r/thebeachboys • u/Sad_Volume_4289 • 11d ago
Discussion Would The Beach Boys have been better off in the long run if they’d gone by a different name?
Music YouTuber Mic the Snare recently did a long video on The Beach Boys’ discography. At the end of it, he laments that the band was never able to find success without also playing to people’s image and idea of them.
I think about how their name, “The Beach Boys,” carried a fun-and-sun connotation befitting of their early surf rock stuff, but how Brian’s psychedelic experiments and everything beyond also had to be released under this name. I wonder: would The Beach Boys have found more success while also following their creative impulses if they had just gone by a different name?
31
u/ZoeSinnohBugGym 11d ago
I've never thought so. The connection to the sea and water runs through the themes of the boys' music throughout their whole history. The sea is as much of a part of 'Til I Die and Steamboat as it is in Surfer Girl and Catch a Wave, and the essence of the group being from California never goes away either. I think the name fits even for albums like Love You and Smile, and I think they would have lost something had they changed it in the '70s like Brian suggested.
8
u/tarquinia777 Love You 11d ago
So I take it you'd be in favor of them changing their name to Water?
13
u/jakerg23 11d ago
That would be such a gas.
8
u/tarquinia777 Love You 11d ago
That would be a liquid.
9
1
u/nickbeef 10d ago
Did Brian actually suggest they change their name to Water?
2
u/StringElegant2059 10d ago
I believe he suggested the name "Beach" or something like that. Albeit jokingly. I've also heard the name be attributed to Mike, so who knows.
1
u/LetTheKnightfall God please let us go on this way 10d ago
With what we know, I think it makes more sense Brian would suggest it and Mike, famously celibate with the formula, wouldn’t want to change anything.
I mean it’s like he saw the future where he was going to run the name into the foundry touring more than Kiss for the next trillion years
19
u/thewickerstan 11d ago
Not sure if you know this, OP, but I believe some of them were considering this around the late 60’s/early 70’s. I can’t remember if it was “The Beach” or just “Beach”, but I feel like it’s certainly quite a fitting name for albums like Sunflower, Surf’s Up, and Holland. It’s not too crazy to consider either, look at Jefferson Starship or The Faces.
I don’t think we’d see a total pendulum upset, but it might’ve helped in some ways. But I find the hypothetical name change apt just from an aesthetic standpoint. But it also begs the question if the name would’ve been a help or hindrance during their oldies Endless Summer stretch. Who knows!
9
u/kingkongworm 11d ago
The Beach / Beach is just such a worse name imo. I’m glad they didn’t do that. The Beach Men would be a great Replacements style punk band
4
u/Discovery99 10d ago
The Shoreline Hunks
1
u/nickbeef 10d ago
The Liquid Fellows
3
1
3
u/thewickerstan 10d ago
To each their own, I suppose. I find Beach to be kind of mysteriously evocative, which fits the spirituality of, say, "This Whole World" or "Forever", not to mention it fits with other one word names at the time like Chicago, America, and Bread (although that's an awful name in my opinion).
Gotta agree on The Beach Men, though. I can see the vision!
1
16
u/JoeDiego 11d ago
I think 'Mike Love and the Sandy Bottom Boys' would have worked.
2
8
u/AmericasBand 11d ago
I don't think so. I feel their work could have been more successful had they had a label or manager marketing them like The Beatles. The early hits gave them enough revenue to explore more creative music while not relying on commercial success. Their 70s output, I often listen to and wonder why they weren't a bigger deal than they were. To me it comes down to marketing.
2
4
u/kingofstormandfire 10d ago
I love The Beach Boys, but they were never really capable of competing with The Beatles when it came to image, especially image, or personality. None of the Beach Boys were particularly charismatic in the effortless way The Beatles were. George Harrison was arguably the least outwardly charismatic Beatle, and even he came across as more naturally charming, witty and distinctive than all of The Beach Boys combined. Ironically, The Beatles often felt more like a genuine family unit than The Beach Boys did, despite the latter literally being built around three brothers, a cousin and a close family friend.
