The (eventually) MIC spoilers thread

[The Shift]

A review:

http://somethingelsereviews.com/2013/08/21/the-beach-boys-made-in-california-2013/

[pixletwin]

Interesting article except that the author keep referring to the set as "Made in America".

[Matt Bielewicz]

So, the reviews are starting to come in. Below is the first one I've read.

http://www.godisinthetvzine.co.uk/2013/08/19/the-beach-boys-made-in-california-capitol-recordsuniversal/

Sheez, I'm gonna come across like AGD on a grumpy day here, but I gotta say this. It's got me madder than Brian Wilson on his first day in Hawaii with Dr Landy!

This is the first full review I've read of MiC — and it's *awful*. Not what the reviewer thinks of the set — I think he likes it — it's just that it's *appallingly*, appallingly written. Thomas Wilson (as far as I know, no relation), writing in 1553, would have called this guy — and it has to be a guy, no woman could write as badly as this — a user of 'inkhorn terms'. These days, we'd say he's swallowed a dictionary.

I really hate it when low-grade writers try for high-falutin' language but just haven't got the brains to use the right words (or the patience to look them up in the dictionary and check 'em before pressing 'Send'). If you can't write flowery, don't! Just stick to your natural level...! But no, this guy shoots for the stars and falls flat on his harris.

He doesn't know how to do possessives (screws that one up in the second paragraph with "noughtie's" and continues throughout, rounding off with the delightful "it sounds like a pastiche of there own work"), and from the contexts in which he uses them, he clearly doesn't know the meaning of the words "potted" "heralded", "accustomed", "pendulous", "edict", "enact", "stellar", "diaphanous", "lamentable", "envious", "seeping", "adrift", "requiem" "inaugural", "moiety", and "purview" (using the latter wrongly *twice*).

He also doesn't know that when he writes "bares witness", it should be "bears witness". He doesn't know that when he writes "in awed", it should be "in awe". He doesn't know that when he writes "cannon", it should be "canon". Or perhaps he did know, but was too lazy to check or change what he wrote. I mean: one's a priest or body of work, the other's a piece of heavy artillery. It pays to know the difference.

He writes horribly structured sentences that place a gulf between the (grammatical) articles and the nouns to which they refer, and then fills it with clumsy strings of nested adjectives and adverbs, randomly scattering commas as he goes in the hope that they will somehow define enough sub-clauses make it all work. But they don't. Here are a couple of lovely examples, starting with him talking about SMiLE:

"...this project would dare to even ‘out do’, an at their zenith artistically, Beatles"

"...an alternative version of the Friends’ original, ‘Meant For You’: a refreshed from the Maharishi retreat Mike Love, returns in 1968 to add saccharine to a less overproduced recording."

and worst of all:
"Do It Again’ – the opening tape delayed drum pounding, return to the source of the surfing vibe, stomper from 20/20"

Dude! You can't just string together all the adjectives you want, section 'em off with commas, and place them between the article and the noun - not in English, anyway (on the other hand, the Germans love it - perhaps you should try writing in that language). It's a hackneyed trick that shows you up to be the not very capable at using a spell and grammar checker, inept in the art of sentence plotting, why use original writing when a cliché will do, and indeed why use regular sentence construction when a dangling horror like this will suffice, [gasps for breath]... author that you are.

It's sloppily assembled, and clearly hasn't had a proof-read. One of the paragraphs just peters out. "With a sunny disposition, romantic swoon and swaying to a groove of rose-tinted reflection, it works, the--"

Er. The WHAT? WHAT works? We may never know. I'm not sure I care, mind.

All of the over-ornamented language is just awful to read, too. Consider these hyper-confected towers of tottering pretension: "Catching a zeitgeist wave of feckless youth culture, the group’s Surfin’ Safari, USA and Girl days are served up alongside the coy hot rod and gay abandon ‘bobby sox’ snuggling, Little Deuce Coupe, ‘Be True To Your School’ and Dance, Dance, Dance anthems, on this first installment of the sextet CD collection."

Ecch. Or:

"Twisting and cavorting onto the second CD in this reappraisal of sorts, a trio of congruous, out of the ballpark smashers, usher in the next chapter."

They do, huh...? Ohhh. Kaaaayyyy.

