In Praise of the BW A & E Biography

[PongHit]

Yes, I agree this is the best BW doc, and ENDLESS HARMONY is the best BB film.

[guitarfool2002]

Very interesting observations. I remember this A&E doc as riding a bit of a wave of BW and BB's interest which was already set in motion by other events at that time...and I hate to admit that the memory isn't what it used to be, and i can spew out random bits of info just fine while I couldn't even remember what year this one premiered. I'd say one of the watershed moments for me as a BW fan was picking up a random 'zine of the paper variety at a bookstore and reading about a Don Was documentary on Brian, and how it was going to make the rounds of select theaters instead of getting a wide release. After hearing all kinds of "alternative" musicians name-checking Brian and Smile and Pet Sounds throughout 1993 and '94, seeing that there was indeed some kind of concrete interest bubbling up in the non-mainstream music circles was pretty cool and vindicating in a way as a fan.

The trump card that the A&E doc holds is the quality of some of those film clips - things like parts of the GV firehouse promo appeared there in fantastic quality, compared with what had even been shown on other BB docs around that time, and the question is did they locate a better source for these clips or did the A&E folks have them touched up for better quality?

So for the film clips alone, rarity and quantity put the A&E doc near the top. However, if there is someone being introduced to the band, it's still necessary to track down the other docs because some of the essential clips are not in the A&E.

One more thing...to me it felt like the A&E documentary was done for and speaking to the fans who already had all the videos and records and trinkets and all of that, which was refreshing. They could have gone "Greatest Hits" with it, and instead they offered something new and spoke to a different level of fan than would have been standard procedure. I think they respected their intended audience to make that call, while not making it too esoteric for a casual fan.

[Rocky Raccoon]

I think the best Beach Boys documentary is the BBC one from 2004.

[metal flake paint]

One of my favourite quotes from this documentary, from Daryl Dragon

http://youtu.be/X7PjuaM4mR8?t=6m20s

[Rocky Raccoon]

One of my favourite quotes from this documentary, 6:20-6:32:

http://youtu.be/X7PjuaM4mR8?t=6m20s

Said by "the Captain," one of the most unhip musicians there ever was. 

[Jon Stebbins]

Wish I had the $$ to buy David Marks' home movies....

Can you elaborate? Are these for sale? Or just speculation?

Thanks for the review, PS. Agree that the documentary was well done.

The David Marks home movies that I think Bgas is referring to are the ones Elmer Marks took back in the early 60's. Clips have been shown on various BB docs, including the one on the beach in Hawaii in 1963 with all of The Boys minus Brian. There is at least one clip that hasn't been shown publicly (with exception to a Beach Boys convention or two) of David inside in a living room joking around and jumping over a couch and hiding, and I think he had a gun/and or army fatigues on or whatever it was. Jon knows what's out there, but I know these wouldn't be for sale. David or his Mom probably has them.

I imagine Jon is most likely aware of what's out there; and to some degree, these are the clips that have been shown on various BB-docs. 
BUT, this past week in Southern CA, I spoke to the person that bought the movies( and David's Pendfleton), so, NO, they're not in the possession of the Marks family. >>David sold them almost 30 years ago, when presumably, $$ wasn't as easy to come by. I'm only guessing as to why they were sold, as I wasn't party to the transaction(s)  <<

 I was told that there are some that have never seen broadcast or shared. Again, this is what I was told, and I personally haven't seen them

Dave may have lost possession of the orig. home movie reels, but they can't legally be shown in any doc.  or film without his permission because the intellectual property on them is his. Its like when i found those 1964 era Beach Boys multi-track tapes in the possession of a fan. The fan owned the reels, but not what was on them.

[MBE]

Like almost all Beach Boys docs it makes Brian seem much worse from 1967-73 then he really was. A lot of the cool clips of Brian having fun are taken from the late sixties-early seventies, not circa 1966 when they are used. Some of the talking heads are much better than others too.

[Sam_BFC]

I think the best Beach Boys documentary is the BBC one from 2004.

