It's About Time: Beach Boys Poll Results

iatee, rescue us!

so how do you know that audiences abandoned the Beach Boys then? maybe they didn't.
xp

the charts are just a barometer of what people like, they don't tell you anything about WHY people like them. but you can tell they were abandoned by their audience (at least in the US) because they sold less records.

so are the charts an accurate barometer of what people like or are they total bullshit?

they're both!

yeah although their singles got weirder & less immediate their albums could have sold much better if the rock crowd had embraced them since that was an album buying demo. the singles & albums still sold well in the UK which could come down to better taste but also probably because they didn't seem so "square" in that context.

they're both!

I don't think you can have it both ways

it's like this - the charts reflect what people like. people like things for all kinds of reasons, many of which are bullshit and have nothing to do with a piece of music's formal qualities.

like abe lincoln said, people are stupid some of the time, but they can't be stupid all of the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz0SnpN_O00

^^should been a hit

should *have* durr. i am clearly not one of the smart girls.

I think if we assume that the charts accurately reflect what people like, and then notice that the Beach Boys didn't have a #1 hit between Good Vibrations and Kokomo, it's fair to say that audiences abandoned them for some reason. And it's certainly conceivable that audiences would abandon an artist for non-musical reasons (they're suddenly unhip, etc).

But I think with the benefit of hindsight, we can look back at the context in which a particular single was released and make some reasonable observations as to what type of thing was popular in that moment. And from there I think we can make some relatively educated guesses as to why another song may not have measured up. These aren't absolute formal judgements of quality but are relative to the song's original context. And making that kind of analysis isn't any more of a pointless hypothetical abstraction about the zeitgeist than saying "they were suddenly uncool."

sorry guys was busy

#12

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/Beach_Boys_-_Caroline_No.jpg

Caroline, No - Pet Sounds
302 points, 16 votes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH3IoZ9Y_5w

very odd sleeve there!

very odd (very beautiful) single! did that come out pre or post-Pet Sounds?

love the original speed version, maybe even more than the released version.

It is a beautiful song & it would be even more beautiful without the sax fart about a minute in.

I still voted for it.

Pre-Pet Sounds, and supposedly Capitol cited it's relative failure as a reason to not release the album.

this wouldve been my #1 was wondering how high itd place all week

Yay! My vote for "Summer Means New Love" at least slipped in on the B-side.... (I voted for Caroline, No too, of course - probably my alltime fave album closer.

Didn't know "Caroline, No" was recorded at a different speed - actually, the lower pitch is as noticeable as the speed change. I guess Brian liked the dog barks as they were since I don't hear that portion in the clip.

What was the story behind it being released as a Brian Wilson single instead of the Beach Boys? That couldn't have helped sales, I don't think.

Re: chart success - the nice thing about music that's been around awhile is that time has a way of sorting out the good stuff from the dreck, eventually overriding initial chart placement as a measure of cultural or artistic relevance. A glance at the US pop charts of the mid- to late '60s shows that The Buckinghams, The New Vaudeville Band, John Fred, and Jeannie C. Riley all had #1 hit singles, but how many people are fans of any of them today? Have you even heard of the last two? Conversely, almost nobody bought any records by the Velvet Underground, Big Star, Nick Drake, or the Stooges when they made them, but they all have large followings today with many bands citing them as influences.

supposedly Capitol cited it's relative failure as a reason to not release the album
why would a record label release a solo single as a barometer for how a new album by one of their biggest acts would do? not saying it's not true, just that it doesn't make a lot of sense?

Geir would probably argue that the prevalence of major 7th, additional 9ths, and suspended 4th chords in Add Some Music Make it "more complex" (although from a strictly musical standpoint he would be wrong)

explain?

last one today

#11

http://brianwilsonmusic.tk/xsearch.php?t=R-1603561-1290560139.jpeg

In My Room - Surfer Girl
338 points, 13 votes, two #1 votes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l71pbhqnvNM

i remember being kind of spooked by this song as a 5-6 year old. something scary about it.