"In a state of flux, the featured Al Jardine written – co-produced with Brian – doo wop, harmonica romping ‘Susie Cincinnati’, is a 2012 mix that does little to improve on the boogaloo ‘honky tonk’ style original from both the single (B-Side to ‘Add Some Music To Your Day’) and LP versions (appeared on 15 Big Ones). As a record of completion it will however suffice."

Pardon? I lost interest in following the twists and turns of that sentence long before its end. And WHAT an end! "As a record of completion it will however suffice"?? What does that even MEAN?

Similarly: "Seeping onto the fourth of this sextet cannon, a triumvirate of Surf’s Up picks, draw 1971 to a close." Ah, man. How exactly does this "triumvirate of picks" "seep"? What was that supposed to be trying to say...? Or should I get the dangling modifier police on this? (Yes, I think I probably should). And jeez, "triumvirate of picks": why couldn't you just say "three Surf's Up tracks on the fourth disc draw 1971 to a close" or something like that?

Or: "Moving on at a pace now, the group’s lack of success and acclaim prompted another spark of ingenuity: or perhaps not." Uuuhh? This is worse than Jack Rieley lyrics!

and finally, and most spectacularly:

"the ‘California Saga’ suite – a traversing narrative of reverent eagle nested heights and atavistic beguile".

Or alternatively, a rip-off of Beethoven's 'Moonlight', a half-finished song about a buzzard with a big gob and ideas above its station (with some po-faced poetry stuck in the middle) and a fun California Girls retread with the Moog bass turned up to eleven. And lots and lots of big 70s beard!

[Muttering to himself in Monty Python Pepperpot voice]: "Atavistic beguile" indeed. I'll atavistic beguile you in a minute, young man..."

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Thanks for the review of the review Matt. 

[ontor pertawst]

Atavistic should have been retired as a word after Hunter Thompson ran it into the ground.

[coco1997]

Surprised we haven't heard more about "My Love Lives On." Maybe it's just a really forgettable song?

[Matt Bielewicz]

Thanks for the review of the review Matt. 

So — you spotted that I'm trying to kill time until my big orange box arrives then...? How did you manage that? 

[Heysaboda]

He doesn't know how to do possessives (screws that one up in the second paragraph with "noughtie's" and continues throughout, rounding off with the delightful "it sounds like a pastiche of there own work"), and from the contexts in which he uses them, he clearly doesn't know the meaning of the words "potted" "heralded", "accustomed", "pendulous", "edict", "enact", "stellar", "diaphanous", "lamentable", "envious", "seeping", "adrift", "requiem" "inaugural", "moiety", and "purview" (using the latter wrongly *twice*).

I found his review to be a diaphanous moiety!   

[Matt Bielewicz]

There should be a user on here called Diaphanous Moiety.

Or Atavistic Beguile.

[The Shift]

Thanks for the review of the review Matt. 

So — you spotted that I'm trying to kill time until my big orange box arrives then...? How did you manage that? 

Wonder if the reviewer has attended one of VDP's creative writing workshops?

[Wrightfan]

Thanks for the review of the review Matt. 

So — you spotted that I'm trying to kill time until my big orange box arrives then...? How did you manage that? 

Wonder if the reviewer has attended one of VDP's creative writing workshops?

Well, there goes my joke I was just going to type 

[ontor pertawst]

VDP actually knows how to use, abuse, and re-assemble the English language in clever, hilarious ways. This guy is just a clown!

[Mike's Beard]

There are points in the guy's writing where he goes off on such a tangent - within sentences - that I forgot what the sentence was originally about and had to re-read it. This really needed an editor to go through it with a red pen.

[The Shift]

There are points in the guy's writing where he goes off on such a tangent - within sentences - that I forgot what the sentence was originally about and had to re-read it. This really needed an editor to go through it with a red pen.

An editor shouldn't really be presented with stuff like that.

[TV Forces]

Surprised we haven't heard more about "My Love Lives On." Maybe it's just a really forgettable song?

We haven't heard much about anything.  I've yet to read a review where the author appears to have
actually listened to the box set.  They just seem to get their info from the press release.  Nothing new.
Ever.

[The Shift]

Surprised we haven't heard more about "My Love Lives On." Maybe it's just a really forgettable song?