That is a very good one.  The first one I ever saw in fact and it was in similar circumstances to those in which Mr rockandroll first saw the A+E one; I'd just started listening to Pet Sounds and saw the BBC doc and learnt about Smile for the first time, joined the BW board, saw my first BW show that year and eventually wound up here 

---
Just watched the A+E one for the first time.  Great stuff, one of its strengths is definitely the wide range of accounts for the main players, the only thing missing I guess was some contemporary Mike.  The letter that Marilyn reads from Brian is like a fairytale.  Is the interviewee Daniel Rutherford now her husband?

[Lowbacca]

has it ever been released on dvd?? if not it should be, I would buy it...

Many of us would. There's a lot of good BBs/BW documentaries that were never released on DVD. Another one would be the BBC's Dennis Wilson: The Real Beach Boy.

[Doo Dah]

Mike Mitchell of the Kingsmen told me stories of when their bands toured the US Southwest in the summer of '64. Bunch of guys crammed in a Greyhound charter, while Brian was constantly shooting Super 8 video. Pranks, highjinks galore, all captured by Brian.

Who knows whatever became of that stuff. Mike said that he'd ask Brian the next time he sees him.

[leggo of my ego]

Sony Porta-Pack

1/2" open reel monochrome video that looks quite poor - tape is very fragile and
also degraded with time...if the sync track goes the image is unrecoverable.

As for the porn-ring thing the virtue of this system was no film developing needed
hence the element of secrecy is better maintained.

[bgas]

Wish I had the $$ to buy David Marks' home movies....

Can you elaborate? Are these for sale? Or just speculation?

Thanks for the review, PS. Agree that the documentary was well done.

The David Marks home movies that I think Bgas is referring to are the ones Elmer Marks took back in the early 60's. Clips have been shown on various BB docs, including the one on the beach in Hawaii in 1963 with all of The Boys minus Brian. There is at least one clip that hasn't been shown publicly (with exception to a Beach Boys convention or two) of David inside in a living room joking around and jumping over a couch and hiding, and I think he had a gun/and or army fatigues on or whatever it was. Jon knows what's out there, but I know these wouldn't be for sale. David or his Mom probably has them.

I imagine Jon is most likely aware of what's out there; and to some degree, these are the clips that have been shown on various BB-docs. 
BUT, this past week in Southern CA, I spoke to the person that bought the movies( and David's Pendfleton), so, NO, they're not in the possession of the Marks family. >>David sold them almost 30 years ago, when presumably, $$ wasn't as easy to come by. I'm only guessing as to why they were sold, as I wasn't party to the transaction(s)  <<

 I was told that there are some that have never seen broadcast or shared. Again, this is what I was told, and I personally haven't seen them

Dave may have lost possession of the orig. home movie reels, but they can't legally be shown in any doc.  or film without his permission because the intellectual property on them is his. Its like when i found those 1964 era Beach Boys multi-track tapes in the possession of a fan. The fan owned the reels, but not what was on them.

So explain this for me:  Does it matter if there was a sales slip or signed contract with the movies, specifying whether Dave  was selling just the movies, or the right to distribute them? 
Or, what if nothing was spelled out?  I realize you're not a lawyer( at least to the best of my knowledge) and  truthfully, I don't have any idea what transpired at the time of sale. 
 Still, it's not like Dave accidentally threw them away. For that matter, it's not like Capitol made a mistake dumping the reels, as I think it's been noted as a standard practice, to dump similar reels
 But using your example, if all that the owner of those reels owned was the reels, how were they able to sell them back to Capitol for a nice chunk of $$ ?  and could they have sold them to anyone/any record label?  Is there  a statute that governs how long the property rights stay with the original owner(s) if they dispose of property? 

[guitarfool2002]

I may be wrong but I think the copyrighted material and the allowable uses of that material is the issue. Since the songs on those audio reels were copyrighted, and "owned" therefore controlled by another interest, the person who had those tapes basically owned only the physical tapes, and could not release, sell, distribute, or broadcast what was on the tapes because the material was the intellectual property of another party, but if someone with the legal authority or rights to that material on the tapes wanted them, the person currently owning them could ask for money for those tapes rather than having a court order issued to hand them in for free because they were discarded.

