|
Post by ian on Apr 6, 2024 8:30:02 GMT -5
One error I will point out-on page 246 it says Smiley Smile engineer "Stephen Desper"....Let's give credit where it's due--That should be Jim Lockert (though a few of the older tracks were also engineered by Chuck Britz I think) And the quotes juxtaposed with it...give the impression that he was the engineer earlier than he was-he was starting to be involved...but really was not engineer of most of an album till 20/20. Also on page 260-the image of the Beach Boys and Maharishi is not in Paris December 1967 as captioned. It was in the United States the following January-when they convinced Brian to come meet him too. It was taken by Linda Eastman (the future Mrs. McCartney, in NYC).
|
|
|
Post by Rick Bartlett on Apr 6, 2024 10:25:08 GMT -5
edit: Oops! A rant!
Hmmm, sounds like a shakeup is needed at 'Iconic'. Can't they get anything right and represent this band with some 'real' respect? It's just one 'Clusterf@ck' after another. Two messed up box sets, one mediocre Grammy awards presentation with no follow up. It's excuse after excuse and it's not good enough, Sorry! Now.... It's the book. Can't have all the band members names on the cover? The band ends at 1980? Lot's of Rare photos? Ummm not so. No revelatory information? Well, so it's just another BB book like the rest then? A bunch of 'talking heads' that nobody really gives a damn about? So! Why would I want to purchase this book? Poor ol' David Marks. Jon Stebbins spent a whole book bringing Dave back from the dead, only for this 'official' book to once again not even mention his name on the cover? WTF? Don't tell me the reasons why against it!! It's Bullsh!t I've read Howie's reasoning behind it, and it's weak as piss. David Marks is an original Beach Boy, and his name is not on the book! Poor form. It's half assed and I am not happy about it. The dude is on the first 5 and maybe prolific Beach Boys albums, but his name is nowhere on the cover. pffffft!!! This 1980 thing really pisses me off too! Not good enough, I don't care how you slice it up. Howie is missing out on half of the story, and he really doesn't 'get it'. Yes, the band were legends by then, 2nd generation as he says, but that could have ended right there and then, but guess what? They had to make some strategic moves to carry on, and none of that is even a glimpse in the book. They could have very well have folded up, but because it's not documented here, people will not know why they have continued to being the band they are in 2024! 'Iconic' have gutted the band and even the reasons why they have even endured as long again. I'm Sorry, but I'm disgraced by their work. So what's next? Oh yep, the 'new' and informative 'Documentary' on The Beach Boys. Why do I feel the people at 'Iconic' have probably butchered and done a 'Greatest Hits' version on the Beach Boys documentary coming up? I'm sure they've got their 'heads' all teamed up, 'Clapton', 'Springsteen', 'Costello'....? Something fresh and new I bet that hasn't been done to death. I'm hoping at least they kind of push through the years at least until 'TWGMTR', but that's 2012, so I know I'm asking a lot. So far, 'Iconic' have made more of a mess with The Beach Boys catalogue and exposure and they sure haven't moved any mountains in this bands favor as of this far. Silly 'Barbie' rubbish and stupid Youtube film clips to classic songs, crappy AI on 'Sounds of Summer'..... Geez! Two boxsets with horrible mastering's and lack of details/track information. The Grammy Awards show that came and went and disappeared with no follow up. They have a lot to answer for... Oh, I'll pass on the book.
|
|
|
Post by northcoast on Apr 6, 2024 11:03:50 GMT -5
Here are my two cents on the subjugation of David Marks and Fataar/Chaplin. Marks can only talk about the years 1962 and 1963. Fataar and Chaplin come on board in late 1971. Chaplin is gone by early 1974 and Fataar leaves later that year. The tenures of all three are very short--a combined five years out of the 18. Because of history, their input on the group is very limited. Take it a step further--should Pete Best have been actively quoted and filmed for The Beatles Anthology? And pictured on the promotional material?
|
|
|
Post by Rick Bartlett on Apr 6, 2024 11:26:07 GMT -5
Here are my two cents on the subjugation of David Marks and Fataar/Chaplin. Marks can only talk about the years 1962 and 1963. Fataar and Chaplin come on board in late 1971. Chaplin is gone by early 1974 and Fataar leaves later that year. The tenures of all three are very short--a combined five years out of the 18. Because of history, their input on the group is very limited. Take it a step further-- should Pete Best have been actively quoted and filmed for The Beatles Anthology? And pictured on the promotional material? Yes! Of course. For the period he was involved with.