We haven't heard much about anything.  I've yet to read a review where the author appears to have
actually listened to the box set.  They just seem to get their info from the press release.  Nothing new.
Ever.

Sad but true.

[Heysaboda]

FYI --

The Wikipedia page about Made in California is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_California

Seems nicely done.

[Matt Bielewicz]

There are points in the guy's writing where he goes off on such a tangent - within sentences - that I forgot what the sentence was originally about and had to re-read it. This really needed an editor to go through it with a red pen.

Right, absolutely. And I didn't even *start* on the factual inaccuracies — some of this stuff I think he just made up off the top of his head. I mean:

"A historical peregrination of America awaits; from the pilgrim landings at Plymouth Rock to the fateful Vietnam student demonstrations at Kent State University; played out to a soundtrack that begins and ends with the innocent, if naïve, joyous youthful exuberance of their hometown state."

""A historical peregrination of America awaits?" Well, no, not in *this* box it doesn't. Do You Like Worms, which mentions Plymouth Rock, isn't *on* MiC; and nor is Student Demonstration Time, which would supply the Kent State vibe if it were here. But it isn't!

"‘Do You Wanna Dance (2012 Stereo Mix)’, Help Me, Rhonda (Mono Single Version)’ and ‘California Girls (2002 Stereo Mix)’ were borne of beach fronted campfires, innocent love-ins and a fraternity lifestyle."

Can anyone attest to a beach-fronted campfire, love-in or frat lifestyle (hell, none of the original Beach Boys even *went* to university/college, right?) in ANY of the stories behind those three songs? No — the guy just made it up. Do You Wanna Dance is a Bobby Freeman cover; Help Me Rhonda is Brian knocking off a quick album track for 'Today' in his time-honoured mid-60s workaholic way and then nudging it and reworking it and re-recording it and scrapping it and remixing it until he had another number 1 single; and California Girls came out of an acid trip, and not a particularly nice one, according to Brian; hardly a love-in! Did they even *have* love-ins in 1965 yet...?

"But as ennui set in and the patriarchal Brian now mastered the limits of the studio, The Beach Boys voiced a growing anxiety – or the growing pains – of youth. The tide’s internal beckoning now seemed to reflect something less carefree. Turning to the burgeoning talent of lyricist and ad jingle writer, Tony Asher, for an inspired ‘take’ on the plaintive concerns of this troubled youth, Brian set out to produce his and the group’s first masterpiece, Pet Sounds.

Often described as, and, spawning the famous ‘teenage symphonies to God’ by-line, this ethereal suite was perhaps rock and pop music’s first triumph; balancing contemporary earthly concerns with a divine musical accompaniment from beyond the heavens. Even the Wilson brother’s inimitable cousin, Mike Love – a stickler for routine, and keeping with the winning formula of yore – weighed in with the rapturous edict, ‘Wouldn’t It Be Nice’, as the album’s opening statement."

This is total bollocks, from start to end. Brian didn't master the limits of the studio — he kept single-handedly *re-defining* those limits for some time after Pet Sounds. That's one of the things that makes him so fricking great! And I ask again, of the sentence "The tide’s internal beckoning now seemed to reflect something less carefree" — what does that even MEAN?? And of course, it wasn't Pet Sounds that Brian described as a 'teenage symphony to God' — that was SMiLE — and Mike Love didn't 'weigh in' with Wouldn't It Be Nice. Brian gave him a bridge to sing, then took Mike out and sang it himself, then put Mike back in for the final mono mix. Oh, and he supposedly made up the 'Good night, sleep tight' stuff at the end. That's hardly 'weighing in with Wouldn't It Be Nice'. And there's more bollocks about Pet Sounds to follow.

"Only when brought to London, where the hipsters, music giants – including a ‘in awed’ Paul McCartney – and kids converted and lapped it up, did it finally take off and begin to sell in droves. "

Pet Sounds didn't do as well as previous Beach Boys albums. Didn't it only go gold in the 90s or something? Sure, it's hip *now*, but can you really say it "sold in droves" after it was brought to London? This is a careless mash-up of all sorts of things that happened, decades apart. Bruce did take Pet Sounds to London, yes, the Beatles heard it there, yes, and later, it became hip and later still it sold better than it had at first. But that took maybe 35 years!

