Is Carl Lying?

[Lorenschwartz]

If they sold them as a double package they would've got way more sales.

"COMPARE the old to the new. Hear your favorite hits and new songs from PET SOUNDS. Buy both today! and hear America's fastest evolving musical act sweeping up the world!".

Puh-leeze...i think not...Capitol did not stand behind Pet Sounds, i'll always believe that

[Olivio]

Well, as it has been said, they did take out several big ads for it...

"The most progressive pop album ever! It's fantastic!"

[Lorenschwartz]

Olivio....i know your just comin' on cause you're guilty, so
   why don't you just go put on a Hairy Nillson record, and Shut the f*** UP, already!!!!!

just kiddin'.

[endofposts]

It's interesting that trade ads are mentioned, because my understanding is how much money you spend on advertising in the trades influences chart position, or at least it used to.  It was a form of payola, in a sense.   PS chart position may have been influenced by the costly ads, so it might have been selling less well than the other LP's around it on the chart that didn't have as much ad money spent on them.  Plus, the public didn't see the ads, only industry insiders.  How PS was sold to the general public is more relevant, and the information generally included in the BB history books is that the Greatest Hits collection was given a stronger in-store push than PS.  It also charted higher.  PS was also a disappointment when compared to the performance of "Summer Days" and other BB LPs shortly before it, most of which made the Top 5.  It might seem like a small thing, but since Brian was self-critical, not to mention criticized by Murry, if his records didn't reach the top, it might have influenced his feelings at the time.  Marilyn's quote is in the Badman book, as well as Bruce Johnston and the vice-president of promotion at Capitol, and all indicated that PS promotion and chart performance were a disappointment to the BB and Brian, even though it at least reached the Top 10 of LP's.

[Lorenschwartz]

It's interesting that trade ads are mentioned, because my understanding is how much money you spend on advertising in the trades influences chart position, or at least it used to.  It was a form of payola, in a sense.   PS chart position may have been influenced by the costly ads, so it might have been selling less well than the other LP's around it on the chart that didn't have as much ad money spent on them.  Plus, the public didn't see the ads, only industry insiders.  How PS was sold to the general public is more relevant, and the information generally included in the BB history books is that the Greatest Hits collection was given a stronger in-store push than PS.  It also charted higher.  PS was also a disappointment when compared to the performance of "Summer Days" and other BB LPs shortly before it, most of which made the Top 5.  It might seem like a small thing, but since Brian was self-critical, not to mention criticized by Murry, if his records didn't reach the top, it might have influenced his feelings at the time.  Marilyn's quote is in the Badman book, as well as Bruce Johnston and the vice-president of promotion at Capitol, and all indicated that PS promotion and chart performance were a disappointment to the BB and Brian, even though it at least reached the Top 10 of LP's.

I'll Stand By You

[shelter]

I never understood why Capitol was worried about Pet Sounds. I mean, at that time they usually took just two singles from an album, so two songs with hit potential should've been enough for them. And Pet Sounds had Wouldn't It Be Nice, God Only Knows, Sloop John B and Caroline No...

[Cam Mott]

I suppose because someone thinks something it doesn't mean it's true and vice versa.

It was several years ago and it would take a month to find it [if at all] but I recall Billboard's album charts for 1966 showing Pet Sounds as 1 of only 35 [+ or - ?] albums to break #10 that year.

[Surfer Joe]

I suppose because someone thinks something it doesn't mean it's true and vice versa.

Absolutely.  Did Pet Sounds do well?  Did Capitol promote it enough?  These are subjective questions with no correct or incorrect answers.

What we can probably say safely is that Capitol wasn't thrilled with it- if their response to Brian is accurately reported- and that Brian was disappointed with the sales. To say that it truly failed or succeeded commercially invites argument either way.

If it can be shown that Capitol intentionally pursued a policy of pushing the lame Greatest Hits album at Pet Sounds' expense- and there seems to be at least some evidence for that- then you have another story.

