Is Bruce an original member? No? Well, Mike's website claims he is.

[halblaineisgood]

.

[AndrewHickey]

As far as his singing voice I would certainly rank him last- I mean Carl, Brian, Al and Mike and even Dennis are all superior singers. His shorts really are horrible. His political views are off-putting.

I can get past the voice and even his walking across the stage in his white shorts smiling and clapping his hands, but his political views are unconscionable. 

(That quote isn't from me, of course, but from someone upthread I was quoting).

I couldn't disagree more with his views, but they appear to be held by roughly fifty percent of Americans, give or take, including a reasonable number of people who are friends of mine and certainly not bad people. It's not like he's ever deliberately made a public political statement.

I don't know, it's just... for every bad thing you can find to say about Bruce, there's a corresponding good one, like the way he talks on the BBB Board with fans and has done for about 15 years. His politics are pretty much exactly what you'd expect from someone of his age and background, and he doesn't make a big deal out of them, so I don't see why they should bother me, either.

[KittyKat]

I wonder if Bruce's son is now married to the daughter of the richest woman in the world, Gina Rinehart? He would sometimes mention the wedding but I never read about it happening. I always wondered if Bruce's more recent political statements were shaped by being exposed to that woman, who is very far right and whose father was famous for being a racist. Perhaps knowing her emboldened him, or he might be worried about the world resenting his son and daughter-in-law for being in line for receiving billions of dollars that they worked so hard for.

[AndrewHickey]

I wonder if Bruce's son is now married to the daughter of the richest woman in the world, Gina Rinehart? He would sometimes mention the wedding but I never read about it happening. I always wondered if Bruce's more recent political statements were shaped by being exposed to that woman, who is very far right and whose father was famous for being a racist. Perhaps knowing her emboldened him, or he might be worried about the world resenting his son and daughter-in-law for being in line for receiving billions of dollars that they worked so hard for.

Bruce has been a right-wing Republican at least since the 80s, probably earlier. He hasn't been any more public about his beliefs recently than he ever was -- he just had the misfortune last year to have two private conversations recorded, which is more down to a combination of the way recording technology has become ubiquitous and the heightened public profile of the band last year than to any change in his opinions.

If Bruce was getting up on stage and telling the crowds to vote Republican, I could more than understand people's criticisms of him and would be joining in. But we *all* have opinions which, if they were made public when we were speaking off-guard, would sound stupid or wrong to a lot of people.

[MBE]

Politics doesn't matter to me as far as Bruce or anybody really. I just don't like his testy nature, or his general attitude like he's better than others. Of all the Beach Boys, he the only one I have some serious reservations about. While I have heard nothing too bad about him from the people he knew before the late seventies, the people I've spoke to who came on the scene since tend to be wary. It's not like he's a monster from what they describe, but you don't know who you are going to get when dealing with him. I found that out myself when talking to him twice online. Once he couldn't have been nicer, the other time he was a prick. The only other thing I can attest to myself is that he tried to get me to pay him for an interview. The lady from BRI who tried to set it up seemed very put off he would do that, but I told her it wasn't her fault. I've been writing since 1991 and though it's not an unknown practice, it's the only time I've ever been put in that position. I declined to do the interview because I don't personally trust paid information.     

Still what I think of the guy as a person (which to be fair is only what he shows in public or what I have been told) has zero to do with his work. He was a fine singer back in the day, and hey some of his work (Hey Little Cobra, Don't Run Away, the Sunflower cuts and Disney Girls) is very nice. Yet I think the band suffered when he came back. I don't think he's done one thing of interest since 1972 and almost everything he has done has made me cringe. Maybe he contributed a bit to SNJ but I think the song would have been fine without him. Bruce put in a lot of time, but what's he done with it? This isn't a personal thing for me, just rather an artistic lack of integrity. OK if he was behind the orchestrated shows in the 2000's that was worthwhile, but his attitudes are so contrary and bizarre who knows what he's really thinking.

[MBE]

5 pages on a shaky ad?

I think some of us are a bit bored by yet another mammoth Smile/H&V discussion in the Durrie Parks Smile acetates thread while we wait for MIC developments and the first Brian/Al & David shows.

A bit of Mike bashing is always fun. 

But here you are on the thread Mike.  Thanks for bringing us closer to page 6.

True enough .
Yeah Smile threads aren't to my taste mainly because I think we've heard 95 percent of everything existing and doubt there will be much more. Hope I am wrong but I'm not one for Smile speculation. I guess I'm the odd guy who figures if there's anything good I will hear it soon enough. Of course the Wild Honey version of Surf's Up sounds like it would be cool.