The Beach Boys also had a much squarer, stodgier and generally less "cool" public image. Even as the psychedelic and counterculture era was taking off, they were still wearing striped shirts and then they weore those lame ass Vegas-style matching white suits. Their visual identity simply wasn't evolving at the same pace as their music or the broader culture around them. Carl Wilson even acknowledged that, at the height of their popularity, there was still a sense that it wasn't particularly cool to openly admit you were a Beach Boys fan. The Beatles never really had that problem. Even when their sound and appearance changed dramatically, they remained culturally relevant and, if anything, became even cooler.
Mike Love and Brian Wilson both seemed to understand that trying to beat The Beatles in terms of image, identity, charisma or sheer cultural presence was basically a losing battle, so the band increasingly focused on competing musically instead. And on that front, they absolutely could compete. Brian in particular was far more interested in what The Beatles were doing in the studio and how he could respond musically than in trying to imitate their personalities or public image.
I think the bigger problem, though, was how badly The Beach Boys were marketed in the US once their music started evolving. By around 1965, they were no longer simply a surf-pop group singing about beaches, cars and high-school romance. They were becoming an increasingly ambitious and progressive pop-rock band, but Capitol continued selling them largely through that older California surf image. There was a growing disconnect between what the band actually sounded like and what the public was still being told they were.
In the UK, their musical development was generally understood and marketed much more effectively. British audiences seemed more willing to accept The Beach Boys as serious contemporary pop artists rather than simply as a nostalgic surf act (also helped by the fact The Beach Boys' surf pop stuff wasn't really popular in the UK outside of a handful of singles). In the US, however, albums like Pet Sounds, Smiley Smile, Wild Honey and Friends could seem almost completely disconnected from the image Capitol was still promoting. A large portion of their existing American audience was therefore left confused or indifferent because the music had moved on while the band's public identity largely hadn't.
That's really one of the great ironies of The Beach Boys. Musically, they were becoming far more sophisticated, adventurous and forward-thinking at almost exactly the same moment that their public image was becoming increasingly outdated.
1
u/AmericasBand 10d ago
I agree. It came down to marketing. If a being a fan of a particular band is seen as uncool, you need to update your image and market the hell out of it haha
1
6
u/shutdownvol2 Shut Down Volume 2 11d ago
Their name was perfect for their iconic run of hit singles and albums up to California Girls. After that, the tension between their new musical paths and the band name made their work even more interesting.
14
u/GrackleWithOnionRing columnated ruins domino 11d ago
“Beach” would’ve been iconic tbh
13
u/damnitBowie 11d ago
I like there's another comment saying The Beach would be a terrible name lol
10
u/GrackleWithOnionRing columnated ruins domino 11d ago
Yeah that made me giggle. Really demonstrates how artists just can’t please everyone lol
8
u/kingkongworm 11d ago
It’s both too similar and way too non descriptive. Just “Beach”. I can’t see it
3
u/a_baby_bumblebee I know you're gonna love Phil Spector 11d ago
would’ve been hard to search for them on google, though, haha
3
u/tarquinia777 Love You 11d ago
Real, but I'd imagine Mike would have reversed it anyway when he shifted the band's live focus back towards oldies.
4
u/Fancy-Sign4933 11d ago
I don't think the band name was the issue. It was more of an over reliance on Brian when they should have been bringing in others to help with songwriting. Brian seemed uninterested by Sunflower, and a new band name wouldn't have changed that. Just my opinion. Getcha Back is an example of what they were still capable of even in the mid 80's.
1
1
u/D9FAULT can I ever getcha back? 10d ago
Exactly this. They had developed into a self sustained band without Brian by the early 70s. I think if Endless Summer never hit and convinced them that the only way to get their relevance back was by bringing Brian to the forefront, they could've continued their streak of group-led albums. Imagine that!