Re: chart success - the nice thing about music that's been around awhile is that time has a way of sorting out the good stuff from the dreck, eventually overriding initial chart placement as a measure of cultural or artistic relevance. A glance at the US pop charts of the mid- to late '60s shows that The Buckinghams, The New Vaudeville Band, John Fred, and Jeannie C. Riley all had #1 hit singles, but how many people are fans of any of them today? Have you even heard of the last two? Conversely, almost nobody bought any records by the Velvet Underground, Big Star, Nick Drake, or the Stooges when they made them, but they all have large followings today with many bands citing them as influences.

I think those are two entirely different things. There are fluke one hit wonders for sure. There are also of course overlooked geniuses who don't get the success they deserve until years after the fact. But the Beach Boys clearly don't fall into either category, so it doesn't make sense to pretend like they didn't get a fair shot or something.

Hey guys, for the record Good Vibrations is a better song than Add Some Music To Your Day.

is there really a mystery as to why BBoys were unpopular in the late 60s? just figured they were tied to early, pre-turned on 60s, surfing, no drugs, not progressive (which was obv a misconception, but then none of this is as much to do w/the music as it is shifts in cultural mindset). jimi hendrix calling heroes & villains "psychedelic barbershop" pretty much sums it up i think -- one of their coolest, most out there tunes gets dismissed by a pillar of what *was* cool. and to be fair, musically, jimi hendrix and the beach boys were pretty fucking different, so it's not totally surprising. I also believe that Smile in its original form would have bombed -- there was nothing the Beach Boys could have released in the USA that would have superceded what was in the air.

Also little surprise to see the beach boys make their big comeback in the mid-70s around the same time as the bicentennial.

supposedly Capitol cited it's relative failure as a reason to not release the album
why would a record label release a solo single as a barometer for how a new album by one of their biggest acts would do? not saying it's not true, just that it doesn't make a lot of sense?

...cause they wanted more songs about cars & girls? FWIW, my main basis for this was a scene in the mini-series depicting the famous "silent meeting" Brian had with a Capitol exec (when Brian played his responses via tapedeck). The exec is trying reject Pet Sounds by saying it's too different, and then cites the failure of "Caroline, No" vs. the success of "Barbara Ann" to illustrate how an album of uncharacteristic material in the style of the former was commercial suicide.

I also seem to recall somewhere (not from the movie BTW), that if "Caroline, No" had been a bigger hit, Capitol would have released Pet Sounds as a Brian solo album.

Geir would probably argue that the prevalence of major 7th, additional 9ths, and suspended 4th chords in Add Some Music Make it "more complex" (although from a strictly musical standpoint he would be wrong)

explain?

Geir doesn't understand music theory, or what chords are. He claimed on some other thread (I can't find it at the moment) that a chord with more 5ths or 9ths or whatever was more complex than a major chord. But this is simply wrong - an E major chord can be played on the guitar with 6 notes in it (E, B, E, G#, B and E). By contrast you can play an E9 chord with just five notes (E, G #, B, D, F#). One is not "more complex" than the other, they're just different note combinations.

xp

if "Caroline, No" had been a bigger hit, Capitol would have released Pet Sounds as a Brian solo album.
huh that's interesting. they would've just used the versions with all brian vocals?

thanks, this thread was sorely lacking in a geir-shaped strawman
xp

very odd (very beautiful) single! did that come out pre or post-Pet Sounds?

I think those are two entirely different things. There are fluke one hit wonders for sure.

"In My Room" was in my top 10, and thinking about it now should have been top 5.

My point was, the popularity and cultural sway of 20+ year old music can dramatically rise or fall depending on their quality, elevating music that didn't sell when it was made, and letting go once-popular acts that don't hold up well.

