Monterey Pop Festival

[Steve Mayo]

Steve, it sounds like Mike was blaming everyone else. Carl and Dennis for having "personal" problems. Still don't see why those issues had much to do with not playing one gig. And Brian just moved into his new house in Bel-Aire and was working on the Smiley album and was smoking a lot of dope and beginning his reclusive period. He hadn't been on the road with them for more than two years - surprised he was even considered for the gig.

So where was Bruce? Mike says he was "back" but he was barely, if at all involved with the Smiley album being recorded during those months and still wasn't around when they went to Hawaii two months after the Monterey gig. Says he didn't like being around the drug situation. So I'm not sure he was "back" from anything, except for being back from recording on Smile months earlier and from being on the road.....

Didn't say anything about Al. Al didn't want much to do with the drug scene up on Bellagio either. What were his thoughts on missing Monterey (which would be near his home 6 years later).

thinks they missed out. it made superstars of  a lot of people and groups. stuff like that.

[Steve Mayo]

Also, I don't think comps worked that way in the industry. They were a way to capitalize on a group's existing popularity and capitalize a back catalog when a group was moving new stuff. Not a vote of no confidence.

Right. So you had Best of Vol. 1 in 1966, Best of Vol 2 in 1967, BB Deluxe Set (compiling 3 previous albums) in 1967, and Best of Vol 3 in 1968.

i liked the comps then myself. i loved stack-o-tracks...really liked close up....and loved 1970's capitol good vibrations lp. i think it did help keep the group in the public's eye for a very small fee. may not have sold much but i sure saw many copies of those lp's in my town's record shop. sure others did also.

[Cam Mott]

But Cam, wouldn't you say The Beatles' relative lack of compilations increased that group's "prestige" value? Also, those 3 60's Capitol Best Of sets are very, very poorly compiled, and are similar to the later Pickwick bargain albums. This set a very bad precedent.

I don't think comps had much to do with it, the Beatles had a comp of their own at the same-ish time and no one points to it as a vote of no-confidence/career/prestige killer. To me it seems like that attitude is sort of just a BBs fandom thing. The BBs' comps may have been poorly compiled to some/many but to me they did their job. After decades of comps the BBs have prestige and are still selling comps and new music side by side just like through the decades. Maybe it's just me, but I think comps helped them rather than hurt them, propped up and extended their viability rather than the opposite.

[Mikie]

See, like the Greatest Hits comps, Stack-o-Tracks from 1968 could be considered a revisit to older material too. A novelty record, but also a desperate last ditch effort by Capitol Records to try anything to sell Beach Boys records.

[Mikie]

Maybe it's just me, but I think comps helped them rather than hurt them, propped up and extended their viability rather than the opposite.

Many think the ill timing of Beach Boys Greatest Hits Vol. 1, even though it may have been pre-conceived before the release of Pet Sounds, actually hurt sales of the Pet Sounds album, Cam. Capitol staying with the surf/cars/girls genre when Brian was trying to move forward with more mature sophisticated material.

Getting off topic a little here, but....

And yes, before the decade was out, Capitol squeezed in two more comps - "Beach Boys Close-Up" in 1969 and the aformentioned "Good Vibrations" in 1970. These truncated compilation albums would continue into the 70's and 80's.

[I. Spaceman]

But Cam, wouldn't you say The Beatles' relative lack of compilations increased that group's "prestige" value? Also, those 3 60's Capitol Best Of sets are very, very poorly compiled, and are similar to the later Pickwick bargain albums. This set a very bad precedent.

I don't think comps had much to do with it, the Beatles had a comp of their own at the same-ish time and no one points to it as a vote of no-confidence/career/prestige killer. To me it seems like that attitude is sort of just a BBs fandom thing. The BBs' comps may have been poorly compiled to some/many but to me they did their job. After decades of comps the BBs have prestige and are still selling comps and new music side by side just like through the decades. Maybe it's just me, but I think comps helped them rather than hurt them, propped up and extended their viability rather than the opposite.

