Template talk:The Beach Boys main

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pop music (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Edits of 30 December 2005[edit]

I compressed the template as it was unnecessarily large. We don't need every single album and member of the band listed on every Beach Boys-related article. This exact same problem was present on other musician templates such as Template:Mariah Carey2, Template:Whitney Houston, Template:Jackson5 and Template:Madonna, which were all trimmed down in the same way that I edited this one. Extraordinary Machine 18:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I still prefer the template the way it is. It's informative, helpful and not overwhelming. BGC 19:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In the context of the Beach Boys albums articles, I find the current state of the template neither helpful nor informative. If readers want to find out the names of the members of the band or all of their albums, then that is what the main Beach Boys article is for (as well as the related categories). The template occupies almost the entire display, which is an even bigger problem for pages such as Best of The Beach Boys, where the template is as big as the article. Template:Mariah Carey2 was almost deleted (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/November_2005#Template:Mariah_Carey2) for this same reason, and it was actually smaller than this template is now. Extraordinary Machine 20:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

David, Blondie, et al...[edit]

I think that David Marks, Blondie Chaplin, Ricky Fataar, and maybe Glen Campbell should be added to the info box. Maybe in a 'former member' section? Or it could be Original members and Added members. (Added sounds horrible, but I can't think of the word I want.)

I am not sure about Glen Campbell... he played on a lot of their albums in addition to touring with them, but it is not like he was sharing in the profits or anything. MookieZ 15:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

David Marks should be on the main members list, as I'm fairly certain he was considered a full royalty member when he was in the group, and still makes occasional appearances with The Beach Boys. Blondie Chaplin and Ricky Fataar were never full royalty members (according to Bruce Johnston on the Warmth of the Sun Podcast series), so if they are listed, it should be as a Secondary listing. --Jbo110 17:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:, I reverted back to listing Blondie & the others on the template. I think they should be listed as they would certainly be links of interest to people who come across the template. I also realphabetized the members, as much as I agree that Brian should go first, that leaves open the question of who should be number 2, number 3, number 4... and there are no easy answers for those. So I think that alphabetizing is the fairest way to do it. MookieZ 22:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There's two ways of looking at this. The people under "Members" are all part of the Beach Boys as a corporate entity, the "Former Members" are not. However, Brian, Al, Carl and Dennis are no longer "Beach Boys" in the strictest sense. Carl and Dennis are dead and Brian and Al have moved on. David Marks is more of a Beach Boys now than Al, Brian, Carl, and Dennis combined. If anything, at least Carl and Dennis should be considered former members, being that there is no chance they will ever record or tour with the Beach Boys ever again. If we want to keep the names in the categories as they are, maybe the new names can be "Official Members" and "Auxilliary Members" ? Whotookthatguy (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I like "Founding Members" (Wilsons, Love, Jardine) and "Xxxxxx Members" (David, Bruce, Blondie, Ricky, perhaps Glen?), although I can't think of anything good for "Xxxxx". I don't like "Auxilliary" because it makes me think of just plain old sidemen. I don't like "Replacement" as it gives the impression that they hired scabs or something. (Also, Blondie and Ricky never really replaced anyone.) "Additional" doesn't sound good. Neither does "Later" or "Future". I don't know, maybe "Auxilliary" is the best choice. MookieZ (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Template Revision to include Lineup History[edit]

Suggestions for improvements (don't really like the look/placement):

Other members[edit]

I'm not sure why Toni Tennille, Daryl Dragon and John Stamos were not added if Glen Campbell and Blondie Chaplin were? I would imagine the three will be deleted, but I have no idea why since their contribution was very similar to Glen and Blondie.Docob5 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Changed template to reflect 'Former touring members' as an alternative to not having Campbell appear, but still believe The Captain and Tennille belong if Campbell is listed. Also, added Carl and Dennis as 'Deceased' since they never left the band prior to their death.Docob5 (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Edited this - it made the template huge and disproportionate. Removed touring members, as these were just a small handful (and yes, Stamos should be listed, love it or hate it) and touring members are usually not listed in templates (perhaps they could be added to the main page somewhere?). I removed the differentiation between deceased and former members because it's usually not noted in the templates, either. When it comes to the Beach Boys, there's a lot of potential for listing touring members to get out of control considering the great number of touring musicians they've utilized over the years. As for line two, I know Carl and Dennis were founding members, were around much longer than Ricky or Blondie, and only "left" the band due to their deaths, but they were all official members of the band. I've listed them in reverse chronological order from when each person was no longer a member of the band.
This okay with everyone? (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Since the 50th concert did have Carl and Dennis appear (in video), there is an argument to place them as "Members". My suggestion would be to add their name on the main line with the parenthetical "(deceased)" following their name.Docob5 (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Members section of template[edit]