With film it's a bit different, but not much. There are copyrighted images such as those of Marilyn Monroe, Elvis, and the like which can't be used for profit unless a release was signed when the film was originally shot, and which gave legal ownership to the photographer or the company they worked for. If someone finds a stack of outtakes from a Marilyn photo shoot at a yard sale, they can't publish the images or release them on their own because of copyright, yet they can sell the collection as a collection of physical property and perhaps that buyer can go to court for the rights to use the images.

Right? 

[Jon Stebbins]

Wish I had the $$ to buy David Marks' home movies....

Can you elaborate? Are these for sale? Or just speculation?

Thanks for the review, PS. Agree that the documentary was well done.

The David Marks home movies that I think Bgas is referring to are the ones Elmer Marks took back in the early 60's. Clips have been shown on various BB docs, including the one on the beach in Hawaii in 1963 with all of The Boys minus Brian. There is at least one clip that hasn't been shown publicly (with exception to a Beach Boys convention or two) of David inside in a living room joking around and jumping over a couch and hiding, and I think he had a gun/and or army fatigues on or whatever it was. Jon knows what's out there, but I know these wouldn't be for sale. David or his Mom probably has them.

I imagine Jon is most likely aware of what's out there; and to some degree, these are the clips that have been shown on various BB-docs.  
BUT, this past week in Southern CA, I spoke to the person that bought the movies( and David's Pendfleton), so, NO, they're not in the possession of the Marks family. >>David sold them almost 30 years ago, when presumably, $$ wasn't as easy to come by. I'm only guessing as to why they were sold, as I wasn't party to the transaction(s)  <<

 I was told that there are some that have never seen broadcast or shared. Again, this is what I was told, and I personally haven't seen them

Dave may have lost possession of the orig. home movie reels, but they can't legally be shown in any doc.  or film without his permission because the intellectual property on them is his. Its like when i found those 1964 era Beach Boys multi-track tapes in the possession of a fan. The fan owned the reels, but not what was on them.

So explain this for me:  Does it matter if there was a sales slip or signed contract with the movies, specifying whether Dave  was selling just the movies, or the right to distribute them?  
Or, what if nothing was spelled out?  I realize you're not a lawyer( at least to the best of my knowledge) and  truthfully, I don't have any idea what transpired at the time of sale.  
 Still, it's not like Dave accidentally threw them away. For that matter, it's not like Capitol made a mistake dumping the reels, as I think it's been noted as a standard practice, to dump similar reels
 But using your example, if all that the owner of those reels owned was the reels, how were they able to sell them back to Capitol for a nice chunk of $$ ?  and could they have sold them to anyone/any record label?  Is there  a statute that governs how long the property rights stay with the original owner(s) if they dispose of property?  

Well the obvious reason the owner of the Beach Boys multi-track reels could sell them back to Capitol is because they wanted to use what was on them. If Capitol didn't have it they couldn't use it right? So even though the "fan"  couldn't use what was on them other than for his own personal use...the fact that he had something entirely unique on his tapes gave him leverage. And as Guitarfool said, the owner of the tapes came by them legitimately. As far as selling them to someone else, again that could only have been from one collector to another...no usage rights could be sold or authorized by a fan. Same thing applies with Dave's movies, the guy bought them as an artifact, the rights to authorize use of what is on them for profit or some kind of publicly distributed creative use remains with David, his mom, his family. They have established this claim by authorizing use of portions of the home movies in a BBC documentary under the credit Marks Family Archive. Dave has a digitized copy of the majority of what was on his orig. reels and he claims ownership of the intellectual property. If the owner of the orig. physical home movie reels wanted to challenge that he'd be up against some long odds no matter what kind of paperwork he had, unless it was notarized, worded very specifically etc... A sales receipt would only prove he came by the reels legally as a physical possession.

[bgas]

Wish I had the $$ to buy David Marks' home movies....

Can you elaborate? Are these for sale? Or just speculation?

Thanks for the review, PS. Agree that the documentary was well done.

The David Marks home movies that I think Bgas is referring to are the ones Elmer Marks took back in the early 60's. Clips have been shown on various BB docs, including the one on the beach in Hawaii in 1963 with all of The Boys minus Brian. There is at least one clip that hasn't been shown publicly (with exception to a Beach Boys convention or two) of David inside in a living room joking around and jumping over a couch and hiding, and I think he had a gun/and or army fatigues on or whatever it was. Jon knows what's out there, but I know these wouldn't be for sale. David or his Mom probably has them.