I really admire the SS Board 'Smile' scholars. Their depth of knowledge on all the Smile bits and pieces blows my mind . I just dig hearing the music. "Wild Honey version of Surf's Up"? Thought we already had that on the Smile box?

You know it's so funny, I had some sort of brain fart on that and forgot where that solo version came from. That's one of my favorite's on there too go figure. I'm updating my book over the next two months and am planning to study the box very closely this week. I played the whole thing through at the time but so much has gone on since it came out for me that I need a serious refresher excepting the two LP set which I have played about a dozen times. 

As far as you liking the Smile focus, that's cool. I don't look down on the knowledge of anyone. I personally though feel very satisfied with what I know of that and the Pet Sounds sessions because they have been such a huge focus for so long. I'm not a person who really speculates much so that side of it I am not enthralled with. Still I suppose I did my fair share before the best boots came out over the last 23 years. It was such a mystery and some had so much fun trying to figure it out that I am guessing it's hard to let go of the habit. The fringe that get's really far out with theory is what I can't relate to.

[Nicko1234]

Yet I think the band suffered when he came back.

How much did they suffer because of him though?

Wasn't it more that the band was a hideous mess by this point anyway?

[MBE]

Well I would put it down to Bruce as far as why the three CBS records sound as unduly "safe" as they do. After all he produced much of the first two and brought in Steve Levine for the third. As early as 1981 he was quoted as saying he only wanted to play oldies. He's been in deep in every last corn ball idea since fall 1978 ie Here Comes The Night, Happy Endings, plus the Wipe Out and Problem Child videos. Also the image he's given off since the early eighties is pretty square and his performances outside of his own showcases have long become little more than route. Bruce isn't to blame for all the trouble, not even half. I'm simply pointing out that he hasn't always helped them make good creative choices.

[Nicko1234]

Well I would put it down to Bruce as far as why the three CBS records sound as unduly "safe" as they do. After all he produced much of the first two and brought in Steve Levine for the third. As early as 1981 he was quoted as saying he only wanted to play oldies. He's been in deep in every last corn ball idea since fall 1978 ie Here Comes The Night, Happy Endings, plus the Wipe Out and Problem Child videos. Also the image he's given off since the early eighties is pretty square and his performances outside of his own showcases have long become little more than route. Bruce isn't too blame for all the trouble, not even half, I'm simply pointing out that he hasn't always helped them make good creative choices.

I would actually describe the production of LA as professional rather than safe. The problem was that Brian had written nothing new but I think the album was far better than it might have been. Certainly superior to the production of 15BO or MIU for example...

With KTSA I would partly agree with a couple of caveats. I do think the production is weak but the songwriting is also really poor. Also, the fact that the band was such a mess meant he was working with his hands tied behind his back to some extent. Isn't Brian quoted as saying that Bruce was responsible for transforming Goin' On into a much more commercial song so he did at least do something of use.

Again, Steve Levine didn't work out but the fact that Brian hadn't written a single decent song again killed the album.

Getting Terry Melcher involved did at least result in Getcha Back and Kokomo (along with some crap obviously) so he did some good there.

I don't blame Bruce for saying that he wanted to play oldies though because I think he knew the group were screwed by this point. Dennis was done for, Brian barely wrote a decent song for the group from 1978 onwards (until last year), Al and Carl were limited songwriters and Mike was a lyricist without a songwriting partner. Whatever he or other producers did was going to be turd polishing by and large.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike Eder is killing it in this thread.

[filledeplage]

Well I would put it down to Bruce as far as why the three CBS records sound as unduly "safe" as they do. After all he produced much of the first two and brought in Steve Levine for the third. As early as 1981 he was quoted as saying he only wanted to play oldies. He's been in deep in every last corn ball idea since fall 1978 ie Here Comes The Night, Happy Endings, plus the Wipe Out and Problem Child videos. Also the image he's given off since the early eighties is pretty square and his performances outside of his own showcases have long become little more than route. Bruce isn't too blame for all the trouble, not even half, I'm simply pointing out that he hasn't always helped them make good creative choices.

Mike - some of those songs with a "twist" that you mentioned seem to be an attempt to freshen the band, without going too far afield.  My kids were on the young side, early grade school, when Wipe Out came out, and as goofy as it may look now, it was pretty cutting edge for the Fat Boys to sing with the Beach Boys.  My kids were continuously telling me that they saw the Beach Boys on some TV show or a other, and I'm not sure that what was a raging hit, such as "Full House"or Jack Klugman's "You Again" merits the woodshed.  Klugman was really a headliner as a result of his Odd Couple series.

