WHAT FRANK IS LISTENING TO

Cats and pigeons …

Warning … generalisations abound. I acknowledge there are always exceptions but for the purpose of this comment, generalisations abound … read on …

The Beach Boys were what they call in the United States a “working band”. Music in America has largely been a job. From Elvis trying to escape his poverty, every other Afro-American jazz musician trying to escape the ghetto and every kid from the Midwest or California trying to escape the mundanity of their surrounds.  If “art”  intersects with the “job” then all that much more better.

Maybe the Americans feel comfortable with rock music. After all they invented rock music (and jazz and country etc) so they have nothing to prove. Subconsciously this must have a affect on the musician. If I was the only white kid on stage at a reggae club in Jamaica I would feel the pressure. No? Maybe this “comfort” as a musician lends itself to treating music as a job. Whereas being “uncomfortable” lends itself to hiding behind “art”?

Maybe “art” cannot be the same as a job. Artists are supposed to make money aren’t they ?

Whether a “job” in music is something specific to the American culture or whether it be the result of subservience to the dominant paradigm in advanced capitalism I leave for the sociologists to work out. I have noticed though that American bands seem less concerned with art and more concerned with entertaining their audience as opposed to their English counterparts. Whether you think the band is entertaining or not depends on your taste in music but American bands always put on a show whereas English bands seem to be playing for themselves. I say here this is a generalisation (I warned you) and examples contrary to what I have said can be found on both sides of the fence.

Putting on a show doesn’t mean star jumps or somersaults, but obviously it can (especially in American rock) but it does mean playing for the audience and giving them their money’s worth. Perhaps the putting on of a show is not about “the love of music” but about this giving the people their money’s worth. And this goes to the heart of America – the classless, egalitarian society (in philosophy not practice) where all people are equal and money is the tool by which commodities and services are exchanged. This is quite different to the class riddled societies of old Europe. Of course I know that America in the “pure form” I have just described doesn’t exist, but I think even the residuals from such beliefs is perhaps what makes American bands more “working bands”.

Working bands of course are not supposed to be “artistic” and perhaps that’s why it seems that English bands are usually elevated to the level of artists whereas American acts aren’t. It is also perhaps why the music intelligentsia usually dismiss American bands for English bands, or at the very least, regional bands for those from NYC, the only place in the USA which creates art apparently. Oddly, amongst music fans, the biggest music snobs,  pretentious turds, vogue-y poseurs and wanking dogs in the US tend to be Anglophiles outside of NYC. Go figure.

Interestingly the musical intelligentsia in rock music did not exist before the 60s as prior to that it was largely a working class and regional music. It was the generation of middle class university kids in the 60s who were not into folk or jazz who elevated rock to an artistic form. And it is an artistic form, but not one based on the pretensions and conceits of the musical intelligentsia but rather something akin to a “folk art” or “popular art”.

Can your music have a message – sure. Can it be “artistic” – whatever that is – sure. But the message is part of the job and not a calling. You still have to eat. I’m not sure if I would trust someone who says they despise money and the comfort it brings.

And this type of popular art only survives through working for money not through government grants, music schools and private patronage. So I suspect if you are a working band you have to … errr … work. You cant sit around and wait for inspiration to bite you.

How else can you explain Elvis turning out one soundtrack after another, later Dylan putting out albums year after year without allowing his songwriting skills to rejuvenate or The Beach Boys putting out an album of covers at a point in their career when they didn’t have to,  and probably shouldn’t have?

 

Having said that, in feel, this LP is not greatly different to the successful up-tempo acoustic live albums of Johnny Rivers (“Live at the Whiskey A Go-Go“ from 1964 (#12) and others) or Trini Lopez (Live at PJ.s“ (#2) from 1963 and others) … both very popular, both LA based, and both underrated. I suspect the Beach Boys or at least some music executives were savvy enough to think it may work again. The whole “acoustic live in a club” thing was big in Los Angeles (the underrated Lee Dresser also put out an album – see what Frank is listening to #56 as did Billy Lee Riley and others).

