 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.235.144.165
In Reply to: You're both right; besides, tinear is apparently posting a quote. posted by Audiophilander on February 22, 2007 at 08:13:49:
Pat Boone were in the late sixties, early seventies.
Surf music was cool. So was Dixieland.
The Beach Boys conservatism was only Mike Love? Gimme a break. The band went along. They played at Vet affairs and refused to participate in many larger "peace" concerts.
It's a good thing they did, too.
They'd of been laughed off the stage.
You know those guys you see around S. California with the old surf boards and the spaced out eyes? That's how relevant the BBs were.
Hell, surf music was an asterisk, anyhow.
The Beatles pulled the toilet chain on that kind of music and thank God!
Imagine listening to that and "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" and "The Duke of Earl" for the next ten years.
Christ.
Follow Ups:
The Beach Boys did a total of 2 surf albums, if memory serves me: Surfing Safari and Surfing USA. From the Today album, Brians songwriting grew exponentially in a VERY short time period. Pigeon hole-ing this band's dozens of albums as a "Surf Band" is not only way off base, it's untrue. Listen to the actual song "Surfs Up" from the album of the same name....it's absolutely brilliant, and has NOTHING to do with "Surfing"
That is actually a traditional South African song. The Duke Of Earl wasn't anywhere near the water and has a solid alibi.
You can actually make a good case for the guitar styles coming from (largely) California in the late 60s being a development of Dick Dale, who was a real surfer, occasionally walking straight from the ocean on to the stage to play to crowds of several thousand at free shows on the beach in LA in the early mid 60s.
He was greatly influenced by middle eastern music and combined with his electric energy, you can almost see the words psychedelic rock written round his halo...
Really, I thought Jimi was just to tight arsed for words when he did that "never hear surf music again" crap. Have you ever actually listened to his early stuff? The stuff on other people's records?
Its not that hot either.
Since you know so much about 'falsetto-singing pussies,' let me ask you a question: Ever done it?Takes BALLS, pal. Big ones. It also requires a more finely tuned affinity for pitch control than if one is singing in a relatively comfortable lower register.
Think about that for a second.
Next, this nonsense about being 'cool.' So what? Either you like the music, or you don't. If the Beatles pulled the chain, as you say, on that kind of music, then what the hell is all that vocal harmony stuff all the hell over Abbey Road about?
Hmmm? Back In The U.S.S.R.?
Yeah, sheer brilliance like Octopus' Garden sure reduced the BBs to dust, now didn't it.
But if you knew what the hell you were talking about, you would've dropped this. Instead you insist on taking it further? Ask John Cale about the BBs' 'cool factor.' I guess you never heard 'Mr. Wilson?' That was from 1974, or around the period you're telling us how uncool the BBs were, and all. And gee, I guess Thurston Moore is just lying through his teeth when he talks about how listening to the Beach Boys was something he did at the same time he was buying the first Stooges & MC5 records. Because they were nothing but a joke on the level of the Tokens, for Pete's sakes.
Politics had nothing to do with any of this, in spite of yr attempts to revise history.
Nothing.
Wenner swallowed the SF jive & was impressed with hippie culture, which was down on the Beach Boys. But, hey, since hippie culture was so cool and all, I guess it's a real put-down to denounce the Beach Boys instead of actually listening to the music.
That it influenced the Beatles as much as it did apparently means nothing to you, either. Hey, there's an idea: these guys wore silly outfits & came from Ozzie & Harriet world, so who cares how much impact they had on the Beatles? That doesn't matter. They were a dusty cliche, like Sinatra, that's all that matters. Hmmm?
If that's supposed to make Friends a bad record you're going to have to do better.
It's like the logic Auph is using to put forth the idea that only the acts that 'adjusted their style to the volatility of the times' survived. He, apparently, has never heard of Elvis Presley or Bob Dylan.
> The Beach Boys conservatism was only Mike Love? Gimme a break. The band went along. They played at Vet affairs and refused to participate in many larger "peace" concerts.What the hell does that have to do with music? Were they supposed to become activists because only the cool musicians did that? Now THAT would've been phony. Carl Wilson put his money where his mouth was, and he did it when the band's decline in popularity had not yet occurred, well prior to major peace rallies & anti-war consciousness. This you call phony.
> It's a good thing they did, too.
They'd of been laughed off the stage.I wouldn't be surprised if the crowds at 'peace' shows would've actually done that. Nothing like laughing at a band that takes on as full-time members, touring and studio, two black guys from apartheid South Africa.
> You know those guys you see around S. California with the old surf boards and the spaced out eyes? That's how relevant the BBs were.Yeah, that's why Pet Sounds is rated as highly as it is. I sure hope you pay a comedy writer for this stuff.
> Hell, surf music was an asterisk, anyhow.The Beach Boys were not surf music. Didn't we go through this once before?
