Template talk:The Beach Boys

Edits of 30 December 2005
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 Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/November_2005) 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...
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:75.19.56.74, 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
Suggestions for improvements (don't really like the look/placement):

Other members
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? 74.32.247.252 (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
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? 76.116.165.117 :(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?
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
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 58.96.96.204 (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 58.96.96.204 (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 58.96.96.204 (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)

Nobody can dispute the Jardine/Love/Wilsons lineup (see how they are cited as the 'original' members in      ) while everyone has their own way of evaluating Johnston and Marks' worth in the band.
 * Reiterating arguments
 * 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
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)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Paul McCartney main which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Should all 3 Wilson Brothers be on the top line?
There's been a lot of discussion over the years about who should be on the top line of the templet and who should be on the second. The Beach Boys have a long and complicated history, replete with lawsuits and family feuds. I see this page has a lot of discussion over who got full royalties, who was a steady member, etc. Those of us on the outside will never be able to untangle all this. I think the users of Wikipedia would be best served by the way I have it now, with all three Wilson Brothers on the top line along with Bruce, Mike and Al. Carl & Dennis have been dead a long time, but they were undoubtedly core members. David Marks was a founding member, but he left the band early and didn't come back for about 50 years or so. Ricky Fataar and Blondie Chaplin were more than sidemen. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * What is certain is that there are nine official Beach Boys members from past and present (that all three Wilson Brothers belong on the top line is without question). David Marks (whose status as a founding member is debatable) did leave the band early, but he also appeared on and contributed to their first four albums as well as every single from Surfin' Safari to Be True To Your School. That said, given that Marks was absent, as you said, for most of the next 49 years - including for the vast majority of the material that are central to the legacy of The Beach Boys, I would say keep him on the bottom line. Blondie Chaplin and Ricky Fataar were both key members for several years, and contributed to two albums, one of which (Holland) is considered among the band's best work. But they certainly belong on the bottom line given their limited work and tenure in the band. On the other hand, we have Bruce Johnston - who has been an official member since 1965 (with a break between 1972 and 1978). He joined in time to participate in Summer Days (And Summer Nights), and contributed to the great majority of the most acclaimed Beach Boys albums - including Pet Sounds, Wild Honey, Sunflower and Surf's Up. He may not have been on the album covers due to contractual reasons until Friends, but to me it's pretty obvious that the classic, and most artistically important Beach Boys line-up is the six-man line-up with Johnston. It makes absolutely no sense that Johnston is not currently on the top line, and this is something that ought to be rectified in my view. Thescrubbythug (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * He was NOT an official member when he joined in '65 and he has never been considered a core member. The actual core members have always been identified as Brian, Carl, Dennis, Mike, and Al – the shareholders of Brother Records. That is the line-up that was inducted into the 1988 R&R Hall of Fame. Arguing that Bruce should be included because he sang on some of the "most acclaimed albums" is a fallacy, because it's also true that he contributed to almost none of the best-selling albums. ili (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Your claim that Johnston didn’t become an official member in 1965 is not one that is supported by virtually any source or consensus among the band and fans, and in any case disregards the mere fact that he has been an official, active member longer than anybody else except Love. Johnston didn’t *just* contribute vocals on the band’s most acclaimed albums, but he also provided instrumental work and as early as Wild Honey appeared on the band’s album covers (which he was previously unable to due to contractual reasons. Johnston appeared on the back cover of Wild Honey before making his front cover debut on Friends). He was contributing compositions from ‘’20/20’’ onwards. Of the run of critically acclaimed Beach Boys albums where the band’s artistic legacy today rests on - from Today! to Holland (not counting critically derided outliers such as Party!), Johnston contributed as an official member on every album except Today!, most of Carl And The Passions (he contributed to “Marcella” before leaving the band), and Holland. In what universe does this make Johnston unworthy of top line status? Furthermore, since when has the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame had any credibility when it comes to their choices in which band members are inducted? They failed to induct Bob Welch with Fleetwood Mac; they failed to induct Eric Carr with Kiss; they failed to induct Mark Evans with AC/DC; they failed to induct John Dalton with The Kinks; they failed to induct literally any of the important post-1967 members of The Byrds such as Gram Parsons and Clarence White; they failed to induct Dave Rowberry with The Animals; they failed to induct Doug Yule with The Velvet Underground; among many other examples. Using the RRHOF as a talking point because they failed to induct Johnston (and David Marks) is not one that has any basis in credibility. I’d also like to hear what other users have to say on this topic. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Bruce joined as a temporary substitute for Glen Campbell, who was a temporary substitute for Brian (Dillon 2012). The band were trying to sack Bruce throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s but couldn't find anyone to replace him (Badman 2004). He remained with the band for the sake of convenience, and he contributed songs on the records because they needed the extra material and because there was a desire to preserve social harmony. Once again, when most sources write about the Beach Boys, they list Brian, Carl, Dennis, Mike, and Al at the forefront. Those are the founding members. You can stick your fingers in your ears and keep saying that Bruce was an official member in 1965 – the fact of the matter is that he simply wasn't. And "but he sang on !" does not put him on equal ground with three brothers, a cousin, and a childhood friend. ili (talk) 08:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't fully comment on the allegations that the band were trying to sack Johnston during the late-60s and early-70s as I wasn't aware of them, but it would be hard to believe given Johnston's increased prominence throughout this period not just in terms of contributions but also in his appearances on the album covers. Though as far as I know, Badman has been criticised for his reliability in terms of facts - though once again I can't fully comment as I don't know enough. What I can say though is that Glen Campbell *was* a temporary fill-in for a few months after Brian Wilson quit touring, but when offered a permanent place in the band he declined in order to focus on his solo career. So Johnston ended up joining instead as a permanent member, not as a temporary fill-in. As for "arbritary selection of albums" (which he didn't just contribute vocals to, as you so dismissively commented), I cited these albums as the vast majority of the albums the Beach Boys did from 1965 to 1973 *are* critically acclaimed, and is where the band's artistic legacy as well as relevance among modern listeners lie - not the band's pre-1965 work (with the possible exception of All Summer Long). It's the six-man line-up with Johnston and the work they did which are arguably the most relevant today, and I stand by that Johnston belongs on the top line even if he's not a founding member (not to mention how he *remains* an active member to this day. That alone should merit Johnston a place on the top line). I should also add that looking through the history of this Talk section, the majority have been in favour of Johnston being placed above the bottom line in some form (mostly to the top line, with at least one suggestion of there being three lines on the template, but with Johnston still not being on the bottom), while only three-four including yourself have been arguing for Johnston's exclusion from the top line. I think unless anybody else has anything further to add to this discussion, I think the template should *at least* reflect the consensus on this Talk section. Thescrubbythug (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * One thing I failed to note of those 1965–72 albums is that Bruce is barely on most of them. The only ones that contain any significant writing/performance contributions from him, as in, beyond one or two tracks, is Pet Sounds, Sunflower, and Surf's Up. If we're using some populist measurement of worth, then Marks has Johnston beat by a huge margin, yet Marks is not usually considered a core member. He played on basically every track from their first four albums, all of which except for Surfin' Safari made the top 10 charts. And there's no disputing that the Beach Boys are best known for their material from that era.
 * According to whom? I can see that, in your opinion, the latter period holds more aesthetic value than their early period, but there's no evidence that this view is shared by the majority of "modern listeners". Anyone can look up a YouTube video of "Surfin' U.S.A.", for instance, and see that there's a thousand times more public interest for that song than there is for "Marcella". There's also nothing indicating that Bruce's contributions have anything to do with why the latter albums would matter more than others. ili (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * According to whom? I can see that, in your opinion, the latter period holds more aesthetic value than their early period, but there's no evidence that this view is shared by the majority of "modern listeners". Anyone can look up a YouTube video of "Surfin' U.S.A.", for instance, and see that there's a thousand times more public interest for that song than there is for "Marcella". There's also nothing indicating that Bruce's contributions have anything to do with why the latter albums would matter more than others. ili (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * On your first point regarding contributions, firstly he had began contributing compositions from 20/20 with "The Nearest Faraway Place" - and continued to do so for Sunflower and Surf's Up. Evidently, if these compositions were not valued then the band could have easily resorted to alternatives such as some of Dennis Wilson's early compositions (such as "I'm Going Your Way", "Sound Of Free" or - especially - "Wouldn't It Be Nice To Live Again"), or even tracks from Brian Wilson's Bedroom Tapes (such as "Where Is She?" or "Back Home"). You claim that Johnston barely contributed on the albums between 1965 and his departure in 1972, but his contributions aren't any less than many of the core members. During Brian Wilson's peak as band leader, hardly any other member contributed instrumentally, and he mainly relied on the Wrecking Crew in the studio - leaving the rest of the band to mainly come in and provide vocals. Johnston was no different. Throughout the rest of his first tenure, Johnston's contributions in the studio weren't any less than the rest of the band's (and yes, Johnston did appear on and contribute to Smiley Smile. Once I find the right sources reflecting this, I'll go back and update the page). Hell, he had more contributions throughout all of those albums (not counting of course Carl And The Passions) than Dennis Wilson had on Keepin' The Summer Alive or that Brian had on Still Cruisin'. It's almost as if because Johnston wasn't a founding member you expect a higher standard of contributions from him, and the fact that he contributed about as much as most of the rest of the band means that he somehow is "barely on most of them". Regarding Marks, virtually nobody here has called for his insertion into the top line outside of the 2012 reunion context, not like Johnston. As I previously said, Marks was in for less than two years during the band's formative years and while he deserved to be inducted into the RRHOF (not that it has any credibility) with the rest of the band, he was also absent for most of the following 49 years barring a brief stint in the late-90s. Johnston on the other hand has been an official (you may disagree) member since 1965, and has been in since barring his absence from 1972 to 1978 - an active member longer than anybody bar Love. For the life of me, I struggle think of any other band where a member that is not only currently active but has also been in for most of the last 55 years is being blackballed from the top line of a band template - and mostly by the efforts of a single user.