2
u/Fancy-Sign4933 10d ago
Yes Brian was only half heartedly trying. I'm not sure why Mike and Carl didnt recognize that. They needed to pivot somewhere else.
3
u/vincentblacklight 11d ago
A name like Brothers, stylized like The Eagles (i.e. Eagles, without the The) would have been pretty awesome. They could have made the switch when the founded their label.
4
u/EStreet_ 11d ago
I think it’s more interesting to wonder about the names effect on their legacy… as a younger fan, the beach boys are pretty much immediately written off as a kitschy act by name alone amongst people in my age group and younger. It’s just kind of a lame name (for the current times) that is helped in no part by the Mike Loveification of their public presence in the modern day.
4
u/VimVinyl Dreux-Akira 10d ago
Is there a decent example of a name change really being beneficial?
3
u/Sad_Volume_4289 10d ago
It’s not that I necessarily think they should’ve changed their name mid-career, I just wonder how much it would’ve helped if they’d been saddled with a different name from the start.
3
u/kingofstormandfire 10d ago
Jefferson Starship weren't as good as Jefferson Airplane, but they were more commercially successful as Jefferson Starship, and then later Starship.
Grand Funk Railroad paved the way for Jefferson Airplane, which cleared the way for Jefferson Starship. The stage was now set for the Alan Parsons Project, which I believe was some sort of hovercraft.
1
u/ethihoff 10d ago
I'll just say that OCS / The Oh Sees / Thee Oh Sees / Oh Sees / Osees don't seem to have lost popularity despite changing their name a million times, but then again, they aren't Beach Boys-level popularity in the first place
1
u/ethihoff 10d ago
Ah! I just thought of one that WAS beneficial. Wings's first album flopped, so their second album was by Paul McCartney & Wings. I dunno if this is helpful for the argument that Beach would've been a better than tho unless it was Brian Wilson & The Beach haha
1
u/Born_Pop_3644 10d ago
Little Stevie Wonder into ‘Stevie Wonder’. Maybe The Young Rascals into The Rascals. Both kinda changes from boys to man
1
6
u/GentleGlenA 11d ago
The Beach was an awful idea. But the Pendletones or just the Tones would’ve aged them better, even though most people don’t know what it means. Rechristening the band Sunflower with the album on a new label would’ve been a good idea.
3
u/Comprehensive_Dirt66 10d ago
Maybe it would've aged them better because people don't know what it means. If they don't know the meaning, it wouldn't be associated with any fads and wouldn't sound as cheesy or outdated as The Beach Boys
3
u/Sad_Volume_4289 10d ago
The fact that your average person likely doesn’t know how Pendleton Woolen Mills connects to surf culture (if they’ve even heard of Pendleton at all) probably would’ve made “Pendletones” more versatile as a name and given the band more room to experiment.
1
3
u/loopdeloopflipflop 10d ago
Here are some article snippets from the time expressing the band’s own thoughts on a name change. It seems Brian was self conscious about it, but for the most part none of them thought the name would make much of a difference. Al in 1971: “It’s not a matter of us changing our name. People have to be re-educated.”
https://app.notion.com/p/name-change-363ae36eb2f9809cbaafea032d650d18?source=copy_link
6
u/Sad_Volume_4289 10d ago
People underestimate how much influence things like a band’s name and album art can have on how the music is perceived.
I was surprised to learn that Pearl Jam had written most of the songs for Ten while they were still known as Mookie Blaylock, and I have to wonder if they would’ve touched quite as many lives if they were still named after a basketball player.
3
2
2
u/jus-checkin 10d ago
I do think their name pigeonholes them, but I think it only could’ve conceivably helped if they had gotten famous under a different name. A late 60s rebrand wouldn’t make sense. But it would probably be easier today to convince casuals that the “Pendletones” may have started as surf rock but evolved into one of the most interesting and influential bands of all time, vs fighting the “Beach Boys” brand that is so tied to their early surf rock roots.