OK. I disagree. When I was younger and I'd see sealed Beach Boys compilations in the department store 99 cent bin, it just reinforced my negative perception of the group as a cheap oldies act. And two Best Ofs in a row during the greatest period of groundbreaking experimentation in the 1960's, that is just unacceptable.

[filledeplage]

Not being in the business or knowing the contract language, I am at a disadvantage as to know the production terms.  But, what I do know, is that art can't be rushed.  And that I don't remember these major player bands, for the most part churning out 3 a year.  There was a big build up, prior to release.  And teaser singles, Airplay, and interviews, prior to the LP's to maximize revenue.  

Every major act, including The Beatles and Stones, were expected to deliver three US albums a year (The Beatles broke this tradition at the end of 1966, as did The Beach Boys). As late as 1969, Creedence Clearwater Revival were held to a three-albums-a-year deal. Maybe art can't be rushed, but the Golden Era of pop music took place in a factory-type manner. In general, these type of strictures were good for music, as it encouraged a high turnover, and a healthy artistic competition. Art sometimes should be rushed and scheduled, as a motivational factor. Brian should have been given the same leeway as The Beatles, sure. But some type of deadline should have been held to, with the Smile project, if he expected to stay in the game.

That was a great and clear explanation. Thanks!  I didn't understand that it was an industry standard, and I was just becoming a consumer in this market in 1965-1966.  It didn't seem that The Beatles were coming out with 3 a year after Rubber Soul.  And people do need some boundaries.  It may be that the artistic "intensity" was ramped up contemporaneously with both bands. They should have been given equal leeway.  I agree.  

But, there is such a thing as confusion in the marketplace, when consumers get overwhelmed, as now, with iPad mania.  In the double-LP or even triple LP scenario, which is what SMiLE might have been. It might have been compared to a trilogy such as Kyzyztof  Kieslowski's Three Colors  films. (As for 1967, it is moot.)

And, it couldn't be compared to the early albums when the theme was so large.  But, after Good Vibrations, and Surfs Up (Leonard Bernstein) how could the record company have imagined that Brian would regress compositionally to the earlier work, and expect him to churn out 3 a year, as the circumstances had been materially changed?  And one album might really be three, in terms of work.

[filledeplage]

See, like the Greatest Hits comps, Stack-o-Tracks from 1968 could be considered a revisit to older material too. A novelty record, but also a desperate last ditch effort by Capitol Records to try anything to sell Beach Boys records.

Mikie - that would be my single exception to the stereotype of a comp. I always looked at Stack-O-Tracks as Beach Boys karaoke! Did they invent karaoke?

And, I'm not critical of the comps, especially for those fans, who like the music as party music, and that is fine, but only that the timing of the releases collided with the extraordinary stuff such as Pet Sounds and SMiLE. And I think that the company had a duty to properly market the product.  And, I don't think they did just with the chronology.

[Steve Mayo]

Maybe it's just me, but I think comps helped them rather than hurt them, propped up and extended their viability rather than the opposite.

And yes, before the decade was out, Capitol squeezed in two more comps - "Beach Boys Close-Up" in 1969 and the aformentioned "Good Vibrations" in 1970. These truncated compilation albums would continue into the 70's and 80's.

yeah..i know what you mean about promoting newer releases. but hell....even up to today it is the comps that are the biggest sellers. and the group was promoted well some of those years from '66 to now. but the public buys the comps. always have and probably always will. head scratcher it is, isn't it?

[I. Spaceman]

Not being in the business or knowing the contract language, I am at a disadvantage as to know the production terms.  But, what I do know, is that art can't be rushed.  And that I don't remember these major player bands, for the most part churning out 3 a year.  There was a big build up, prior to release.  And teaser singles, Airplay, and interviews, prior to the LP's to maximize revenue.  

Every major act, including The Beatles and Stones, were expected to deliver three US albums a year (The Beatles broke this tradition at the end of 1966, as did The Beach Boys). As late as 1969, Creedence Clearwater Revival were held to a three-albums-a-year deal. Maybe art can't be rushed, but the Golden Era of pop music took place in a factory-type manner. In general, these type of strictures were good for music, as it encouraged a high turnover, and a healthy artistic competition. Art sometimes should be rushed and scheduled, as a motivational factor. Brian should have been given the same leeway as The Beatles, sure. But some type of deadline should have been held to, with the Smile project, if he expected to stay in the game.