I imagine Jon is most likely aware of what's out there; and to some degree, these are the clips that have been shown on various BB-docs.  
BUT, this past week in Southern CA, I spoke to the person that bought the movies( and David's Pendfleton), so, NO, they're not in the possession of the Marks family. >>David sold them almost 30 years ago, when presumably, $$ wasn't as easy to come by. I'm only guessing as to why they were sold, as I wasn't party to the transaction(s)  <<

 I was told that there are some that have never seen broadcast or shared. Again, this is what I was told, and I personally haven't seen them

Dave may have lost possession of the orig. home movie reels, but they can't legally be shown in any doc.  or film without his permission because the intellectual property on them is his. Its like when i found those 1964 era Beach Boys multi-track tapes in the possession of a fan. The fan owned the reels, but not what was on them.

So explain this for me:  Does it matter if there was a sales slip or signed contract with the movies, specifying whether Dave  was selling just the movies, or the right to distribute them?  
Or, what if nothing was spelled out?  I realize you're not a lawyer( at least to the best of my knowledge) and  truthfully, I don't have any idea what transpired at the time of sale.  
 Still, it's not like Dave accidentally threw them away. For that matter, it's not like Capitol made a mistake dumping the reels, as I think it's been noted as a standard practice, to dump similar reels
 But using your example, if all that the owner of those reels owned was the reels, how were they able to sell them back to Capitol for a nice chunk of $$ ?  and could they have sold them to anyone/any record label?  Is there  a statute that governs how long the property rights stay with the original owner(s) if they dispose of property?  

Well the obvious reason the owner of the Beach Boys multi-track reels could sell them back to Capitol is because they wanted to use what was on them. If Capitol didn't have it they couldn't use it right? So even though the "fan"  couldn't use what was on them other than for his own personal use...the fact that he had something entirely unique on his tapes gave him leverage. And as Guitarfool said, the owner of the tapes came by them legitimately. As far as selling them to someone else, again that could only have been from one collector to another...no usage rights could be sold or authorized by a fan. Same thing applies with Dave's movies, the guy bought them as an artifact, the rights to authorize use of what is on them for profit or some kind of publicly distributed creative use remains with David, his mom, his family. They have established this claim by authorizing use of portions of the home movies in a BBC documentary under the credit Marks Family Archive. Dave has a digitized copy of the majority of what was on his orig. reels and he claims ownership of the intellectual property. If the owner of the orig. physical home movie reels wanted to challenge that he'd be up against some long odds no matter what kind of paperwork he had, unless it was notarized, worded very specifically etc... A sales receipt would only prove he came by the reels legally as a physical possession.

  Thanxx to you and Guitarfool for the explanations! 

[TV Forces]

This is a fantastic documentary and I ordered the VHS from A&E back in the day.  I always wished Brian's first quote wasn't saying Dennis was too stupid to learn.  People could take that the wrong way and doesn't portray Brian the best from the get-go.

I always thought Ginger's comment was funny.. paraphrasing: "we were told not to laugh at Brian if he tries to sing falsetto. and I said "why not"?" 
why not?  gee I dunno.. 

[punkinhead]

I love the usage of the song one for the boys when it brings up Dennis' death.

You feel the sadness from Brian by that audio and visual

[punkinhead]

Jeff does also appear briefly in the Beautiful Dreamer documentary.

I always felt his appearance was very random, in my opinion it's just a celebrity telling how cool good vibrations is. (At least if I recall correctly) Don't get me wrong, I think Jeff Bridges is pretty awesome.…

[Rocky Raccoon]

Jeff does also appear briefly in the Beautiful Dreamer documentary.

I always felt his appearance was very random, in my opinion it's just a celebrity telling how cool good vibrations is. (At least if I recall correctly) Don't get me wrong, I think Jeff Bridges is pretty awesome.…

I think they were just interviewing famous people who attended the concerts.  I agree, it's pretty random, Rob Reiner was in it too.