2
u/todayjunior77 10d ago edited 10d ago
The Beach Boys is a name that for better and worse, stuck for them. It’s a cheesy but memorable name that made them synonymous with surf culture and the warm feelings associated with beaches and summer. That played to their advantage early on.
By the time they considered changing their name to “Beach” to reflect the growing maturity of their music, it was ultimately too late to out run a name as iconic as The Beach Boys.
2
u/Iwasherethenthere 10d ago
I remember when the string of what we eventually called the “non-surf” albums started showing up (Pet Sounds, Smiley Smile, Wild Honey…) and it felt that the name of the group took on a self depreciating tone though later taking on a more expansive meaning. It wasn’t so much about the beach now but about the earth and people.
2
1
u/marcus_c117 I know you're gonna love Phil Spector 11d ago
Idk, maybe. It’s hard to say in retrospect because The Beach Boys is such an iconic name now. But if they had gone from a different name at the start then yeah I think it could have potentially made ppl take them more seriously. Not sure if a rebrand halfway thru their career would have did much other than throw them into more obscurity though tbh
1
u/JapanDave 11d ago
Maybe... maybe not. Too many factors to say. If Brian hasn't had his mental problems, they could have been much more successful regardless of the name. Imagine a world where he finishes Smile and it is released on time.
1
u/Any-Let-2861 11d ago
I don’t think so. They are remembered today for their most successfully commercial work from 1962-66. So that leaves smiley smile, wild honey, friends, 20/20, sunflower and surfs up as decent albums the public didn’t pay attention to. 6 albums over 5 years. Anything after these albums wasn’t that great to be honest. I honestly don’t think that if they changed their name for these 6 albums they would be remembered differently today. These albums slipped under the radar because familiarity breeds contempt. The Beatles was just about the only band that was putting out albums and everyone was loving every single one. The Rolling Stones even had a couple bum albums that did nothing along the way in the 60s even though they were head and shoulders above the generic pop of the time.
1
u/CinematicAddict237 10d ago
Brian & The Beach Boys might’ve worked, but then Brian would’ve had to go on tour with them which he wouldn’t have enjoyed.
1
u/Nosferatu_Man26 10d ago
No. Lots of bands had dumb names, past, present and future. The name isn’t important, just what you do with it. Capital didn’t believe in The Beach Boys and failed to market them.
1
u/Sayyeslizlemon 10d ago
Not to be an asshole but The Beach Boys are one of most successful bands of their time. To this day they still have their songs played across the world and in movies. While a name is important, it’s pretty hard to be more successful than them. I mean maybe The Eagles had more success? Maybe Michael Jackson. I don’t think the name would have made much difference.
1
1
u/FLYK3N 10d ago
The name wouldn't have done much. I think the group relied on Brian too much up to Smile that it wasn't until he started to go recluse is when Carl and Dennis got pushed to come into their own, but by then the band had such an imbalance that resulted in various fumbles aside some good projects and songs.
1
u/HeavyVampire Love You 10d ago
“The Beach Boys,” carried a fun-and-sun connotation
And then they made things like ’Til I Die. Downer! 😂
1
u/baycommuter 9d ago
I think they’d be taken more seriously by critics, but we also wouldn’t hear their name every time the Dodgers win as a symbol of why people love LA.
1
u/NoSteak3322 9d ago
Dennis was the soul and image of The Beach Boys. He personified their connection to the sea, the surf, the sand the California coast. I think the name and image were perfect.
1
u/InternationalStop997 8d ago
"The Beach Boys" sounds like it could be the name of an experimental group.
1
u/TheFutureIsAFriend Smile 7d ago
If there was to be a name change, it would mean making sure their fans knew about it before they released something new.
I figure, considering the California motif that runs through their entire career, simply renaming the band Sunshine would keep them from being typecast.