That was a great and clear explanation. Thanks!  I didn't understand that it was an industry standard, and I was just becoming a consumer in this market in 1965-1966.  It didn't seem that The Beatles were coming out with 3 a year after Rubber Soul.  And people do need some boundaries.  It may be that the artistic "intensity" was ramped up contemporaneously with both bands. They should have been given equal leeway.  I agree.  

But, there is such a thing as confusion in the marketplace, when consumers get overwhelmed, as now, with iPad mania.  In the double-LP or even triple LP scenario, which is what SMiLE might have been. It might have been compared to a trilogy such as Kyzyztof  Kieslowski's Three Colors  films. (As for 1967, it is moot.)

And, it couldn't be compared to the early albums when the theme was so large.  But, after Good Vibrations, and Surfs Up (Leonard Bernstein) how could the record company have imagined that Brian would regress compositionally to the earlier work, and expect him to churn out 3 a year, as the circumstances had been materially changed?  And one album might really be three, in terms of work.

I agree.

[Mikie]

Mikie - that would be my single exception to the stereotype of a comp. I always looked at Stack-O-Tracks as Beach Boys karaoke! Did they invent karaoke?

You know, I think they did, Filledeplage. And Capitol also inadvertently invented a bonafide collector's item!

But you know, they included the real music tracks to the songs. Plus, they included not only a booklet complete with the lyrics to the songs, but the music sheets for piano and guitar for up and cuming musicians!

[Bicyclerider]

The idea that Mike not wanting to support Coke is the or even a major reason for the BB to cancel their Monterey appearance strains credulity.  Brian was on the Monterey Pop board - more of an honorary position - their publicist was a major player in putting it together, Derek Taylor - to suggest that if Brian wanted the BB to perform he would allow Mike to veto it on such a flimsy excuse is as believable as Mike scrapping Smile against Brian's wishes because he didn't like the lyrics to Cabinessence.  Mike was interviewed the weekend after Monterey and made no mention of this important political stand he got the group to take, and no mention of this in any Mike interviews (or Brian interviews) since - i'd think if this was a major reason Brian would have readily used Mike as an excuse for their no appearance when he was asked in subsequent years about it.  Just doesn't pass the smell test.

[filledeplage]

Mikie - that would be my single exception to the stereotype of a comp. I always looked at Stack-O-Tracks as Beach Boys karaoke! Did they invent karaoke?

You know, I think they did, Filledeplage. And Capitol also inadvertently invented a bonafide collector's item!

But you know, they included the real music tracks to the songs. Plus, they included not only a booklet complete with the lyrics to the songs, but the music sheets for piano and guitar for up and cuming musicians!

Yes, I bought it, when it was released, but can't find my sheet music.

Inadvertent karaoke pioneers!  

[Mikie]

As I recall from some Janis Joplin biography I read a while ago (I believe it was Scars of Paradise or something like that?), Monterey was originally intended as a showcase for the Haight-Ashbury scene and other like-minded groups until the Hollywood types (read: industry folks) started moving in and took it over, forming the board upon which John Phillips and all those people sat. Of course, this incensed those from Haight-Ashbury and their sympathizers, who felt that it perverted what the festival was originally meant to be about -- and I think a lot of their ire was directed at The Mamas & The Papas (as well a that "San Francisco" song about wearing flowers in your hair) as being exemplary of the antithesis of what Monterey was in the beginning. I can't say I blame them either...

Obviously in the end the industry won out due to the festival's success and fame but I thought it was very interesting to find that out. Of course, who knows how The Beach Boys would've been received by that same crowd. Maybe similarly to The Mamas, or perhaps they'd appreciate The Boys more for being nowhere near as fey, haha.

That's something.  It started out as a music festival for the San Francisco bands and then the L.A. crowd joined in.  Of course, most of the record companies were in L.A.....but still.

