Jump to content


Surfs Up, guys, grab your boards


anotherrealfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

May 21 - The Beach Boys

Rocking all the way from Southern California with vocal melodies reflecting surfing, cars and romance, The Beach Boys were signed to Capital Records more than five decades ago, gaining popularity across the U.S. in the 1960s. With major hits like "Good Vibrations," "I Get Around" and "Surfin' USA" just to name a few, The Beach Boys have been referred to as "America's Band" by the National Review magazine. The group has had 36 United States Top 40 hits which is the most by an American rock band and 56 Hot 100 hits, including four number-one singles. Rolling Stone magazine listed The Beach Boys at number 12 on their 2004 list of the "100 Greatest Artists of All Time" with Pet Sounds being the number 2 on the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list. Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988, the surviving members of The Beach Boys (Brian Wilson, Mike Love, Alan Jardine, and Bruce Johnston) are performing in venues and on tours across the globe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


May 21 - The Beach Boys

Rocking all the way from Southern California with vocal melodies reflecting surfing, cars and romance, The Beach Boys were signed to Capital Records more than five decades ago, gaining popularity across the U.S. in the 1960s. With major hits like "Good Vibrations," "I Get Around" and "Surfin' USA" just to name a few, The Beach Boys have been referred to as "America's Band" by the National Review magazine. The group has had 36 United States Top 40 hits which is the most by an American rock band and 56 Hot 100 hits, including four number-one singles. Rolling Stone magazine listed The Beach Boys at number 12 on their 2004 list of the "100 Greatest Artists of All Time" with Pet Sounds being the number 2 on the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list. Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988, the surviving members of The Beach Boys (Brian Wilson, Mike Love, Alan Jardine, and Bruce Johnston) are performing in venues and on tours across the globe.

 

 

Shouldn't he be pitching? :shifty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yawn.

 

Love the Beach Boys from the 60's. These are not those Beach Boys. This is less interesting to me than Beatles Tribute.

 

I will never pay money to see someone who was associated with "Kokomo."

 

You're the second worst.

 

The Mike Love and Friends Shameless Moneygrubbing Supershow is not something that appeals to me. If Ringo went on Tour with a bunch of nobodies as The Beatles, I wouldn't want to go see that either. And if the show was "Mike Love and Pals" you wouldn't be excited to see it either. He's playing on people's nostalgiac memories of a once great band, but the Beach Boys that will be at the stadium are not the Beach Boys.

 

And Kokomo is absolutely one of the worst songs ever made. Between his involvement in that and his hatred of Smile, Mike Love sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent, I'm going to try my best to be there! Sheesh, people seem to forget that the Beach Boys were the Beatles competition. Historical stuff right there, I'll take my mom since she's such a huge fan.

 

Although she doesn't understand baseball :lol

 

But still, exciting stuff. May never get a chance to see them again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was the most exciting news I had heard all year. May 21st sounded familiar though, and then I realized it is going to be my wedding night.

 

I know the PERFECT place for your reception!

 

If I were gonna be in the Miami area, I'd try and find a way to swing it, believe me. As it is, I'm disappointed that we'll be taking a delayed honeymoon up north and yet our trip won't coincide with any Marlin's road dates so I couldn't weave them in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sheesh, people seem to forget that the Beach Boys were the Beatles competition.

 

If you think this is why I'm not interested in seeing them, you couldn't be more wrong.

 

Who said I was just talkin bout choo?

 

Well, I was the only one who said anything negative.

 

And really, what you said wasn't entirely accurate. The Beach Boys have maybe one or two albums that competed with the Beatles. Brian Wilson went crazy and Mike Love almost left the group when they tried to keep up with the Beatles. They failed pretty miserably in their competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I was the only one who said anything negative.

 

And really, what you said wasn't entirely accurate. The Beach Boys have maybe one or two albums that competed with the Beatles. Brian Wilson went crazy and Mike Love almost left the group when they tried to keep up with the Beatles. They failed pretty miserably in their competition.

 

 

Well hurr durr The Beatles are arguably the greatest band of all time with their revolutionary work, success, hype, and whatnot.

 

Take a course on rock and roll history, there's plenty of it. The Beach Boys were indeed the American counterpart to the Beatles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ehe, someone trying to teach me about the history of rock music, specifically with how it relates to the Beatles' place in music. Super ehe.