This looks like a total mess as is and, more importantly, never looked anything like this during the 14 years that the Mike and Bruce touring band existed prior to the 2012 reunion. The Mike and Bruce lineup only exists as a touring unit. Brian, Al, and David are not active in the touring band, but the future of the band as a recording group is still unclear (Mike said he'd like to write with Brian more, Al and Brian have said they want to keep making records together). To me, all members sans Blondie and Ricky should appear up top (with Dennis and Carl only departing due to their deaths) and no additional notes are really necessary. If any real changes should be made, it would be including Mike and Bruce up top, the members who aren't currently touring in the 2nd tier, and the departed members on the 3rd tier. Since this isn't entirely accurate and is kind of an unnecessary disservice to Al, Brian and David, I'd prefer to keep it how I edited it. Thoughts? :(talk) 00:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

For the most part I agree with you. The one thing I believe that should be taken into consideration is those people that have only general knowledge of The Beach Boys (i.e., "they're brothers", "didn't Brian Wilson write most the songs", etc.). The template offers a quick identification of each BB's current role in the band. To place Dennis or Carl seperate because they're deceased (as previous edits had) doesn't seem to make senese because both were featured in the 50th tour. Since Brian Wilson will likely release new material under his own name, I also think it shouldn't indicate that he's an active member (Al Jardine and David Marks too). So, I think we're more or less on the same page in creating a readable template, it's just how to use the template to best help wiki readers (Beach Boys fans already know what's going on, but what about the non-BB population).Docob5 (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Carl and Dennis Wilson Demotion?[edit]

There must be a way to identify / seperate Carl Wilson and Dennis Wilson from Blondie Chaplin and Ricky Fataar. At the current lineup is listed (May 30, 2013), David Marks has main billing, while Carl and Dennis are billed with Blondie and Ricky. This doesn't seem right. Because the two are deceased, they appear to have been demoted to "former members".Docob5 (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that the reunion is over, I'd be in favor of going back to Love/Jardine/Wilson/Wilson/Wilson on the top line, with Chaplin/Fataar/Jonhston/Marks on the 2nd line. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree Marks, Fataar, and Chaplin should be on the 2nd line (as far as I know, the only return for Marks since 1963 was the reunion). If you look at the history, most revisions has the Wilson brothers on the top line. But what do you think about Johnston on the top line? How about by alpha Jardine/Johnston/Love/Wilson/Wilson/Wilson?Docob5 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be fine too. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the top line is fine as is - they are the current Beach Boys, legally speaking. Also, if you're going to include Johnston on the top line, you should probably include Marks too. He's not a founder due to a slight technicality (he wasn't allowed to skip school to record "Surfin'") but he was still there from before the beginning and he can be found on 6 gold certified albums. I'll just put my two cents in and say when all's said and done my vote's for "Jardine Love Wilson Wilson Wilson" "Johnston Marks" " Chaplin Fataar". Jamekae (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Good rationale and I would stand behind that change.Docob5 (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Eh. Not wild about it, but it's fine with me too, I guess. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Line-up review[edit]

How do we measure a band member's worth, which yardstick do we use? Is it their influence on the band's music, the length of their tenure or the amount of success they saw under their time in the band?