"Eventually signing a pact with the steamboat chuffing logo adorned Reprise – at the time part of Warner Bros -, the boys would release all their records under the consanguinity Brother Records imprint. "

Well, yes. But Brother started at Capitol.

"Sunflower, with its leitmotif of forsaken and unrequited love"...

Pardon? Well, OK, in Tears In The Morning, maybe. But a leitmotif runs through a work. I don't see forsaken and unrequited love in "Our Sweet Love", "Forever", "Deirdre", "This Whole World", "Slip On Through", "It's About Time" or "Cool Cool Water". Could it be that the reviewer just... made that up again?

"One of those late 70s misfires, Adult Child, was denied even an official release; picked over with its bounty of highlights rehashed for later records."

Er... of the tracks on Adult Child, only one came out on a non-compilation album before the GV box set in 1993: Hey Little Tomboy. I'd hardly call that a bounty of highlights.

and finally:

"Bereft of their grinning maverick Dennis –drowned in an ill-fated impromptu bout of midnight diving in 1983..."

Midnight diving? Where'd he get that from? Mid-afternoon diving after being on the razz, more like. Sounds better though, doesn't it, midnight diving...?

But you know, this isn't the usual über-fan ranting at a bad review (Blue Board style "how dare they besmirch the reputation of the great, great Brian Wilson" etc etc). It isn't even a bad review in the sense of damning the set - I think he likes it. It's just that it's such a freakingly inept piece of writing...!

I can't finish without lazering in on the final sentence, because I HATE IT SO MUCH.

"...a misty-eyed return back to where it all began."

YOU DON'T NEED TO SAY 'return back'!!!! IF YOU RETURN, YOU ARE ALREADY GOING BACK!!!! Back can be totally omitted from this sentence. 'return back' is a tautological phrase that says the same thing twice (see what I did there?). It's like 'meet with'. If you meet someone, you are already with them!!!!!! Aaaargghhjbdkhwfcbwekfbwkcbwekc

OK, OK... deep breaths, Matt. Think of the soothing orange of the side of the MiC box. Breathe deep...

[b00ts]

So, the reviews are starting to come in. Below is the first one I've read.

http://www.godisinthetvzine.co.uk/2013/08/19/the-beach-boys-made-in-california-capitol-recordsuniversal/

Sheez, I'm gonna come across like AGD on a grumpy day here, but I gotta say this. It's got me madder than Brian Wilson on his first day in Hawaii with Dr Landy!

This is the first full review I've read of MiC — and it's *awful*. Not what the reviewer thinks of the set — I think he likes it — it's just that it's *appallingly*, appallingly written. Thomas Wilson (as far as I know, no relation), writing in 1553, would have called this guy — and it has to be a guy, no woman could write as badly as this — a user of 'inkhorn terms'. These days, we'd say he's swallowed a dictionary.

I really hate it when low-grade writers try for high-falutin' language but just haven't got the brains to use the right words (or the patience to look them up in the dictionary and check 'em before pressing 'Send'). If you can't write flowery, don't! Just stick to your natural level...! But no, this guy shoots for the stars and falls flat on his harris.

He doesn't know how to do possessives (screws that one up in the second paragraph with "noughtie's" and continues throughout, rounding off with the delightful "it sounds like a pastiche of there own work"), and from the contexts in which he uses them, he clearly doesn't know the meaning of the words "potted" "heralded", "accustomed", "pendulous", "edict", "enact", "stellar", "diaphanous", "lamentable", "envious", "seeping", "adrift", "requiem" "inaugural", "moiety", and "purview" (using the latter wrongly *twice*).

He also doesn't know that when he writes "bares witness", it should be "bears witness". He doesn't know that when he writes "in awed", it should be "in awe". He doesn't know that when he writes "cannon", it should be "canon". Or perhaps he did know, but was too lazy to check or change what he wrote. I mean: one's a priest or body of work, the other's a piece of heavy artillery. It pays to know the difference.