 

You want a course on rock and roll history? Come to my house and check out my record collection. :)

 

I'm not really disparaging what the Beach Boys did in the mid-60's. They were as good as anyone. This performance is not the Beach Boys. It's a lame attempt to hang onto a brand by a guy who would struggled to play Gulfstream park for free if not for that brand name attached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, so apparently knowledge of music history comes by owning a record collection.

 

What is an 'ehe'?

 

If you want to make your point on this not being the Beach Boys, fine.

 

Don't get mad when you get corrected when you're the one who said "They failed pretty miserably in their competition."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really shouldn't this act be called the "Beach Boy"?, why not just hire Peter Tork and sell it as the Monkees?!?! or Monkee....

 

 

:lol :lol :lol

 

Exactly.

 

I grew up with the Beach Boys, Beatles and the (contrived studio concoction) Monkees. I was 12 years old when the Beatles hit the Ed Sullivan show, it was a big deal. Not to me, but all the girls thought so. I'd have rather been at a Twins game at the old Met.

 

Although it would probably be immeasurably better than some ridiculous rap crap or gawd knows what else constitutes contemporary "music," I still wouldn't pay a nickel to see some worn-out, warmed over, half-assed shadow of a former Beach Boy or even two or three of 'em. I didn't particularly care at the time and I sure as hell don't care now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the Beach Boys last year at the Trop. Original members they are not, although as a legitimate musician and historian I actually really enjoyed seeing Bruce Johnston. But they still played a lot of really enjoyable music, it was a really fun show. It's definitely one of the most enjoyable sets I've ever seen live, and I've been to a lot of live shows.

 

Ok, now everyone can go back to bashing the Beach Boys because its cool, or because they despite Mike Love because he ruined Smile (which he probably did, but he was also right about the Beach Boys' commercial success going down the tube as well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get mad when you get corrected when you're the one who said "They failed pretty miserably in their competition."

 

 

Ehe. You're the one who told me the "take a rock and roll history course." I highly doubt there's anything I could learn from you about rock and roll history. Sorry.

 

Nobody competed with the Beatles.

 

You didn't correct anybody.

 

You said they were the Beatles' competition. For maybe one album, that was kind of true. Pet Sounds is certainly a great album. It's on par with a number of Beatles' albums. But as a whole, the Beach Boys didn't compete with the Beatles any more than The Doors competed with the Beatles. They didn't.

 

There were plenty of popular bands in America during the 1960's. None came close to the Beatles' record sales or influence. The Beach Boys were a speck in the Beatles' wake. To put them in opposition to the Beatles is unfair to the Beach Boys. By any measure, they don't come close to the Beatles. They were not the Beatles competition. They were one of a number of artists who vied for a distant 2nd behind the Beatles.

 

They "competed" with the Beatles the same way Emilio Bonifacio "competes" with Hanley Ramirez. Boner is enjoyable in his own right, but by no measure is he even in the discussion with the Hanley Ramirez.

 

And furthermore, these aren't even the f***ing Beach Boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ehe, someone trying to teach me about the history of rock music, specifically with how it relates to the Beatles' place in music. Super ehe.

 

You want a course on rock and roll history? Come to my house and check out my record collection. :)

 

I'm not really disparaging what the Beach Boys did in the mid-60's. They were as good as anyone. This performance is not the Beach Boys. It's a lame attempt to hang onto a brand by a guy who would struggled to play Gulfstream park for free if not for that brand name attached.

 

I don't know how they will sound relative to the original but many groups still using the original name have maybe only one or two original members. Heck, was it last year we saw the misfortune of Lou Gramm, originally of foreigner. He was a disaster. But Foreigner is again packing arenas with Kelly Hansen as lead and only Mick Jones is an original, and they sound better. Even more recent groups go through changes in their lineup. These old groups are great for nostalgia and if they can get close to sounding original, it is fun. I don't want to trot out a group with four 70 year old performers anyway.

 

The point is that the concert is not the main attraction, the game is, but if the concert is one that entertains, even better. My daughters, both in their 20's, are looking forward to it. But they also wanted to stay for Pitbull and want to see T-Pain-arrrg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's something I certainly don't like. Bands that shuffle members.