 * YouTube and Spotify are both platforms that are widely used by people of most ages. The fact of the matter is, the older "baby boomer" audiences identified with and listened more to the nostalgic, Endless Summer-type material, and at least in the United States hardly ever gave the Beach Boys a fair go after 1967. But if you speak to most younger fans, the fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority (I may not have sources, but I'm speaking from years of experience on Beach Boys fan forums and Facebook groups, and other such areas) are drawn to the Pet Sounds/SMiLE era material as well as the progressive material that the Beach Boys did right up to Holland - the kind of material that have especially in retrospect been given the critical acclaim that it initially barely received. If you looked around on "greatest album" lists on the Internet, and other such album lists that include the Beach Boys, it's not the likes of Surfer Girl, Little Deuce Coupe or Shut Down Vol. II which are usually included. It's far more likely to be albums such as Pet Sounds, Wild Honey and Sunflower. If you look at the artists and groups that are around today which are heavily influenced by the Beach Boys - in more modern genres such as indie rock, alternative rock and even areas such as lo-fi and chillwave - it is not the early surf-and-cars material that is the area of influence or of remotely any modern relevance.
 * Anyway, the fact of the matter is, we are both evidently passionate Beach Boys fans, and at the end of the day we both want what we think is best for the band as far as Wikipedia representation goes. We both want to work on improving the quality of various Wikipedia pages, including to do with all things related to the Beach Boys, and I respect a lot of the work you have put in to these Beach Boys pages over the years. But the fact of the matter is, there have been more users on this Talk page that at the end of the day are in favour of including a member who has been, and remains, active with the Beach Boys for the better part of 55 years, including as a contributor on the majority of their most acclaimed work. You simply cannot brush this aside, and continue to blackball Johnston from the top line against what the majority of the users here have stated. You may believe that the quality of your argument against Johnston is superior, but at the end it is not for you yourself to judge. It isn't even my place to judge if my argument is objectively superior, even if my personal feeling is that it is, just as the same applies to you. But ultimately more people here have disagreed with your argument - hell, the last user besides yourself who voiced their opposition to Johnston being placed in the top line was from 2014. At this point I've said everything I've had to say on this matter, and have made my position clear. I strongly believe that the template ought to reflect this, and that there's little point continuing this debate unless more active, long-term editors and users chime in and give their two cents - and if more people end up agreeing with your argument, then it would be appropriate to revisit this. Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comparing other configurations of other bands is useless given how unique the Beach Boys' situation is. The top line of this template includes founding members while the second line is later additions. No one's getting "blackballed". This is just the only objective measure by which we can bifurcate the members other than "Alive / Deceased". Every other configuration is dependent on how much you value Bruce and David's role in the band's history. I think David's imprint on the band was stronger, but that his and Bruce's general contributions were roughly equal. We could also argue that Blondie and Ricky were just as valuable, since their roles were almost as extensive as Bruce's and they were both longer in the band than David. It's all subjective.