A cynic would say they were all “chasing a buck” and a good argument could be made for that but equally it could be said that these artists looked upon music as their job even though in all their cases art intersected with their work more often than not.

Sorry I’ve been on a roll. The comments here are not fully formed and maybe too verbose for a “what Frank is listening to” comment. For the cultural relevance of rock go read Greil Marcus, Nic Tosches, Dave Marsh, Peter Guralnick, Lester Bangs and others .

This lengthy intro, though, goes someway to my answering the question above  … “How else do you explain The Beach Boys putting out an album of covers at a point in career when they didn’t have to and probably shouldn’t have”

Do we need a Beach Boys bio?

Probably yes

wikipedia: “The Beach Boys are an American rock band, formed in 1961, who gained popularity for their close vocal harmonies and lyrics reflecting a Southern California youth culture of cars, surfing, and romance. Brian Wilson’s growing creative ambitions later transformed them into a more artistically innovative group that earned critical praise and influenced many later musicians…The group was initially composed of singer-musician-composer Brian Wilson, his brothers, Carl and Dennis, their cousin Mike Love, and friend Al Jardine. This core quintet was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Class of 1988…The Beach Boys have often been called “America’s Band”, and Allmusic has stated that “the band’s unerring ability… made them America’s first, best rock band.” The group has had thirty-six U.S. Top 40 hits (the most of any U.S. rock band) and fifty-six Hot 100 hits, including four number-one singles. Rolling Stone magazine listed The Beach Boys as number 12 in the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time. According to Billboard, in terms of singles and album sales, The Beach Boys are the No.-1-selling American band of all time”.

For a time in the 60s the Beach Boys were the Beatles only rivals in music. Indeed with hindsight it seems pretty clear that up to 1967 The Beatles were playing catch up with The Beach Boys. Every innovation by The Beach Boys was matched within a year by the Beatles. Without The Beach Boys (and Bob Dylan) as influences The Beatles probably would have looked like a more successful version of The Dave Clark Five or The Searchers. This may be heresy to some ears but McCartney and Lennon have said as much. Where The Beatles succeeded and the Beach Boys failed could be a mix of the following Beatles attributes …

The Beatles:

• managed to secure the musical intelligentsia in 1966/1967 (hey they are English) just at the time The Beach Boys were imploding emotionally – Brian’s “quirkiness”, “constant touring” etc were taking their toll;
• were not as quirky or ill disciplined as the Beach Boys (more specifically Brian);
• did not stop having hits,
• were savvy with what sounds were around;
• had a record label (the same mother company as the Beach Boys) that treated them better … perhaps because they were in England and working with a “respected” composer/producer like George Martin;
• did not put out distinctly individual material at inopportune moments.

 

The Beach Boys had just released two transitional and seminal albums in early 1965 (“Today” and “Summer Days (and Summer Nights)”) and had been writing their own material (mainly) since their first album in 1962. To do an album of late-50s early-60s vocal group hits as well as recent hits done in a late-50s vocal group style is just too post modern.

By all counts the critics hated this attempted career suicide. But the album was a hit in both the US and England. No doubt such crass commercial success was another slap in the face of “serious” music listeners and the critics.

No one could knock back the genius that followed in “Pet Sounds” but after that the Beach Boys (especially Brian’s) quirkiness was held against them and they were successfully marginalised by the serious rock establishment. You can‘t have serious rock artists with something to say doing old 50s songs … well not till John Lennon did it later. Then it was OK.

Why do it?

“Party” was their eleventh album in three years. Did I mention they are a “working band”?  In rock only Elvis could match this output.

It seems that their record label were pestering them for a release. Brian needed time to work on what became “Pet Sounds” so this album was thought up and released.

Allmusic, “Packaged as if it had been recorded at an actual party, it was in fact recorded in the studio, with friends and romantic partners adding sounds and vocals to create an informal atmosphere. With the exception of a bass guitar, all the instruments were acoustic; the acoustic guitar-and-bongo arrangements, in fact, give this a hootenanny campfire feel”.