Blondie and Ricky turned around the Beach Boys' live show, added an element of funk/gospel/rock to the band and had an arguably stronger instrumental presence than Johnston or Marks did... Perhaps they belong on the top line. However, Bruce Johnston has been with been with the band from 1965-1972 (with a brief absence in 1967) and then 1979-2013, which is longer than Marks or Ricky and Blondie... Perhaps he belongs on the top line. That being said, David Marks has his guitar heard on six of the band's Gold certified albums (without counting compilation albums). That's a world away from Johnston's one with Pet Sounds and even further from Ricky and Blondie's zero... Perhaps he belongs on the top line.

Or perhaps none of them do. As you can see, it gets messy making arbitrary rules for who deserves that top line exposure and who doesn't. At the end of the day, everyone's going to have different ways of evaluating which Beach Boys are more worthy than other. However, there's no way people can argue with who are the founding members (Al, Mike, Brian, Card and Dennis) and who are the members who don't fall into that category (Blondie, Ricky, Bruce, David). For this reason, in the name of keeping things unbiased and uncontroversial, I'm proposing to keep it this way as to avoid future disputes. Jamekae (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Still not convinced that Bruce Johnston should be listed on the second line. The idea of "founding members" works until David Marks. Conversely, if you use The Rolling Stones template, you will note that Ron Wood is listed on the main line while Brian Jones is listed on the second line. Therefore I propose that we list Johnston on the main line with Blondie, Ricky, and David on the second page.Docob5 (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the way it is now is best, founders/alternates. (I also think David=founder is revisionist piffle, but that's an argument for another day.) Adding Bruce to the top line? Not horrible, by any means. Better him than David, anyway. But that would be a distant second choice behind the new status quo. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I am in favour of adding Bruce Johnston to the top line. With all due respect, the Jardine/Love/Wilson/Wilson/Wilson line-up only lasted from late 1963 to early 1965 and again from late 1974 to early 1979. The Jardine/Johnston/Love/Wilson/Wilson/Wilson line-up lasted from mid 1965 to early 1972 and again from 1979 to Dennis's death. That line-up was present for their most famous and influential work: Pet Sounds and SMiLE, as well as a brilliant number of albums from Smiley Smile to Surf's Up. I'm fairly certain that most people would agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Johnston/Marks/Fataar/Chaplin are all inconsistent members which makes the distinction to me. Or "founders/alternates" as it was said. Johnston may have been on Pet Sounds, but hey, so was Glen Campbell. Also, I may be wrong, but I think it's been said that Johnston sold his portion of BRI shares back in the 1970s, which makes him even today an unofficial member. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, Bruce Johnston is an official member. He's been an active member (in total) longer than anyone besides Mike. He only left once (1972), and has remained since his return (late 1978). Glen Campbell on the other hand was never an official member. He was only brought in for a very short time as a tour replacement for Brian before Johnston joined and became an official member. And unlike Johnston, Campbell was a session musician for Pet Sounds. And if you want to talk about inconsistency, everyone except Mike have been inconsistent to an extent. Brian from the 80's onwards, Carl leaving the band in 1981 (and came back after over a year), Dennis during the last few years of his life, and Jardine during the 90's. I think for all that above, and that Johnston was an official member for their most acclaimed work, should mean he belongs in the top line. For most people, Johnston can classify as being part of the classic line-up of The Beach Boys.