Sure, but I don't really see what that has to do with my argument that the BBs stopped having hits because they stopped writing hits, and not because they fell out of fashion for extramusical reasons.

if "Caroline, No" had been a bigger hit, Capitol would have released Pet Sounds as a Brian solo album.
huh that's interesting. they would've just used the versions with all brian vocals?

I can't find a citation now, but I'd assume the Brain songs would have been retained along with the instrumentals (+ "Trombone Dixie"). I dunno about the other vocals since Brian has said they were tailored for Carl & Mike.

Yeah not really buying that story.

the BBs stopped having hits because they stopped writing hits

this is what's called a tautology

sounds like it, but it's really not

Sure, but I don't really see what that has to do with my argument that the BBs stopped having hits because they stopped writing hits, and not because they fell out of fashion for extramusical reasons.

> the BBs stopped having hits because they stopped writing hits

this is what's called a tautology

"The late-60s material simply isn't as strong or catchy as their pre-'67 hits"

disagree about the strong part, obv not as catchy which is why they stopped having hits. the songs hold up for reasons other than being hooks delivery vehicles

"Jimi Hendrix wasn't super-popular at the time"

maybe, but he was certainly representative of the change in taste that was going on

> the songs hold up for reasons other than being hooks delivery vehicle

Of course. But we're talking here about why they weren't hits at the time, not about how well it holds up. A song without a strong hook isn't as likely to become a hit, because it's less catchy when heard on the radio the first time or two. There tons of good music that wouldn't make good pop songs, or at least likely chartbusting hits. Obviously lots of us, myself included, like the '67 to '73 stuff. But is there anything from that period that's as strong, especially as a pop song, as "California Girls" or "I Get Around" that just is instantaneously memorable, and yet still likeable after many listens, which is what great pop songs need to be? As music, I like Smiley Smile and Friends more than their early surf hits, but as a pop song, nothing from them is as strong as "Fun, Fun, Fun". BTW, only one of my top 10 poll entries was a big hit, so clearly I understand that non-hits can still be more enjoyable to listen to, even if they're not as catchy or hook-ridden.

Hendrix was representative of the change in musical tastes in the late '60s, but the notion that hipsters taking his snub of the Beach Boys as a cue to dismiss the band were a main reason their popularity dropped off doesn't fly. And besides, what's wrong with a psychedelic barbershop quartet? Sounds cool to me!

I never did buy the they-suddenly-became-uncool argument.

yeah, I mean as you pointed out, Gary Pucket and the Union Gap! It's not like it was impossible for totally uncool artists to have big hits in the late '60s/early '70s.

What about a band like Paul Revere & The Raiders? They had a hit with the anti-drug song "Kicks" in 1966. David Crosby "was upset with the success of the song, particularly as it came just after his group's "Eight Miles High" had been boycotted by many U.S. radio stations. Crosby described "Kicks" as "a dumb anti-drug song" that took "a falsely adopted stance." and incidentally "Beach Boys founder Brian Wilson singled out "Kicks" as one his favorites of Terry Melcher's works."

But then they came back and had an even bigger hit in '71 with Indian Reservation.

My own two cents is that public perception has nothing to do with it. If a song is catchy enough, strikes the right note with the public, whatsoever, and gets its chance, then it really trumps everything. Arrangements, lyrics, lifestyle of the performer, etc.

I think there's an easy narrative about the Beach Boys and the late 60s that pop psychologists have long described. But the fact is if they had come out with something on the level of "I Get Around" in 1968, people probably would've bought the shit out of it.

Arrangements, lyrics, lifestyle of the performer, etc., none of that matters so long as the song hits that indefinable spot.

"the notion that hipsters taking his snub of the Beach Boys as a cue to dismiss the band were a main reason their popularity dropped off doesn't fly"

i don't think anyone is doing that, or did that, more like hendrix was reflecting something that was already "in the air"

"especially as a pop song"

yeah, this is the problem, some people on this thread don't really find that so interesting, especially 45+ years later. just reacting to the song and how it moves me, which can be because of a memorable hook, or not