|
|
|
Post by lonelysummer on Apr 6, 2024 13:57:20 GMT -5
Here are my two cents on the subjugation of David Marks and Fataar/Chaplin. Marks can only talk about the years 1962 and 1963. Fataar and Chaplin come on board in late 1971. Chaplin is gone by early 1974 and Fataar leaves later that year. The tenures of all three are very short--a combined five years out of the 18. Because of history, their input on the group is very limited. Take it a step further--should Pete Best have been actively quoted and filmed for The Beatles Anthology? And pictured on the promotional material? His face is on the cover of Anthology 1. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Malc on Apr 6, 2024 15:54:16 GMT -5
I think that, overall, it’s mighty fine tome but I do have to question how on earth was a glaring error like missing out one of the titles on the Wild Honey track listing possible? I know we’re all human but…?? Here Comes The Night indeed…
|
|
|
Post by Mikie on Apr 6, 2024 17:12:43 GMT -5
Got the book today. Been putting it off. I have to say, for all of Howie's bragging about rare pics, there really aren't many. I have seen most of the ones used (hell I HAVE most of the ones used). The printers chosen to replicate the book were probably the cheapest they could find. The high res photos with great contrast had been reduced to muddy reprints. Some pages actually had ink streaked across the page.
I get the same feeling here. The pages should have been high-gloss pages I have not had time to read it yet, so I will let you know what I think. But not impressed with the "rare" photos. I've been a Beach Boys fan since 1970. I bought pretty much every publication/magazine/article/book that I could find since then, especially in the 70's and 80's, and 90's. I have many of the Beach Boys books on the books list in the Reference section of this site. I've seen pretty much all of the pictures on the internet since the late 90's, including the ones that were asked to be taken down by the photographer after they were reproduced. I'm not exaggerating when I say there's definitely some rare photos in this book and I would say a LOT of them. It begins with the inner sleeve of the book (the baseball pics) as soon as you turn the front cover. When I get time, I will go through the book and list the pages where I see pictures I've never seen published before, including on the internet. Understand, Bob, that sometimes you put something up on this site from your collection that we've never seen before and you already know they're rare photos when you share them here. No argument regarding the quality of the photos in the book. The resolution and contrast aren't so great on many of them. I'm sure they cut costs where they could and this area was unfortunately one of the compromises. I'm sure that if many of these photos were reproduced in high contrast high res high gloss HD color, then fans would probably be paying over 100 bucks for this book and that's the trade-off. That price increase for better quality would be OK with me, but many fans are unwilling to spring for the cost of the recent 'Feel Flows' and 'Sail On Sailor' box sets and even balk at paying 65 bucks for the new book we're talking about here! Some of us here are hardcore and we're picky and we know what good quality looks and sounds like. And many of us know this stuff inside and out and all around. But to the average fan or average Joe off the street, they don't care so much. They just want good content, information they never knew before, and they're good to go. And many will wait for the sale price on it before they buy!
|
|
|
Post by drbeachboy (Dirk) on Apr 6, 2024 17:27:37 GMT -5
Here are my two cents on the subjugation of David Marks and Fataar/Chaplin. Marks can only talk about the years 1962 and 1963. Fataar and Chaplin come on board in late 1971. Chaplin is gone by early 1974 and Fataar leaves later that year. The tenures of all three are very short--a combined five years out of the 18. Because of history, their input on the group is very limited. Take it a step further--should Pete Best have been actively quoted and filmed for The Beatles Anthology? And pictured on the promotional material? Still, all three gentlemen were official members of the band during the timeframe of the book. All are quoted inside the book, but they should been respected and included on the front or back cover. Bruce wasn’t on the first 6 studio albums, so he wasn’t there for a good part of their Hey Day. So, all of the non-core members were not on every released album. David is still a member of the band, at least as of the taping of the Grammy special. Blondie has been involved with Brian and Al for the past 10 years or so. So, these guys have not been out of the picture in Beach Boys’ history.
