. All but two of these albums were on major labels. - 8 of those 18 reached the Top 50 in the Billboard charts; another 4 charted between 51-100. One went platinum and another went gold. - One of their live albums reached #25 and went gold. - 14 Top 40 singles - Another 14 singles charted 41-100.
Think about that! A group that inarguably—yes, inarguably: nobody is disputing the decline!—past its prime has another 14 legitimate hits, still another 14 “minor hits,” more than a dozen albums of which two were inarguably hits and eight were at least moderate hits.
That, I think, warrants status as “better than could reasonably have been expected” of a pop-rock band on the decline. How many of their 1960s competitors managed anything remotely close? A few, sure. But not many!
Where I suspect there would be hang-ups is with this: but it could have gone better; there were so many mistakes! And, well, I agree. But I didn’t say it went perfectly! Obviously, there is a huge difference between a perfect, or even a near-perfect, career on one hand, and “better than reasonably could have been expected” on the other. And I am only talking about the latter. Sure, had the stars aligned, had everyone made perfectly reasonable decisions along the way, had personalities not clashed, had people not grown apart, had drugs and mental health problems not gotten in the way, had everyone been aligned in purpose—had all those things been true—it could have gone better.
But what would make a person expect that kind of dream scenario? In pop music, the most likely scenario is failure sooner than later. Even the most famous acts usually fall out of fashion in the best-case scenario, and often are marred by tragedy besides. There aren’t many 60-year careers at all, much less profitable ones.
Hence my argument.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 13, 2021 12:57:50 GMT
Ah, I obviously misunderstood your post.
I'd probably still agree with it overall.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Oct 13, 2021 13:27:10 GMT
I first and foremost want to emphasize exactly what I said, which is that you could argue the Beach Boys’ career went about as well as could reasonably have been expected by someone predicting right up through “Good Vibrations.” Yes, I'll give you that. For those four years (1963-66), their career went about as well as could be expected. However, there were still some glitches. David Marks got booted out of the band. Brian was taking LSD and an assortment of other drugs which I think significantly contributed to his mental problems, and ultimately he left the road. And, Mike was becoming frustrated with the coming and going of guest lyricists. But, yes, Brian's music took the band to incredible heights, obviously exceeding expectations from a teenage surf band from Hawthorne.
Overall - and I also wasn't sure if we were to look at the entire career - the disappointing years far outweigh the successful ones, IMHO. And, I can't fight the feeling. Despite the enjoyment I've gotten from the many concerts I've attended (well over 30) and the occasional later-period albums which have their moments, I always seem to arrive at the same conclusion. The Beach Boys were one of the great (and I don't mean that in a positive way) woulda/shoulda/coulda groups. And, I know it sounds harsh, but their story, to me, is a tragedy. A human tragedy.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 13, 2021 13:32:15 GMT
I first and foremost want to emphasize exactly what I said, which is that you could argue the Beach Boys’ career went about as well as could reasonably have been expected by someone predicting right up through “Good Vibrations.” Yes, I'll give you that. For those four years (1963-66), their career went about as well as could be expected. However, there were still some glitches. David Marks got booted out of the band. Brian was taking LSD and an assortment of other drugs which I think significantly contributed to his mental problems, and ultimately he left the road. And, Mike was becoming frustrated with the coming and going of guest lyricists. But, yes, Brian's music took the band to incredible heights, obviously exceeding expectations from a teenage surf band from Hawthorne.
Overall - and I also wasn't sure if we were to look at the entire career - the disappointing years far outweigh the successful ones, IMHO. And, I can't fight the feeling. Despite the enjoyment I've gotten from the many concerts I've attended (well over 30) and the occasional later-period albums which have their moments, I always seem to arrive at the same conclusion. The Beach Boys were one of the great (and I don't mean that in a positive way) woulda/shoulda/coulda groups. And, I know it sounds harsh, but their story, to me, is a tragedy. A human tragedy.
They had a lot of bumps along the road, most of which self inflicted. But, aside from losing Dennis and Carl, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to label their story a "tragedy."
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 13, 2021 13:37:11 GMT
Oh, I think the years up to '66 were FAR, FAR, FAR better than anyone could have reasonably expected. Again, not perfect, but much closer to it than the years to follow.
My original point/argument is meant to span the whole career, where it obviously could be argued either way (and I took the angle I did mostly for the sake of argument/discussion). But as for the first years? I think it would take serious balls to argue that they didn't live up to reasonable expectations up to '66! I mean, my god...
|
|