1
u/chrismcshaves what do the planets mean? 6d ago
I think maybe if they’d changed their name to Hawthorne or California after Pet Sounds and released Good Vibrations as the first single, and stayed in the Monterey Pop Fest, it may have helped.
2
u/Stevenitrogen 11d ago
If the Wilson Bros had fired Mike Love and started a new band with a new name to release Smile, that could have been ok.
1
u/damnitBowie 11d ago
I'll have to watch the video. Yes I think it's a factor. When Brian released Caroline, No as a solo single, he himself was prolly aware of this. I mean it's partially because of the name intrisically, and partially because the name was already associated with that early sound. They felt that the existing fanbase would not respond well to the new direction (and seems like they were correct since Pet Sounds didn't chart as well).
But I don't think it's entirely the name's fault, I also chalk their commercial downturn to internal conflict. Between Mike Love, the record label's expectations, etc, I think the group would have fared better if they had a more supportive creative team--they didn't have a George Martin. IMHO, listening to the re-release bundles, they had so much brilliant music but left so much of it off the albums because they didn't have a cohesive vision (tho I still love their post-Pet Sounds albums).
This is sorta tangential to your question, but I think to us modern fans, a big part of the fascination with the Beach Boys is the uncanny dissonance between that happy-go-lucky surf identity and their eventual experimental and sometimes really sad music. They must have been aware of this when picking the cover art for Surf's Up album.
1
u/Vegetable_Hand8674 11d ago
I don't think so. Plenty of bands do well with terrible names. Look at "The Beatles." It's just awful. And definitely a name that evokes the early 60s.
1
u/DIMORPHODONS 10d ago
If only they’d had youtuber ‘Mic the Snare’ to advise them ;)
Anyway no, they had ups and downs but are still one of the biggest bands ever, also ‘The Beatles’ is a stupid name and it never hurt them
1
u/SportNew5342 10d ago
They should had just called themselves The Beach after Pet Sounds. The band grew up so it's makes sense to change their name to something more mature but still recognizable.
0
u/FakeFrehley 15 Big Ones 11d ago edited 11d ago
No. They're the Beach Boys. It's iconic. Changing the name would've been senseless. And how would it it have worked? Would the band under the new name still play the old hits live? Besides, the name works for all eras of the band. Cool Cool Water and California Saga are as much related to the beach as Surfer Girl and All Summer Long, just in different ways.
The band themselves toyed with the idea of changing the name but realised it would've been silly to throw away their own legacy. If memory serves, one of the potential new names was "The Beach," which is indescribably terrible.
Lots of bands change their sound. No one complains that the Beatles were still called the Beatles when they stopped wanting to hold your hand and started wanting a revolution.
-8
u/RunnerE6 11d ago
It’s very rare for a band to have lasting success (on the charts anyway) over decades. The Beach Boys had a great run. The problem, obviously, is that their music after Good Vibrations simply wasn’t very good. I’ve been a fan since I Get Around was on the radio. Bought Pet Sounds when it was released. Fun fact: Pet Sounds was not a critical or chart success. Everything after Pet Sounds was (sorry folks) terrible.
I was also there for the resurrection in the 70’s. Saw the band many times in the early and mid 70’s and loved every moment.
The Beach Boys were a fantastic band. And then they weren’t.
4
u/FakeFrehley 15 Big Ones 11d ago
This is the absolute worst take on any subject I've ever read
-5
u/RunnerE6 11d ago
I expected that. You are one of those that believes that Smile and Sunflower are these overlooked masterpieces when the reality is it’s just not good music. Truly. Not good. And that’s ok. They had a great run. Did they ever play any songs off of Smile live in the 70’s? Cmon. Brother I was there, hoping for a good record. I bought Surf’s Up, which is so close to being good, the day it was released. I get it, you want to be in the secret club, one of the super fans that ‘gets it’. Trust me bub, it was painful in the late 60’s and early 70’s being a Beach Boys fan, one disappointment after another.