 * And yet you fail to be cognizant of the fact that the Beach Boys are still widely considered a surf band by folks across all generations, and perhaps of how much the band's California sound/myth has continued to resonate in worldwide pop culture for the last 60+ years. I recommend not spending so much time on insular fan communities as it will certainly skew your perception. Cult obsession isn't always indicative of a larger cultural significance. ili (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet you fail to be cognizant of the fact that the Beach Boys are still widely considered a surf band by folks across all generations, and perhaps of how much the band's California sound/myth has continued to resonate in worldwide pop culture for the last 60+ years. I recommend not spending so much time on insular fan communities as it will certainly skew your perception. Cult obsession isn't always indicative of a larger cultural significance. ili (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I noticed the third opinion request for this page, but I will not reply it because more than two editors are involved in the discussion. Furthermore, the first sentence above implies that the issue had been discussed by multiple editors for years, so I have to decline the request and remove this dispute from the list. As an alternative, I suggest you should try the dispute resolution noticeboard if you cannot reach a compromise on the issue. My impression is that almost no statement is verified by a reference to a reliable source in the above discussion. Without using reliable sources, I cannot imagine how a proper compromise could be achieved. Borsoka (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Should Bruce Johnston be included on the top line?
As per the discussions above in the thread started by Timothy Horrigan, should Bruce Johnston, a member of The Beach Boys since 1965 (with a break from 1972 to 1978) be included on the top members line on the main template for The Beach Boys? Request further comments beyond the two main participants of the above discussion. Thescrubbythug (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This top section should be concise and neutral, but you've inserted your opinion. Can you please reword it (ex "Should Bruce Johnston be included on the top line?" is likely enough) and move your stance to a bullet point? –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 21:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I did keep it as neutral as possible - I left out my own personal opinion and simply included the question with the only additional fact being the length of Johnston’s tenure (though I’ve now shortened that section). Thescrubbythug (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Speedy Close as WP:SNOW The current consensus and reliable sources indicate Bruce Johnston should not be on the top line, as explained by above. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 21:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, there is hardly a consensus on this issue (until now more people have in fact indicated that they’ve been in favour of Johnston’s inclusion on the top line than against, and there have been plenty of sources that would indicate support for both arguments). The efforts of a single user to maintain the current version over the years does not equate consensus. Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Knock it off. I reviewed the discussion above and it was a complete and utter waste of time. It was rampant WP:Original research and personal opinions who was influential, or who played on supposedly best albums. As editors we do not indulge our personal opinions, we do not evaluate which artists or albums are best, we do not debate what lineup of bandmembers is supposedly iconic, who is worthy, who deserves or merits, which artist contributions were significant, or any other the other random minutia in that wall of text debate. Unless there is some other well-established standard for Musical artist navboxs, use the well established standard documented at Infobox musical artist:
 * Current members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. For multiple members joining concurrently (such as the formation of the band), list them according to alphabetical order.
 * Past members of the group, listed in order of joining with no other notation than names. If a group is inactive, all members should be listed here Alsee (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if we were going purely by said infobox standards, then the only members who should be on the top line would be Mike Love and Bruce Johnston, for they are the only two currently active members - though one could very well make the argument that Al Jardine and Brian Wilson should also remain, as legal members. This would mean the deceased Carl and Dennis Wilson would be relegated to the bottom line. Thescrubbythug (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're moving the goal posts. The Beach Boys article lists the group's original members (Brian, Dennis, and Carl Wilson, Mike Love, and Al Jardine) as the second sentence in the lede. It makes sense to keep them on the top line of the template. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 05:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * To be fair, it wasn’t I who made the point about infobox standards. I was responding to what Alsee was saying on that point and the changes that would be applied if we went with what this user said, so don’t accuse me of “moving goal posts”. Thescrubbythug (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Gee, how could the infobox standards possibly be applicable to infobox policy debate? You're moving the goal posts by making it about interpretation of a policy when this is about a policy's prior WP:CONSENSUS and the applicable reliable sources for this article. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 06:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is slander, and it should be obvious that I was only responding purely to what Alsee suggested - and I didn’t even indicate if I was in favour or against that specific idea. I am prepared to report you if you continue with your hostile, sarcastic and slanderous attitude. Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm is not WP:SLANDER nor WP:HOSTILE so go ahead. You attempted to shift discussion about the criterion of the debate, which is moving the goalposts. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 06:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You still used sarcasm in a blatantly unfriendly and uncivil way that indicates that you are not willing to engage without resorting to insults. You could have chosen to respond respectfully and in good faith, but instead you choose to respond in this uncivil manner. I wasn’t attempting to shift anything, I was specifically responding to Alsee’s suggestion and what that would entail. Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, there's nothing uncivil about sarcasm or my statements. You just don't like them. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 06:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You could have chose not to use sarcasm, and you could have chosen to behave more respectfully, without resorting to accusations. Instead you choose to be hostile and antagonistic. I have now reported you, as you are well aware now. The final thing I was say about this specific matter is what I have made perfectly clear already: that responding neutrally to a suggestion by another user about what said suggestion would entail (and responding only to that) does not constitute “moving goal posts”, and that it was an isolated point which other users coming on to this discussion weren’t obligated to specifically respond to, and could still give their two cents on the overall topic discussion. Thescrubbythug (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It would seem three admins disagree with you. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 08:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The fourth admin, who commented after your (smug) comment put it best, and I have nothing further to say to you. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Snow Rise is not an administrator. In fact, I have a higher admin score than them.–– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk </b>) 10:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No The top line lists the original, classic line-up that was recognized by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Johnston started as an unofficial touring/studio musician that later had his own compositions appear on the band's albums, but so were Ricky Fataar and Blondie Chaplin. He played on some of the band's classic hits, but David Marks played on many more. He's performed on the band's tours for decades, but so have several other unofficial members. There's really no way to argue, in objective terms, Johnston having more importance to the band than Fataar, Chaplin, and Marks. It would be especially ridiculous to suggest that Johnston was more integral to the band's history than David Marks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILIL (talk • contribs) --16:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. The newly-released book The Beach Boys is "authored" by the five members currently listed in the top line and Johnston, but with no distinction made between the two: On the cover and within the book, Johnston is treated as an equal member to Wilson/Wilson/Wilson/Love/Jardine, and the press release by the book includes him when referencing the group as a unit:
 * "Here, for the first time in print, is the history of The Beach Boys, by The Beach Boys. Their only official book, The Beach Boys by The Beach Boys is the ultimate chronicle of one of the world’s greatest bands... Brian Wilson, Mike Love, Al Jardine and Bruce Johnston together provide a combined career narrative especially for this book, and through meticulous compilation from sources worldwide, Carl Wilson and Dennis Wilson’s words are equally represented."
 * I don't know whether or not that's enough validity to push Johnston to the top line or not, and frankly I'm not nearly qualified enough in Wikipedia standards to attempt to say one way or another. But if the question is related to Bruce's role in the group, it's clear that he is absolutely considered to be a core member of the band. McCartney75 (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Terry Melcher removed from template, let’s discuss
Should Terry Melcher be included in this template? I'd argue yes, based on two major factors:

1) Melcher co-wrote (and was nominated for a Golden Globe for his work as a songwriter) on the Beach Boys last number one hit in the USA, Kokomo. For me, that's enough right there. In addition, Melcher produced the recording of the song as well.

2) Melcher was a major player, along with Beach Boy Dennis Wilson, in the events that led Charles Manson and his notorious followers to murder numerous people.

Produced and co-wrote BB's last number one hit, plus Manson involvement. Melcher is prominently mentioned in WP's articles on the topic. In my book, that more than qualifies inclusion, but my addition was reverted with the edit summary "This template would become absurdly large if we included associates who simply co-wrote one or two songs." As I have shown, Melcher didnt just write a filler album cut, he helped the Beach Boys top the charts. And yes, the Manson stuff is distasteful, but it's American history that the Beach Boys were deeply entangled in. Jusdafax (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * IMO, criteria for inclusion should not be based on critical and commercial achievements or cultural impact. It should be based purely on how close the individual was to the band.
 * Melcher was indeed a close friend of the group and produced them singles. Manson was also a close friend of the group and affected society, pop culture, and the trajectory of the Beach Boys way more than Melcher did. Should we include Manson too?
 * What about the lyricists that helped Brian write the band's most-lauded works? Should we be including Tony Asher, Van Dyke Parks, Gary Usher, Roger Christian, and Stephen Kalinich? If not, then are we really suggesting that a guy who produced "Kokomo" and hung out with Charles Manson is more important to the band's history than the main contributors to works like Pet Sounds and Smile?
 * What about all those Wrecking Crew musicians who played on many of the band's best-known records? Should we be including Hal Blaine, Carol Kaye, Julius Wechter, Ray Pohlman ... ?
 * What about engineers like Chuck Britz and Stephen Desper?
 * shows the best approach. Limit it to notable managers, press agents, personal assistants, secretaries, and others who were directly employed by the band. Otherwise this template will quickly become unwieldy, because I can think of dozens of notable individuals who contributed as much, if not more to the band. ili (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)