[Stephen W. Desper]

The Beach Boys pulled out of the 1967 Monterey Pop festival at the last minute because Mike Love did not want to be associated with Coke, which was one of the sponsors of the event?  That sounds like absolute bullshit to me.  Can anyone provide evidence that Coke was even a sponsor?  And if they were, what is the logic that Mike Love, of all people, would refuse a gig due to a corporate sponsor as innocuous as Coca Cola?  Where did this nonsense first originate?

I think if you read up the the thread you will see this is the claim of Stephen Desper who was the Beach Boys live mixer during that period, and who ended up doing a bunch of the sound engineering at the Monterey Festival. The Coke anecdote is true, but to say it was THE reason is probably an exaggeration. It was one of a dozen reasons. Carl's pending draft troubles, Dennis' pending divorce, Brian wanting to concentrate on tweaking Heroes and Villains, the group being unprepared for facing that audience, lawsuits, business crisis, Brian's state of mind etc... This was a time of endless swirling problems within the band, and Mike added to the bitch-fest by taking a stand against Coke...i guess.

Yes, I did read this thread starting at the beginning where it is said that Stephen Desper recently made this statement on the Steve Hoffman board.  But I’m wondering where he got this info.  In your BBs FAQ book you call it a theory, a word which would indicate that someone presumes this may have been the reason, but has no conclusive evidence.  And I must admit that when I read your book I laughed out loud reading the words "Another theory is that Mike Love was leery of Monterey's Coca-Cola corporate sponsorship and cancelled to protest unhealthy beverages in principal."  And considering that you stated it's a "theory" I took that to mean it's simply speculation on someone's part, even though it would be safe to say that Coke or Pepsi, along with a variety of other sugary soft drinks, were probably sold at every single Beach Boys concert with no protest from Mike Love.  

Jon, when you say "The Coke anecdote is true" are you saying that it is true that there was in fact a Coca-Cola corporate sponsorship and Mike was upset about it, or simply that it is true that this is an anecdote has been put forth as a reason the BBs cancelled their appearance?  (Just did a web search and wasn't able to find any logo or other mention of Coca-Cola on the 1967 Monterey posters, tickets, or what I could see of the stage.)

Since Brian stated at the time that he was responsible for canceling the Beach Boys appearance at Monterey I have always assumed that to be the case, although Carl's draft issues and other factors certainly could have contributed.  I hope Stephen Desper reads this thread and will provide elaboration.  He was there working with the Beach Boys at the time, and he's been an incredible asset to this board providing us with fascinating background.  But, although I most certainly wasn't there and thus don't have any first hand info, this story of Mike being responsible for the BBs pulling out of Monterey simply because he was unhappy about a Coke corporate sponsorship just seems like nonsense to to me, although I can see Brian or Mike giving it as a flippant answer, or telling someone to give it as an answer in order to evade the real reasons the band pulled out.  Or Mike could have even said something like, "We're not going because I'm unhappy about coke," but he wasn't actually talking about Coca-Cola.

COMMENT:  So now I'm just writing BULL sh*t! because it sounds like that to you.  Not just your normal BULL sh*t but the ABSOLUTE type (comes in a fancy bottle from Sweden, I guess).   Doesn't conform to your view of history? so it's bull sh*t?  Do you know to whom you are talking?  I was paid to be there, were you?

My source for making this statement on the very friendly Steve Hoffman board (they don't think I'm a bull sh*t artist over there) was American Productions. When not in the studio working for The Beach Boy Corporation, I worked for American Productions, the touring company owned by TBBC.

If you're interested in Monterey Pop historical perspectives, you might check-out our discussion at the Hoffman board. I wrote around three pages of what I remember of that day as an engineer.

Having been preparing for the boys to be one of the lead acts at Monterey, word came late from headquarters that The Beach Boys would not be at Monterey. All management said to me was Mike does not wish to lend his celebrity to some of the sponsors, such as Coke, Dr Pepper, Pepsi, etc. -- that is sugar laden soft drinks in general. All the other concerns cited in this thread were certainly in play, but all management (Nick Grillo) said was Coke and Mike don’t mix.

I wrote on the Monterey Pop Festival over at Steve Hoffman's board because it was a discussion about Hendrix and the sound system, not the Beach Boy pullout.  I wrote about The Beach Boys in passing . . . that is, the reason I was there with all the equipment was because of a prior contract MPF had with AP. 