|
|
|
Post by John Manning on Apr 6, 2024 23:55:39 GMT -5
Here are my two cents on the subjugation of David Marks and Fataar/Chaplin. Marks can only talk about the years 1962 and 1963. Fataar and Chaplin come on board in late 1971. Chaplin is gone by early 1974 and Fataar leaves later that year. The tenures of all three are very short--a combined five years out of the 18. Because of history, their input on the group is very limited. Take it a step further--should Pete Best have been actively quoted and filmed for The Beatles Anthology? And pictured on the promotional material? Still, all three gentlemen were official members of the band during the timeframe of the book. All are quoted inside the book, but they should been respected and included on the front or back cover. Bruce wasn’t on the first 6 studio albums, so he wasn’t there for a good part of their Hey Day. So, all of the non-core members were not on every released album. David is still a member of the band, at least as of the taping of the Grammy special. Blondie has been involved with Brian and Al for the past 10 years or so. So, these guys have not been out of the picture in Beach Boys’ history. Yup. I look at it this way: of the nine official Beach Boys, seven are still with us and we should be grateful for that, and acknowledge that, at any given opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Apr 7, 2024 7:11:23 GMT -5
Finished the book-as I said before, very handsome book-packed with photos. It really goes for the positive though-many, many pages on Pet Sounds but Smile is covered in a much shorter time. No discussion of the tense 1967 European tour and the decision to not appear at Monterey is not discussed (though Mike mentions it in passing when discussing 1970 Big Sur Festival there). Every album gets a mention. Bruce leaving in 72-is covered only by a very positive quote from Bruce and comments from Mike from a 1972 interview (so nothing new to reveal there), Very little on Blondie and Ricky-though they are mentioned of course. Nothing on the 72 European tour or the TV special with Elton John but the Holland album and stay is covered. It air brushes the rough patches....the decline of Dennis in 78-80 is more hinted at then discussed, no mention of the 77 tarmac fight, the disastrous 78 Australia-New Zealand tour, Brian's second decline in 78-79, and only hints that Carl was so dissatisfied with the BBs by 1980 that he'd go solo the next year. So not as comprehensive as it could have been and punches are very much pulled. Still, probably the most lavishly illustrated and handsomely presented book on them that we are likely to see.
|
|
|
Post by northcoast on Apr 7, 2024 7:26:01 GMT -5
Finished the book-as I said before, very handsome book-packed with photos. It really goes for the positive though-many, many pages on Pet Sounds but Smile is covered in a much shorter time. No discussion of the tense 1967 European tour and the decision to not appear at Monterey is not discussed (though Mike mentions it in passing when discussing 1970 Big Sur Festival there). Every album gets a mention. Bruce leaving in 72-is covered only by a very positive quote from Bruce and comments from Mike from a 1972 interview (so nothing new to reveal there), Very little on Blondie and Ricky-though they are mentioned of course. Nothing on the 72 European tour or the TV special with Elton John but the Holland album and stay is covered. It air brushes the rough patches....the decline of Dennis in 78-80 is more hinted at then discussed, no mention of the 77 tarmac fight, the disastrous 78 Australia-New Zealand tour, Brian's second decline in 78-79, and only hints that Carl was so dissatisfied with the BBs by 1980 that he'd go solo the next year. So not as comprehensive as it could have been and punches are very much pulled. Still, probably the most lavishly illustrated and handsomely presented book on them that we are likely to see. Yeah a lot of things "airbrushed" out. Book was still enjoyable.
|
|
danlega
Grommet
Posts: 14
Likes: 32
|
Post by danlega on Apr 11, 2024 23:18:02 GMT -5
"Howie is missing out on half of the story, and he really doesn't 'get it'." The Howie interview I read said he had to fight the publisher hard to get the story pushed through 1980, whereas they only wanted to publish the Boys story up to 1974. So you can't blame Howie for the story stopping there. Not even sure you can blame Iconic.
|
|
|
Post by esqeditor on Apr 12, 2024 22:30:54 GMT -5
If the book only goes through 1980, it is possible no one wanted to talk about the subsequent years and/or any quotes in circulation would have dealt more with falling outs, interventions and legal actions than the music. For my part, 1983 would have been a logical stepping off point--the temporary popularity surge brought on by the James Watt debacle followed at the end of the year by the death of Dennis which effectively created a permanent void in the band as history knew it. I think it's as simple as ending on a high note.