Do you know what surf music is?
As for being 'corporate suck-ups,' it shouldn't surprise anyone that you don't know squat about the band's management, either. Good grief. I guess you'd have preferred it if Murray Wilson hadn't sold the songs for peanuts, or if huge fees weren't commanded by the guy who saved Brian Wilson's life.
Please explain how any musical artist who signs a contract with a record label is not a 'corporate suck-up,' selling their art for profit ?
You take this much too seriously.
Beach Boys are minor musical figures.
Very minor.
Woulda coulda shoulda.
Keith Richards did ten times the dope Brian did and put out 10 albums in the space of time Brian was drooling over himself.
I'd love to compare the sales of Sgt. Peppers to Pet Sounds. Or Magical Mystery Tour. Or. Or. Or.
Dumb public.
"In My Room."
Indeed.
Where do we get these guys like you from? The Beach Boy's weren't cool? Thats your opinion and your certianly entitled to it. Many artists that you would probably think were "cool" are enamoured with Brian Wilson's talent. Some of those would include Sir Paul McCartney, Sir George Martin (who is stunned by the body and quality of Brians work considering that Brian wrote, arranged, produced and sang on most of the bands work, the equivalent of all four Beatle PLUS George Martin), Sir Elton John, Pete Townsend and Roger Daltry of the Who, Eric Clapton, Paul Steel, Sheryl Crow, etc. The list is exhaustive of musicians that don't agree with you. But then, you know more about this than us musicians, right?
Belittle the Beach Boys if you must, but with each & every post you continue to flaunt ignorance, and it's simply unbecoming.Sales figures? You sure you want to go there?
The Beach Boys have sold more records than the Who, more than Johnny Cash, R.E.M., Stevie Wonder, KISS, Neil Young, the Grateful Dead, Bob Marley...I'd go on, but this is meaningless & you know it. The BBs have been outsold by the Beastie Boys, Rush, REO Speedwagon, Vince Gill, Jay-Z, the Carpenters, Boyz II Men, and Barry f*cking Manilow, among others. So what?
It's only out of desperation that you went there in the first place, because you know damn well you've been nailed. You want to post BS? Don't be surprised if someone calls you on it.
> You take this much too seriously.You think?
...but J-bird, you're apparently a bull$#!+ shoveler to boot. It's like you compare apples to oranges and then switch in mid stream to waxing poetic about the health benefits of dingleberries because you're determined to convert folks to the kind of fruit you're most knowedgable about.Early Elvis had great potential and certainly the savvy Colonel found every angle to milk profit from his discovery as effectively as Terry Knight did for GFR. However, in later years Elvis became a campy joke, a revered icon to some who worshiped the legend, regrettably, but to many little more than a reinstone covered shill who went Hollywood and then sold out in Vegas so that middle aged housewives could get giggly over his safe sexual teasing. IMHO, Elvis wasn't even the king of rock 'n' roll even though he managed to acquire the label over time. From that same era Little Richard, Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis have better claim to the title KING of R'n'R.
And if you're saying that Dylan didn't change and was never an anti-war folk artist, ...well, that's just crazy. Dylan adjusted his style constantly, and my point here is that adjusting isn't necessarily trend following, but rather trend setting, whether one is into the trend or not. Dylan constantly adjusted to the volatility of the times, because in times of volatility music lovers often seek experimentation, change and confrontation that results in controversy.
Let me clue you in here dude: next time you say something out your arse about someone's knowledge of music you'd better have something more astute to back it up with besides rhetorical smoke. Your uninformed opinions are getting rather tedious and you still haven't provided the "musical manifesto" you promised but are apparently 'too busy' to edit and post. The world awaits your genius! Don't leave folks hanging; tell us how the music industry REALLY works! ;^)
Cheers,
AuPh
> If you look at the rapidly evolving music scene of the mid-sixties it's clear that those pop groups and individual musicians who were capable of adjusting their styles to the volatility of the times survived and those who didn't became less relevant; it was very Darwinian.Those are yr words, not mine. If Elvis didn't survive, then what of his comeback? Are you going to seriously tell us that a record like Nashville Skyline is an example of how the guy who wrote songs like Masters Of War adapted to the times? Self-Portrait?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You're hysterical.
...obviously he doesn't give a $#!+ now, no more than he did back then (pun intended), and his so-called comeback was arguably marginal from a 'happening' POV (except for those giggly housewives and the mainstream media), and certainly not as vital as other music in the late 60's & early 70's.Furthermore (just to cut the slats out from under your rather trivial argument), one exception, even if it can be adequately defended, doesn't rewrite the rule. In other words, I stand by what I said (quote): "...those pop groups and individual musicians who were capable of adjusting their styles to the volatility of the times survived and those who didn't became less relevant; it was very Darwinian."
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