People in business, take calculated risks all the time, to freshen the business and get innovative ways of exposure to a different demographic.  For example Obama used twitter to get young people involved in the political process, as the typical voter demographic was generally over 50, and more female, than male.  So I think the analogy fails retrospectively. 

And the Hey Little Tomboy genre retro stuff seems to be a Brian brainchild.  I also think that once the USA had removed the troops from Vietnam, and Watergate was pretty much over, with a reason for the States to celebrate, the Bicentennial,  with the Band enjoying a resurgence, they needed some new ideas and strategies for staying back on top, without straying too far afield.  It is probably why Endless Summer and Sprit of America did so well.  You never know what will fly with the public. 

They had already done the "reinvention" thing, post Pet Sounds, and they had to work really hard for credibility, because the public wanted to keep the old surf/girls/cars thing going.  So, taking small risks were not a bad idea. JMHO

[MBE]

Don't completely disagree with some of the points made, but I hold strong to my two basic points.
1. Bruce did not cause the decline alone, but he sure didn't give them a needed edge.
2. As much as those TV shows and eighties hits did to spread the group to a new generation, they were getting poor product not worthy of the Beach Boys in the sixties or early seventies.

[MBE]

Mike Eder is killing it in this thread.

Thanks.

[SMiLE Brian]

Don't completely disagree with some of the points made, but I hold strong to my two basic points.
1. Bruce did not cause the decline alone, but he sure didn't give them a needed edge.
2. As much as those TV shows and eighties hits did to spread the group to a new generation, they were getting poor product not worthy of the Beach Boys in the sixties or early seventies.

Those 1980s "hits" and TV appearances made the band and the public forget what the BBs really meant as a whole.

[filledeplage]

Don't completely disagree with some of the points made, but I hold strong to my two basic points.
1. Bruce did not cause the decline alone, but he sure didn't give them a needed edge.
2. As much as those TV shows and eighties hits did to spread the group to a new generation, they were getting poor product not worthy of the Beach Boys in the sixties or early seventies.

Those 1980s "hits" and TV appearances made the band and the public forget what the BBs really meant as a whole.

Smile Brian - What does that mean? Taken as a whole?  It is impossible to summarize their impact, as it as been so huge. You don't get to Pet Sounds except with the building blocks on All Summer Long or Shut Down II.  These were a sort of a pre figuration of coming attractions and really, it is all a "building block process."

They grew, took creative risks, and became more elaborate.  And, the "back door" of those 80's shows, is the "front door" to find out what they are all about.  The Band never forgot who they were; and C50 is proof enough.  

Kids only listen so much to their parents music.  The 80's shows gave younger fans a place of "ownership." If they watched Full House on their own, and developed an affinity for the music, they owned it, in a different context.  It was not their parents' music any longer.

There is a certain "classist shame" that people are painted with, if they enjoy what the "academic" and pseudo intellectual fans perceive as "I'm a better fan than you because I wouldn't be caught dead listening to Kokomo."  These guys were sort of child stars, starting out as teens, certainly David and Carl, and however trite Surfin' might be construed as, it was their "foot in the door" of the business.  I think this is snobbism at its worst.

The real "BB snobs" were the 60's fm DJ heroes (and the listeners) who saw the merit in the Pet Sounds/Smiley Smile/Wild Honey BB music and played it unapologetically "in your face" alongside all the politically correct 60's rockers.    JMHO

[Nicko1234]

Don't completely disagree with some of the points made, but I hold strong to my two basic points.
1. Bruce did not cause the decline alone, but he sure didn't give them a needed edge.
2. As much as those TV shows and eighties hits did to spread the group to a new generation, they were getting poor product not worthy of the Beach Boys in the sixties or early seventies.

1, I don't think anyone reasonably could have because they were so screwed.
2, I really don't think that could be said for Kokomo or Getcha Back even. The BBs made some crappy appearances on TV shows back in the 60s too of course.

[filledeplage]

Don't completely disagree with some of the points made, but I hold strong to my two basic points.
1. Bruce did not cause the decline alone, but he sure didn't give them a needed edge.
2. As much as those TV shows and eighties hits did to spread the group to a new generation, they were getting poor product not worthy of the Beach Boys in the sixties or early seventies.

Mike -  I don't understand what is meant by "poor product."  In the 80's, it seemed that they were trying to "stay in the game" and how does one do that, as a forty-to-fifty year old, and sell a "product" which already was on the shelf for nearly 30 years? (Kokomo - being released in the late 80's) And, Brian was in a lot of these videos, especially after Dennis passed.