 

At the same time, I respect it when it is a legacy you speak of. But the whole crap about having a million different members and running by the same name doesn't pass by me. That's why I have all due respect for Bon Jovi who still to this day regards Hugh McDonald as an unofficial member if I'm not mistaken.

 

But in a legacy style, when it's not just for money (even though money is always included), I can respect it. Fans want to hear The Who, despite Keith Moon being dead for 30-some odd years now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ehe. You're the one who told me the "take a rock and roll history course." I highly doubt there's anything I could learn from you about rock and roll history. Sorry.

 

 

:thumbdown Way to either

 

a - be entirely full of yourself

 

or

 

b - discredit me for no apparent reason

 

 

Nobody competed with the Beatles.

 

You didn't correct anybody.

 

You said they were the Beatles' competition. For maybe one album, that was kind of true. Pet Sounds is certainly a great album. It's on par with a number of Beatles' albums. But as a whole, the Beach Boys didn't compete with the Beatles any more than The Doors competed with the Beatles. They didn't.

 

 

Nobody competed with the Beatles. Hold on, let me deliver that message to bands like The Rolling Stones, The Byrds, or The Who. They'll be glad to hear it.

 

Nobody's legacy competes with the Beatles. The notion that nobody competed with The Beatles is absurd. Yeah, of course they were the top dog. You clearly do need a course on Rock history considering The Doors prominence was quite short lived and came about 6 years after the Beatles.

 

Yes, for a small period of time they were indeed rivals to the Beatles. During of course, Pet Sounds. They fell from the top pretty quickly, but they were indeed there and they were hardly a form of one hit wonder considering the fact that they've spewed countless top-40 hits over the decades.

 

There were plenty of popular bands in America during the 1960's. None came close to the Beatles' record sales or influence. The Beach Boys were a speck in the Beatles' wake. To put them in opposition to the Beatles is unfair to the Beach Boys. By any measure, they don't come close to the Beatles. They were not the Beatles competition. They were one of a number of artists who vied for a distant 2nd behind the Beatles.

 

They "competed" with the Beatles the same way Emilio Bonifacio "competes" with Hanley Ramirez. Boner is enjoyable in his own right, but by no measure is he even in the discussion with the Hanley Ramirez.

 

And furthermore, these aren't even the f***ing Beach Boys.

 

 

There's really no point in arguing this because clearly after that you're just sticking the Beatles as sole top dogs. Music never has and never will be that way. And you're clearly looking at the Beatles legacy, as opposed to their history. Of course they're hundreds times better than so many of the 'popular' bands over the decades in terms of sales and influence. The Beatles watched their competition come and go in the form of bands like The Beach Boys.

 

No, they didn't compete with the Bealtes like Bonifacio competes with Hanley Ramirez. They were the Sammy Sosa's 1998 to Mark McGwire's 1998 season during their Pet Sounds era. You seem to be acting as if I'm saying The Beach Boys were just as good as The Beatles, and I never once said that.

 

But that's fine, they're not even in the same conversation :rolleyes: Yeah, not in the grand scheme of things they're not. But once upon a time they were. You do need a lesson on music history, because all you're doing is comparing legacies as opposed to what was actually happening the late 1960s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was actually happening in the mid to late 60's Was that the Beatles Were selling 1 million copies of Rubber Soul in a week and a half, while Pet Sounds peaked at #10 on the charts.

 

Whether you want to base it on their long term legacy or short term impact and sales, they don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

They were a great band; isn't that enough? You do a disservice to them by comparing them to the Beatles. Even at the time, the Beatles loomed larger over everyone else. They were a cultural phenomenon; that's not based on their long term legacy. Their long term legacy is based on how monumentally gigantic they were in the 1960's.

 

The Rolling Stones are really the only band that can lay any claim to have competed with the Beatles on any level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well obviously The Rolling Stones indeed competed. It's the reason why you have 'Beatles type bands' and 'Stones type bands' during that time. They were the counterforce.

 

bob as much as you're no fun to argue with I at least commend your efforts to not turning this into a pissing battle because quite honestly I thought I'd come back here to a wall of text that I simply just didn't want to read.

 

I think we can settle this by saying U2 is the greatest band of all time. Fair enough? Court is adjourned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...