Brian Wilson produced this and all the trademark Beach Boys traits are apparent whilst the use of acoustic instruments accentuates the harmonies. And, when you think of it as a full acoustic rock album then you realise it was quite novel in 1965. If it hadn’t been done in the studio it may have amounted to the first “unplugged” (As it was the first was probably Elvis’ sit down acoustic live shows as included (in part) in the “68 Comeback Special” album).

In any event this is pure pop rock …

Tracks (best in italics)

• Hully Gully – Fred Smith/Cliff Goldsmith – vocals: Mike Love – the Boys probably know the Olympics version from 1960 (#72) given they were a doo wop vocal group of the kind directly influential on the Beach Boys.
• I Should Have Known Better – John Lennon/Paul McCartney – vocals: Carl Wilson/Al Jardine – the original Beatles song from 1964 (#53) is a killer of course (their earlier work is more fun than most of their later work) but the Beach Boys harmonies really bring out the pop in the melody and the pop in the melody really brings out the cleverness in the lyric (post comment note – I can’t get the tune out of my head and I keep humming it in the Beach Boys way).
• Tell Me Why – Lennon/McCartney – vocals: Jardine/C. Wilson – another excellent early Beatles track (1964) – ditto to the above and very much suited to the Beach Boys given that John here was trying to sound like a New York girl group.
• Papa-Oom-Mow-Mow – Carl White/Al Frazier/Sonny Harris/Turner Wilson Jr. – vocals: Brian Wilson/Love – the excellent doo wop / R&B song by The Rivingtons from 1962 (#48)given the fun treatment …
• Mountain of Love – Harold Dorman – vocals:Love – the Harold Dorman track from 1960 (#21) … Johnny Rivers had a #7 hit with it in 1964.
• You’ve Got to Hide Your Love Away – Lennon/McCartney – vocals: Dennis Wilson – the third Beatles track (1965) and to my taste the weakest of the three here ( John was trying to do Dylan on the original).
• Devoted to You – Boudleaux Bryant – vocals: Love/B. Wilson -the song most associated with The Everly Brothers from 1958 and a #10 hit for them. Romantic mush it is … but hey, it’s pretty.
• Alley Oop – Dallas Frazier – vocals: Mike Love -The Hollywood Argyles has a #1 US hit with this in 1960.
• There’s No Other (Like My Baby) – Phil Spector/Leroy Bates – vocals:  B. Wilson – A hit for the Crystals (#20 1961).
• Medley: I Get Around/Little Deuce Coupe – Brian Wilson/Mike Love/Roger Christian – vocals: Love/Bruce Johnston – The Beach Boys do themselves.
• The Times They Are a-Changin’ – Bob Dylan – vocals:  Al Jardine – an anomaly here – Dylan’s writing was certainly influential but his “sound” is not what they were after. I suspect either the Peter Paul and Mary or Simon and Garfunkel versions both from 1964 might have had a bearing on their cover …
• Barbara Ann – Fred Fassert – vocals: B. Wilson/Dean Torrence – The Regents had a #13 with this in 1961. Dean Torrence from Jan & Dean actually guests on this. A most catchy song.

 

 

Is this album ill-conceived – yes. This is career credibility suicide

But it’s still great and if you don’t believe me, then get it, make yourself a pina colada (make sure you add the little umbrella), put the LP on, sit down and get with the groove.

Most importantly, though, this LP gave Brian time to work on his masterpiece “Pet Sounds”.

So, this is a better than good album but it certainly did not win the group any friends with the critics or tastemakers. “Pet Sounds” was considered to be an aberration and for the rest of their career they were marginalised as a “serious” act worthy of critical “respect”. The Beatles did not make a wrong step and broke up at the right time. Their dominance was accordingly assured and the Beach Boys were relegated to a golden oldies surf band for a long time.

I like this album and I’m keeping it … ( and yes I had it on CD 2fer with the equally ill-conceived “Stack-O-Tracks”, which is up there with Elvis’ all talking album).

If you aren’t a Beach Boys fan don’t start with this obviously. 

• I am not trying to rewrite history and the Beatles position in history is assured. If anything else, apart from the comments, should be taken away from this increasingly long essay, is that the Beatles, like Elvis, Dylan and others, did not exist in vacuums and did take influence and inspiration from others.