I'm still not convinced of that because depending on who you ask, another person will say that David Marks deserves 'classic lineup' status for being present on their best-selling and most famous work. He has the same distinctions you cited for Johnston, except his gap lasted between 1967(!)–98. Johnston's nickname was always 'the phantom Beach Boy' so it seems like revisionism for him to be considered a 'classic' member.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
David Marks was only a member for around one and a half years. He was on their first four albums, up to Little Deuce Coupe. It's generally considered that from Today! from 1965 is where their classic work began, which lasted up to Holland in 1973. Bruce became a member in 1965 just in time for Summer Days. He was there for their best work and best albums. To a majority of hardcore (and casual, depending on where you live) fans, he is part of the classic line-up. He's been an active member longer than any of the Wilson Brothers! Bruce was on every album from Summer Days to Carl And The Passions, and again from L.A. Light onwards. And consider this. The Wilson Brothers/Love/Jardine line-up lasted from 1961 to early 1962 and late-1963 to early-1965 and again from late-1974 to late-1978. Compare that to when Johnston was with them.
Their 'best work' and 'best albums' is somebody's opinion and not objectively categorical in the slightest. Johnston's legal membership has been revoked in the past, which is exactly what makes Jardine, Love, and the Wilson the core line-up that they are for never opting out from the group save for live performances and studio sessions (as far as I know). In other words, every member of the group has 'left' at one point, but at no point were Jardine, Love, and the Wilsons ever considered removed from the group, which gives them their distinction.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is somebody's opinion. Though there's a general consensus that Pet Sounds and the SMiLE Sessions are the best work the Beach Boys done. And Bruce Johnston was a member by then. Al Jardine was at least removed from the group from early 1962 to mid-1963, and had he not chosen to return, he would have been viewed as the Pete Best of the Beach Boys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Given that David Marks was a contractual member as late as 1967, it's doubtful that Jardine was 'officially' removed from the group during his brief absence.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to go into "contractual", it should be worth noting that when the Beach Boys first joined Capitol Records, the line-up was Brian, Dennis, Carl, Mike and David (!). Jardine may have been a founding member and appeared on their first single, but was gone by the time they signed on to Capitol. But really, does the legal side of things actually matter? Fact is, David Marks left the band in late-1963. Bruce Johnston did sell his BMI shares when he left the group, and so did Dennis Wilson's estate after his death. And besides, he still has equal ownership of Wilojarston, the band's ASCAP publishing company.

In any case, what matters is that Bruce Johnston has been an active official member since 1965, that's 49 years minus 6. He was/is no sideman or auxiliary member, he is a front-line genuine member. To this day, the two active current Beach Boys touring are Mike Love and Bruce Johnston. Not Mike Love and sidemen. At the end, the legal side doesn't matter. If we look at it that way, Ronnie Wood didn't become an official member of The Rolling Stones until Bill Wyman quit in 1993 and Wood gained his shares. There's been bands that lost ownership of their name because of their managers (who used it on fake bands) because of legal nonsense.

I still maintain that Bruce deserves a place in the top tier, considering everything. I'd also like to hear other people's opinion on this, and see what they think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Bruce Johnston was not inducted in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988, which is the most telling to me. Listed at the top among the other core members? Absolutely not. Bolded? Maybe.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, even Johnston considers himself an "outsider" from the band to this very day.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The way it is now is the way it should be: core members (Jardine/Love/3 Wilsons) up top, additional members on the bottom. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Reiterating arguments

Nobody can dispute the Jardine/Love/Wilsons lineup (see how they are cited as the 'original' members in [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]) while everyone has their own way of evaluating Johnston and Marks' worth in the band.

  1. Johnston wasn't a founder; he didn't join until after the band had recorded all of their top hits sans Pet Sounds/Good Vibes; he's not on the Hawthorne monument (probably because he's not from Hawthorne!); the R&R Hall of Fame did not consider him a principle Beach Boy.
  2. Marks was only a Beach Boys founder depending on who you ask and where you look; he was only in the band for a couple years (see Pete Best); he didn't play on any hits past October '63; the R&R Hall of Fame did not consider him a core Beach Boy; his time in the band was comparable to the length of Fataar/Chaplin's, yet even Fataar/Chaplin were arguably more involved as they contributed original songs to a studio album
  3. If Marks and Johnston are principle members despite their inconsistency, then we can't discount Glen Campbell from the equation since he was a 'Beach Boy' for some live performances and was an instrumentalist for many recordings, and if Campbell can be considered a Beach Boy, then what about the other 'Beach Boys' who played live and in the group's studio recordings...? I'm sure more even cases can be made against Marks and Johnston's status as a full-on member.

And so a conclusion can never be really determined. So there is the founders/alternates compromise, which is (mostly) non-disputable. (By the way, the Rolling Stone template is not comparable because it is operating under decidedly simpler principles.)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledging current Wilson/Jardine/Marks lineup[edit]

I think this revision was in the right. Even though it's not really "THE Beach Boys," they're still an increasingly relevant configuration of their past members distinguishable from Johnston/Love.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)