My statement is not official Beach Boy history. It's my recollection of how I experienced that day -- a day that will never be again in music history. Yes, it's too bad The Beach Boys missed out, but let's not make a federal case out of what I said. You all just read all your books, interviews and second-hand information sources all you want. Construct BB history however you wish. But I'll continue to remember that history as best I can and pass my memories along to you -- Just don't call it bull sh*t. I've got better things to do with my time then dispense bull sh*t.

For what it's worth,    ~Stephen W. Desper

[Steve Mayo]

i enjoy your writings. please keep them coming. people here can be dumdasses at times with their posts. esp when they weren't even around back in the day and want to spout out their theories.

[kermit27]

Stephen,

I appreciate everything that you have posted and documented for us on this board in so many threads.  I just want to thank you on behalf of the quieter members here.  Sure, we're not vocal, but we certainly don't think what you have to say is bullshit.   Thank you.

On the topic of MPF and Coke, EVEN IF that excuse were bullshit, (Mike's BS not yours), then your firsthand knowledge proves that was the excuse offered at the time regardless if that was the band's true motives.  It's what you were told and I totally believe that.  However, I think it may have been a convenient excuse for the band.

[Stephen W. Desper]

Stephen,

I appreciate everything that you have posted and documented for us on this board in so many threads.  I just want to thank you on behalf of the quieter members here. Sure, we're not vocal, but we certainly don't think what you have to say is bullshit.   Thank you.

On the topic of MPF and Coke, EVEN IF that excuse were bullshit, (Mike's BS not yours), then your firsthand knowledge proves that was the excuse offered at the time regardless if that was the band's true motives.  It's what you were told and I totally believe that.  However, I think it may have been a convenient excuse for the band.

COMMENT:  I don't doubt the sincerity of members here, that's way I responded the way I did.

Management called me about the change because it meant I need not take all the Beach Boy equipment and instruments to the venue. Wheather a cover story or not, that's what management said and that was good enough for me. I had to make a few last minute equipment decisions, otherwise and after the event, not much was said about it thereafter. Mike did talk about his stand against the evil Coco-Cola Company at dinner a few days later. That's all I remember. ~swd

[Jon Stebbins]

Stephen, thanks for checking in with your eyewitness account of the Monterey "Coke" incident.

[KittyKat]

Isn't it possible that Mike was being made a scapegoat because most of the Beach Boys' organization (including the business part, represented by Nick Grillo) were enabling Brian's increasingly erratic behavior?  Better to blame Mike than let people know what was going on with Brian in private.

[bgas]

Isn't it possible that Mike was being made a scapegoat because most of the Beach Boys' organization (including the business part, represented by Nick Grillo) were enabling Brian's increasingly erratic behavior?  Better to blame Mike than let people know what was going on with Brian in private.

 This is SO typical of the thought process here: Everyone seems to feel that they know more than those directly involved.   
Are you seriously coming out and calling Stephen a liar or simply being the devil's advocate?
  Barring a personal reply from Mike Love or Nick Grillo stating that the whole Coca-Cola thing was contrived, it seems to me you have to go with Stephens' eye-witness accounting: 

My source for making this statement on the very friendly Steve Hoffman board (they don't think I'm a bull sh*t artist over there) was American Productions. When not in the studio working for The Beach Boy Corporation, I worked for American Productions, the touring company owned by TBBC.

Having been preparing for the boys to be one of the lead acts at Monterey, word came late from headquarters that The Beach Boys would not be at Monterey. All management said to me was Mike does not wish to lend his celebrity to some of the sponsors, such as Coke, Dr Pepper, Pepsi, etc. -- that is sugar laden soft drinks in general. All the other concerns cited in this thread were certainly in play, but all management (Nick Grillo) said was Coke and Mike don’t mix.

For what it's worth,[/size]    ~Stephen W. Desper

Mike did talk about his stand against the evil Coco-Cola Company at dinner a few days later. That's all I remember. [/size] ~swd

[KittyKat]

Isn't it possible that Mike was being made a scapegoat because most of the Beach Boys' organization (including the business part, represented by Nick Grillo) were enabling Brian's increasingly erratic behavior?  Better to blame Mike than let people know what was going on with Brian in private.