How were they supposed to contort their product to fit an ever changing marketplace?  Even the great Sinatra, started covering Beatles stuff.  Did that make Frank's product unworthy?  Does it mean they are sell outs, covering California Dreamin' on video? Music became visual when it had been historically, strictly an audio format. You get Baywatch crossover, Full House, etc., and it was not strictly concert footage, but integrated into an acting model.

MTV was just really coming into its' own, at that time, alongside VH1 where videos and crossovers from the TV shows became the intro to the music rather than the radio DJ.  As they say (in that movie) "It's Complicated!) 

[SMiLE Brian]

Its just the 1980s songs were such low quality (wipe out, problem child, etc.) that the legacy was harmed with younger people thinking they were lame and the older fans really unhappy with their decline. The BBs were at times too desperate to get on the charts and tried to follow fads they had no clue about to stay "hip".

[Nicko1234]

Its just the 1980s songs were such low quality (wipe out, problem child, etc.) that the legacy was harmed with younger people thinking they were lame and the older fans really unhappy with their decline. The BBs were at times too desperate to get on the charts and tried to follow fads they had no clue about to stay "hip".

I think the problem with that theory is if those songs were hits (and Wipe Out obviously was a big hit) then they obviously did please some people. Kokomo was a much bigger success for the group and was undeniably beneficial for them.

If singles flopped like Problem Child then they were doubtless quickly forgotten. I mean, does anybody think that 'recent' singles by The Rolling Stones really affects how people think about them as a band?

[Disney Boy (1985)]

I imagine that Bruce's dislike of the Friends album is less to do with his lack of involvement with the album and more to do with Mike's lack of involvement with the album. Seriously, i genuinely believe he's that much of a Love ass-licker.

[SMiLE Brian]

Its just the 1980s songs were such low quality (wipe out, problem child, etc.) that the legacy was harmed with younger people thinking they were lame and the older fans really unhappy with their decline. The BBs were at times too desperate to get on the charts and tried to follow fads they had no clue about to stay "hip".

I think the problem with that theory is if those songs were hits (and Wipe Out obviously was a big hit) then they obviously did please some people. Kokomo was a much bigger success for the group and was undeniably beneficial for them.

If singles flopped like Problem Child then they were doubtless quickly forgotten. I mean, does anybody think that 'recent' singles by The Rolling Stones really affects how people think about them as a band?

I feel wipe-out was a hit because of the "fat boys" not the BBs, who seem tacked onto the song. Its just the way the BBs carried themselves in the 1980s that annoys me, their live show and "hits" reeked of doing it for cheap fame/cash without thinking about their past.

[Nicko1234]

I imagine that Bruce's dislike of the Friends album is less to do with his lack of involvement with the album and more to do with Mike's lack of involvement with the album. Seriously, i genuinely believe he's that much of a Love ass-licker.

Really? Can you explain why he's expressed such distaste for M.I.U. and Make it Big then?

I would guess that maybe he dislikes Friends because there are very few fleshed out songs on the album and most of them are sketches (though very pleasant sketches imo).

If he doesn't like it then that's a valid opinion and I'm not sure why people are so threatened by them on this board.

[Mikie]

SMiLE Brian is killing this...........I mean killing it in this thread.

[Nicko1234]

I feel wipe-out was a hit because of the "fat boys" not the BBs, who seem tacked onto the song. Its just the way the BBs carried themselves in the 1980s that annoys me, their live show and "hits" reeked of doing it for cheap fame/cash without thinking about their past.

Not sure about the logic there. I think Wipe Out was a hit because people liked the song as the Fat Boys weren't famous enough to sell it on their own. Certainly not in the U.K. where it reached number 2.

The live show went back to the beginning in terms of playing the hits that the fans wanted to hear. Not earth shattering but not bad either.

[Mikie]

Wipe Out was good. When I first saw it on MTV, I thought, WTH? But I recognized Brian's voice in there and I appreciated that he was looking good and back with The Boys in full stride. Not sure he would have been involved without Landy's insistence, but it gave The Beach Boys good exposure on the mainstream video channel at the time. Otherwise, teenagers and 20 sumpthin's only recognized The Beach Boys as being on VH1 Classics on the "older crowd" channel. It was a little dorky, but I thought it came out OK. Dunno how many African American people bought the record because of The Fat Boys, but I know Caucasian people bought the record because of The Beach Boys! I did! And the Happy Endings and East Meets West singles, which were forgetables. Best BB singles of the 80's? Getcha Back and Rock & Roll To The Rescue followed by California Dreamin' and then Kokamos. Album in '85 didn't do sh*t, but they held their own as a singles band, didn't they?  

Bruce? He looked like a straight-laced wimp in ALL of those 80's videos. And a Right Wingnuter to boot...