|
|
|
Post by esqeditor on Apr 12, 2024 22:33:55 GMT -5
Unpacking the deluxe book …
|
|
|
Post by gerry on Apr 25, 2024 9:58:31 GMT -5
Finished the book-as I said before, very handsome book-packed with photos. It really goes for the positive though-many, many pages on Pet Sounds but Smile is covered in a much shorter time. No discussion of the tense 1967 European tour and the decision to not appear at Monterey is not discussed (though Mike mentions it in passing when discussing 1970 Big Sur Festival there). Every album gets a mention. Bruce leaving in 72-is covered only by a very positive quote from Bruce and comments from Mike from a 1972 interview (so nothing new to reveal there), Very little on Blondie and Ricky-though they are mentioned of course. Nothing on the 72 European tour or the TV special with Elton John but the Holland album and stay is covered. It air brushes the rough patches....the decline of Dennis in 78-80 is more hinted at then discussed, no mention of the 77 tarmac fight, the disastrous 78 Australia-New Zealand tour, Brian's second decline in 78-79, and only hints that Carl was so dissatisfied with the BBs by 1980 that he'd go solo the next year. So not as comprehensive as it could have been and punches are very much pulled. Still, probably the most lavishly illustrated and handsomely presented book on them that we are likely to see. It's kind of interesting how we went through the 16 magazine -PR driven coverage of music in the 60's and then the more in-depth rock journalism of RS, Crawdaddy, Creem, etc., and now we've come full circle back to the good times, everything is great view of 16 magazine. We are living in very odd times
|
|
barnsy
Kahuna
Posts: 199
Likes: 304
|
Post by barnsy on Apr 26, 2024 12:49:16 GMT -5
Review of the book in Classic Rock's June issue.
|
|
|
Post by northcoast on Apr 26, 2024 14:03:38 GMT -5
Here is a question for anyone in the know. Howard K. Grossman is noted as the producer of The Beach Boys In Concert LP (1973) in the book. I looked him up and he was functionally a film producer who worked on The Beach Boys 20th Anniversary special which was widely syndicated in 1981. Why is he listed in the book as the producer of the aforementioned two record set? I have an old vinyl and his name is nowhere to be found nor is it found on the 2000 CD remaster booklet.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Apr 26, 2024 15:10:56 GMT -5
It's what we in the know (i.e. any fan) call "an horrendous error". Someone used Wikipedia as a source without double-checking it.
|
|
petsite
Author/Historian/ Researcher
Posts: 1,978
Likes: 3,247
|
Post by petsite on Apr 26, 2024 15:25:45 GMT -5
It's what we in the know (i.e. any fan) call "an horrendous error". Someone used Wikipedia as a source without double-checking it. You mean, as when someone on a project I was working on told me MIU was one of their favorite albums, especially THE NIGHT WAS SO YOUNG.
|
|
|
Post by E on Apr 27, 2024 3:57:49 GMT -5
God, that Ray Davies quote. Why bother?. I wonder if they were eventful for the same reason the Kinks' gigs with early Steely Dan were (according to Donald Fagen, that is)...
|
|
|
Post by ian on Apr 27, 2024 6:33:53 GMT -5
Well…I mentioned in my book-at their 1965 appearance with the BBs-the Kinks refused to play after a dispute with the promoter and the 1972 appearance Ray allegedly got into a knock down drag out fight with Dennis. I’d call that “eventful!”
|
|
|
Post by E on Apr 27, 2024 11:19:59 GMT -5
If I recall correctly, Steely Donald used the term, "wasted," to describe them - allegedly.
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Apr 27, 2024 12:34:13 GMT -5
If whoever sourced the Grossman production "credit" had bothered to click on the citation link on Wikipedia, they'd have seen that yes, he produced The Beach Boys In Concert - a 1980 HBO TV special of that summers July 4th Washington Mall show. He also produced the following years 20th anniversary special. That's sloppy, sloppy research.
|
|
|
Post by Mikie on Apr 27, 2024 13:32:07 GMT -5
It's what we in the know (i.e. any fan) call "an horrendous error". Someone used Wikipedia as a source without double-checking it. I'm tellin' ya, do not trust Wikipedia! Many times the information is outdated or just wrong! Always get a second source. It's not 100%. I've been called out on it too many times already!
|
|
|
Post by northcoast on Apr 28, 2024 6:38:30 GMT -5
If whoever sourced the Grossman production "credit" had bothered to click on the citation link on Wikipedia, they'd have seen that yes, he produced The Beach Boys In Concert - a 1980 HBO TV special of that summers July 4th Washington Mall show. He also produced the following years 20th anniversary special. That's sloppy, sloppy research. Yep. Now it makes sense while at the same time making none at all.
|
|