He writes horribly structured sentences that place a gulf between the (grammatical) articles and the nouns to which they refer, and then fills it with clumsy strings of nested adjectives and adverbs, randomly scattering commas as he goes in the hope that they will somehow define enough sub-clauses make it all work. But they don't. Here are a couple of lovely examples, starting with him talking about SMiLE:

"...this project would dare to even ‘out do’, an at their zenith artistically, Beatles"

"...an alternative version of the Friends’ original, ‘Meant For You’: a refreshed from the Maharishi retreat Mike Love, returns in 1968 to add saccharine to a less overproduced recording."

and worst of all:
"Do It Again’ – the opening tape delayed drum pounding, return to the source of the surfing vibe, stomper from 20/20"

Dude! You can't just string together all the adjectives you want, section 'em off with commas, and place them between the article and the noun - not in English, anyway (on the other hand, the Germans love it - perhaps you should try writing in that language). It's a hackneyed trick that shows you up to be the not very capable at using a spell and grammar checker, inept in the art of sentence plotting, why use original writing when a cliché will do, and indeed why use regular sentence construction when a dangling horror like this will suffice, [gasps for breath]... author that you are.

It's sloppily assembled, and clearly hasn't had a proof-read. One of the paragraphs just peters out. "With a sunny disposition, romantic swoon and swaying to a groove of rose-tinted reflection, it works, the--"

Er. The WHAT? WHAT works? We may never know. I'm not sure I care, mind.

All of the over-ornamented language is just awful to read, too. Consider these hyper-confected towers of tottering pretension: "Catching a zeitgeist wave of feckless youth culture, the group’s Surfin’ Safari, USA and Girl days are served up alongside the coy hot rod and gay abandon ‘bobby sox’ snuggling, Little Deuce Coupe, ‘Be True To Your School’ and Dance, Dance, Dance anthems, on this first installment of the sextet CD collection."

Ecch. Or:

"Twisting and cavorting onto the second CD in this reappraisal of sorts, a trio of congruous, out of the (snip snip snip)

Or alternatively, a rip-off of Beethoven's 'Moonlight', a half-finished song about a buzzard with a big gob and ideas above its station (with some po-faced poetry stuck in the middle) and a fun California Girls retread with the Moog bass turned up to eleven. And lots and lots of big 70s beard!

[Muttering to himself in Monty Python Pepperpot voice]: "Atavistic beguile" indeed. I'll atavistic beguile you in a minute, young man..."

Between this and your post about the true amount of unreleased MIC tracks - which was prompted by a hilariously psychotic misunderstanding - you are my new favorite poster on this board.

I agree with everything you wrote... when a true intellectual (Van Dyke Parks for instance) uses flowery language that he UNDERSTANDS, that's one thing, but when a writer or poster uses language they clearly don't understand, in a vain effort to seem intelligent (cough TheProfessor cough) it is annoying and it stands in the way of clear communication.

[Paulos]

So, the reviews are starting to come in. Below is the first one I've read.

http://www.godisinthetvzine.co.uk/2013/08/19/the-beach-boys-made-in-california-capitol-recordsuniversal/

Sheez, I'm gonna come across like AGD on a grumpy day here, but I gotta say this. It's got me madder than Brian Wilson on his first day in Hawaii with Dr Landy!

This is the first full review I've read of MiC — and it's *awful*. Not what the reviewer thinks of the set — I think he likes it — it's just that it's *appallingly*, appallingly written. Thomas Wilson (as far as I know, no relation), writing in 1553, would have called this guy — and it has to be a guy, no woman could write as badly as this — a user of 'inkhorn terms'. These days, we'd say he's swallowed a dictionary.

I really hate it when low-grade writers try for high-falutin' language but just haven't got the brains to use the right words (or the patience to look them up in the dictionary and check 'em before pressing 'Send'). If you can't write flowery, don't! Just stick to your natural level...! But no, this guy shoots for the stars and falls flat on his harris.

He doesn't know how to do possessives (screws that one up in the second paragraph with "noughtie's" and continues throughout, rounding off with the delightful "it sounds like a pastiche of there own work"), and from the contexts in which he uses them, he clearly doesn't know the meaning of the words "potted" "heralded", "accustomed", "pendulous", "edict", "enact", "stellar", "diaphanous", "lamentable", "envious", "seeping", "adrift", "requiem" "inaugural", "moiety", and "purview" (using the latter wrongly *twice*).