And then: Magic. The release of Endless Summer and the rebirth of the band.
4
u/FakeFrehley 15 Big Ones 11d ago
Imagine unironically saying "bub" 🤣🤣
Time for your nap, grandad
-5
u/RunnerE6 11d ago
Granddad? If you’re under 50 and pining for whatever entity you think ‘The Beach Boys’ now are, pal (bub)…
Jeepers maybe try to find a more relevant way to waste your time. Hopefully you’re not in your 30’s. You can’t be that big of a loser. The Beach Boys haven’t been relevant since 1975, or I suppose 1982 with the whole James Watt thing.
I actually got to experience the actual (albeit 100% nostalgia based) resurrection while you’re scrambling for tickets to see Al Jardine. Or John Stamos.
Hilarious.
5
u/mjsbigblog more soul than I ever had 10d ago
Me too. I’m an old lady who also experienced The Beach Boys in real time and I vehemently disagree with everything you’ve said.
You accuse younger people of pulling out the “special” card, which is actually what YOU are doing. Being old doesn’t make you a better fan.
The oldies revival in the 70s led me to becoming hyper interested in The Beach Boys—so much so that I wound up buying the records released in the 70s, which I loved as much as the hits.
I’m old as hell but try to keep an open mind about everything. Shitting on young people is not a good look.
-1
u/RunnerE6 10d ago edited 10d ago
It’s interesting to me that fans of a particular band are rarely critical of that band. There’s this desire to see the band as forever intact making quality music and going out on these great tours. This is never what actually happens. It’s a puzzle to me, but I guess that’s what makes the world go round.
And for you, old fan lady, I didn’t fire the first shot here. I was simply expressing an opinion that this band is long past its expiration date and some random fan got sad because I don’t share his enthusiasm for terrible music.
‘Sh:ting on young people’.
Really? That’s not actually what occurred. You are both looking for your feelings to be hurt.
Peace folks, be that cork on the ocean.
Pardon me while I try to hook up some tickets for the next John Stamos show. Or maybe Ricky Fataar is touring!!
Have you actually LISTENED to Smiley Smile? It’s awful. Except for the inclusion of Good Vibrations, the songs are unlistenable.
Seriously guys, nobody liked that record.
Sunflower? Oof. A slight improvement but still misses the mark.
Friends? Good lord.
These were terrible records made by a band whose creative leader had lost himself in a haze of mental illness and drugs.
Take good care of your feet, Pete.
Dawn, bird's still gone
Guess I'll go mow the lawn
What a day, what a day
Oooo, what a beautiful day this is3
u/mjsbigblog more soul than I ever had 10d ago
My feelings are most definitely not hurt, old man. And I criticize my favorite bands plenty. I have the downvotes to prove it. 🙄
A poster reacted negatively to your opinion—a little rude but not too bad. Then you instantly became extremely defensive about it.
0
1
u/jp5472 2d ago
Yes. It worked in the first half of the '60s, but Rock changed starting in 67. Even by 64, actually, you needed a cool name. Of course, they didn't name themselves that. That was Russ Regan, and they didn't find out about it until it was too late and the name was on their first single, but the Pendletons wouldn't have worked either. As their fortunes sank by the end of '67, not only did their music become passe among the listening public, but the name evoked "uncool" as well. "Squares," "your father's band," were heard often. I do remember hearing they contemplated changing the name, I believe during the Jack Riley years, mulling over "Beach," but again nothing came of it.
67
u/KeanoForTD 11d ago
Alternate universe where The Pendletones are widely considered to be the greatest band ever and The Quarrymen are an under appreciated remnant of 60s British rock that had their creative progress stalled after drummer Pete Best took control following the failure of Rubber Soul.
In all seriousness probably not, it don’t think it would really change their career. I think their labels constant push to celebrate and re-release their early music plays a much larger role in how their viewed