 This is SO typical of the thought process here: Everyone seems to feel that they know more than those directly involved.   
Are you seriously coming out and calling Stephen a liar or simply being the devil's advocate?
  Barring a personal reply from Mike Love or Nick Grillo stating that the whole Coca-Cola thing was contrived, it seems to me you have to go with Stephens' eye-witness accounting: 

My source for making this statement on the very friendly Steve Hoffman board (they don't think I'm a bull sh*t artist over there) was American Productions. When not in the studio working for The Beach Boy Corporation, I worked for American Productions, the touring company owned by TBBC.

Having been preparing for the boys to be one of the lead acts at Monterey, word came late from headquarters that The Beach Boys would not be at Monterey. All management said to me was Mike does not wish to lend his celebrity to some of the sponsors, such as Coke, Dr Pepper, Pepsi, etc. -- that is sugar laden soft drinks in general. All the other concerns cited in this thread were certainly in play, but all management (Nick Grillo) said was Coke and Mike don’t mix.

For what it's worth,[/size]    ~Stephen W. Desper

Mike did talk about his stand against the evil Coco-Cola Company at dinner a few days later. That's all I remember. [/size] ~swd

No, I"\'m not calling Stephen a liar, that's why I referenced Nick Grillo. Stephen said that's what he was told by management (and I believe that's what he was told), and Grillo was one of the people who said it.  I'm just conjecturing about management's motive for saying that (as in possibly shielding Brian from criticism, or shielding Carl from additional criticism for his CO status if they believed that could be an issue with some people). I'm sure they not only told Stephen that, they no doubt told others the same thing, that Mike didn't want to play a festival where soft drinks were the sponsor. In later years, different parties had different stories about why the Beach Boys didn't play Monterey, but that was their management's official answer at the time. 

[Custom Machine]

Stephen, thanks for checking in with your comments.  I'm the guy who said the story that the reason the Beach Boys pulled out of Monterey was because Mike Love did not want to be associated with Coke, stated to be one of the sponsors of the event, sounded like absolute bullshit to me.  In addition, I said I hoped you would read this thread and provide elaboration, which you did, but I obviously inadvertently upset you, and for that I apologize, as that was in no way my intent.

I hope you understand that I was not stating that your recollection of what you had been told was erroneous or in any way BS, but when I said I was wondering were you got this info, the question I wanted to know was who was responsible for telling you this story?  And you answered the question by saying that it was Nick Grillo and American Productions.

So I am in no way saying that your reporting of what you were told by American Productions 45 years ago and have posted on the Hoffman board is in any way circumspect.  Instead, what I was saying is that the story you were told by Nick Grillo and American Productions back in 1967 sounds like bullshit to me, a PR excuse to avoid additional questions as to the real reasons why the BBs failed to appear.  And that's just my opinion, as stated, based on the points I made in my earlier posts.  And like I said in my post, I obviously wasn't there, I'm simply reacting skeptically to the official line American Productions gave you at the time.  As I said in a previous post, you have been an incredible asset to this board, and your reporting of American Productions stated reason for the Beach Boys non-appearance at Monterey adds yet another fascinating element to the story.

And yes, I do know who you are!  You and I have corresponded by email in the past, the first time quite a few years ago, with me lauding the incredible engineering work you did on Sunflower, which is my all time favorite album by anyone, anywhere, at any time, both for the musical selections contained within and also for the fabulous sound stage and overall sonic splendor provided by your engineering work.  I own your Recording the Beach Boys book, have the consumer version of the Desper Spatializer hooked up to my audio chain, and I have recently written to you stating that I'm looking forward to the revised edition of Recording the Beach Boys.  So I have the utmost respect for you, your work, and the wonderful job you have done adding to the historical record of the Beach Boys.