He also doesn't know that when he writes "bares witness", it should be "bears witness". He doesn't know that when he writes "in awed", it should be "in awe". He doesn't know that when he writes "cannon", it should be "canon". Or perhaps he did know, but was too lazy to check or change what he wrote. I mean: one's a priest or body of work, the other's a piece of heavy artillery. It pays to know the difference.

He writes horribly structured sentences that place a gulf between the (grammatical) articles and the nouns to which they refer, and then fills it with clumsy strings of nested adjectives and adverbs, randomly scattering commas as he goes in the hope that they will somehow define enough sub-clauses make it all work. But they don't. Here are a couple of lovely examples, starting with him talking about SMiLE:

"...this project would dare to even ‘out do’, an at their zenith artistically, Beatles"

"...an alternative version of the Friends’ original, ‘Meant For You’: a refreshed from the Maharishi retreat Mike Love, returns in 1968 to add saccharine to a less overproduced recording."

and worst of all:
"Do It Again’ – the opening tape delayed drum pounding, return to the source of the surfing vibe, stomper from 20/20"

Dude! You can't just string together all the adjectives you want, section 'em off with commas, and place them between the article and the noun - not in English, anyway (on the other hand, the Germans love it - perhaps you should try writing in that language). It's a hackneyed trick that shows you up to be the not very capable at using a spell and grammar checker, inept in the art of sentence plotting, why use original writing when a cliché will do, and indeed why use regular sentence construction when a dangling horror like this will suffice, [gasps for breath]... author that you are.

It's sloppily assembled, and clearly hasn't had a proof-read. One of the paragraphs just peters out. "With a sunny disposition, romantic swoon and swaying to a groove of rose-tinted reflection, it works, the--"

Er. The WHAT? WHAT works? We may never know. I'm not sure I care, mind.

All of the over-ornamented language is just awful to read, too. Consider these hyper-confected towers of tottering pretension: "Catching a zeitgeist wave of feckless youth culture, the group’s Surfin’ Safari, USA and Girl days are served up alongside the coy hot rod and gay abandon ‘bobby sox’ snuggling, Little Deuce Coupe, ‘Be True To Your School’ and Dance, Dance, Dance anthems, on this first installment of the sextet CD collection."

Ecch. Or:

"Twisting and cavorting onto the second CD in this reappraisal of sorts, a trio of congruous, out of the (snip snip snip)

Or alternatively, a rip-off of Beethoven's 'Moonlight', a half-finished song about a buzzard with a big gob and ideas above its station (with some po-faced poetry stuck in the middle) and a fun California Girls retread with the Moog bass turned up to eleven. And lots and lots of big 70s beard!

[Muttering to himself in Monty Python Pepperpot voice]: "Atavistic beguile" indeed. I'll atavistic beguile you in a minute, young man..."

Between this and your post about the true amount of unreleased MIC tracks - which was prompted by a hilariously psychotic misunderstanding - you are my new favorite poster on this board.

I agree with everything you wrote... when a true intellectual (Van Dyke Parks for instance) uses flowery language that he UNDERSTANDS, that's one thing, but when a writer or poster uses language they clearly don't understand, in a vain effort to seem intelligent (cough TheProfessor cough) it is annoying and it stands in the way of clear communication.

Great post Matt and good to see you back b00ts.

[ontor pertawst]

You need to post your Talmudic takedown commentary on his comments section.

My favorite construction has to be:

"As it turned out, the melancholic surf noir blues direction produced, arguably, their most interesting and lamentable material."

[Nicko1234]

Surprised we haven't heard more about "My Love Lives On." Maybe it's just a really forgettable song?

We haven't heard much about anything.  I've yet to read a review where the author appears to have
actually listened to the box set.  They just seem to get their info from the press release.  Nothing new.
Ever.

To be fair to this guy he obviously gave it a listen. Evidenced by his distaste for stuff like Da Doo Ron Ron and Goin' to the Beach.

[SMiLE Brian]

b00ts!

[Iron Horse-Apples]

They say that

b00ts

is back

Well I never knew that he was gone

[adamghost]

Stan Shapiro co-wrote "Live Again."  If they leave him out of the credits I for one will be pissed.