Totally off topic, but something I've been wanting to ask you for awhile, did you ever do engineering at Doug Weston's Troubadour in LA?  In the never aired TV special, "Easy to Be Free," covering Rick Nelson and the Stone Canyon Band's late October thru early November 1969 tour, (produced by Rick's brother David), there are a couple of quick shots of a guy doing the house engineering at the Troubadour, and it looks like a lot like you, but the shots are brief and from the side, so I'm not certain.  This would have been during the time when the album Rick Nelson in Concert at the Troubadour 1969 was recorded.

And, again, in closing, thanks for adding so much great info to the BB's historical record!

[Stephen W. Desper]

Stephen, thanks for checking in with your comments.  I'm the guy who said the story that the reason the Beach Boys pulled out of Monterey was because Mike Love did not want to be associated with Coke, stated to be one of the sponsors of the event, sounded like absolute bullshit to me.  In addition, I said I hoped you would read this thread and provide elaboration, which you did, but I obviously inadvertently upset you, and for that I apologize, as that was in no way my intent.

I hope you understand that I was not stating that your recollection of what you had been told was erroneous or in any way BS, but when I said I was wondering were you got this info, the question I wanted to know was who was responsible for telling you this story?  And you answered the question by saying that it was Nick Grillo and American Productions.

So I am in no way saying that your reporting of what you were told by American Productions 45 years ago and have posted on the Hoffman board is in any way circumspect.  Instead, what I was saying is that the story you were told by Nick Grillo and American Productions back in 1967 sounds like bullshit to me, a PR excuse to avoid additional questions as to the real reasons why the BBs failed to appear.  And that's just my opinion, as stated, based on the points I made in my earlier posts.  And like I said in my post, I obviously wasn't there, I'm simply reacting skeptically to the official line American Productions gave you at the time.  As I said in a previous post, you have been an incredible asset to this board, and your reporting of American Productions stated reason for the Beach Boys non-appearance at Monterey adds yet another fascinating element to the story.

And yes, I do know who you are!  You and I have corresponded by email in the past, the first time quite a few years ago, with me lauding the incredible engineering work you did on Sunflower, which is my all time favorite album by anyone, anywhere, at any time, both for the musical selections contained within and also for the fabulous sound stage and overall sonic splendor provided by your engineering work.  I own your Recording the Beach Boys book, have the consumer version of the Desper Spatializer hooked up to my audio chain, and I have recently written to you stating that I'm looking forward to the revised edition of Recording the Beach Boys.  So I have the utmost respect for you, your work, and the wonderful job you have done adding to the historical record of the Beach Boys.

Totally off topic, but something I've been wanting to ask you for awhile, did you ever do engineering at Doug Weston's Troubadour in LA?  In the never aired TV special, "Easy to Be Free," covering Rick Nelson and the Stone Canyon Band's late October thru early November 1969 tour, (produced by Rick's brother David), there are a couple of quick shots of a guy doing the house engineering at the Troubadour, and it looks like a lot like you, but the shots are brief and from the side, so I'm not certain.  This would have been during the time when the album Rick Nelson in Concert at the Troubadour 1969 was recorded.

And, again, in closing, thanks for adding so much great info to the BB's historical record!

COMMENT:  All is well here.  We'll just chalk it up to a poor choice of words -- We've all been there. Thank you for your response and understanding. There are certainly a great group of people posting here.

I did do some PA house mixing at Doug Waston's Troubadour. It was on and off, and not too many times, just a handfull.  Don't forget the FLAME played or even were introduced by BRI at the Troubadour. And if memory serves me right, someone, maybe Alan, did a show or three at the Troubadour. Nevertheless, if a film camera caught someone who looks like me, I doubt it's me as I was only there once in a while.

What I'm really excited about is Brian's win at the Grammy's.  So long overdue!  This year's awards couldn't have gone to more deserving people as Brian, Alan B. and Mark L.    

. . .  now if someone could just get Mark a decent tux . . .

~swd 

[filledeplage]

Thanks for all the interesting info in this thread.

On ebay, there is for sale under entertainment memorabilia, a newspaper article whose headline is about Carl's trial.  Complete with photos.  Hard to read, but it gives a sense of what was going on at the time. 

$35.00

Key words would be Beach Boys Carl newspaper article original 1967