It's human nature to try to make a story simple and clear, without a lot of grey area, but life is usually a bit more ambiguous than that.  It reminds me of art school, when we all circled around the model in drawing class.  When you got up and walked around the room, you saw the same person in the same pose from twenty different angles, with twenty different impressions: some more accurate, some more insightful.  There are many different truths.

[endofposts]

It doesn't matter if it did better than most albums by most acts, it didn't do well for a Beach Boys album compared to past album chart positions.  If the Beatles' had an album that landed at #9, after having a string of #1's, don't you think it would have been regarded as a disappointment?  Not to mention evidence of an act on the way down.  There was no precedent for acts having multi-year runs at the top of the charts.  Any sign of weakness or diminishing of sales would be perceived by the act itself, the record label, and by outsiders as signs of slippage and the potential for falling out of fashion.   None of that was lost on Brian, who seemed to have kept track of both chart positions and  money matters, if you believe some of his remarks over the years.  He was also keenly aware of the competition, and could probably name every album ahead of PS in the charts.  We're not talking about some act from Podunk just breaking out and grateful to be that far up, but an established act and leader with a fierce sense of competition.

[Lorenschwartz]

It doesn't matter if it did better than most albums by most acts, it didn't do well for a Beach Boys album compared to past album chart positions.  If the Beatles' had an album that landed at #9, after having a string of #1's, don't you think it would have been regarded as a disappointment?  Not to mention evidence of an act on the way down.  There was no precedent for acts having multi-year runs at the top of the charts.  Any sign of weakness or diminishing of sales would be perceived by the act itself, the record label, and by outsiders as signs of slippage and the potential for falling out of fashion.   None of that was lost on Brian, who seemed to have kept track of both chart positions and  money matters, if you believe some of his remarks over the years.  He was also keenly aware of the competition, and could probably name every album ahead of PS in the charts.  We're not talking about some act from Podunk just breaking out and grateful to be that far up, but an established act and leader with a fierce sense of competition.

Thats right, Marie, no retreat,baby...no surrender!!!
You are my Shinin' Star

[Julia]

Personally, as someone who watched IJWMFTT recently, I thought Carl was lying too. Just the way he said it, it didn't sound very enthusiastic, just him being able to read the room. (You dont go on a documentary about someone and trash their work, you don't admit to disappointed fans you're part of the reason something didn't come out.) Carl, I think, was kind of more Mike-like than a lot of fans give him credit for. I think he was shrewd, commercial-oriented, not a particularly gifted songwriter and "political" (IE fake, strategic). Something about him kinda rubs me the wrong way I can't totally put my finger on, like he was just as entitled as Mike but had better PR.

[BJL]

Personally, as someone who watched IJWMFTT recently, I thought Carl was lying too. Just the way he said it, it didn't sound very enthusiastic, just him being able to read the room. (You dont go on a documentary about someone and trash their work, you don't admit to disappointed fans you're part of the reason something didn't come out.) Carl, I think, was kind of more Mike-like than a lot of fans give him credit for. I think he was shrewd, commercial-oriented, not a particularly gifted songwriter and "political" (IE fake, strategic). Something about him kinda rubs me the wrong way I can't totally put my finger on, like he was just as entitled as Mike but had better PR.

I've never gotten this vibe from Carl. But I have long had the sense that Carl felt pretty burned by his relationship with Brian by the 80s and 90s. And I get it. To have a beloved brother you looked up to as a kid and young adult, who then struggles big time with drugs and mental illness and basically loses control of his life and checks out, is going to be really hard for anyone. On top of that, to have to live your entire professional life in that person's shadow (however extraordinary the life you got from it!) can't have been easy. I don't think you need Carl to not have liked the music to get this kind of ambivalent reaction, when Smile would have been tied up in so much complicated family, personal, and professional drama from his own life. Smile’s failure was a major turning point in Brian Wilson’s life. But it was also just as big a turning point in Carl Wilson’s life, except Carl had had no control over it and probably hadn’t even really understood what was happening while it was happening.

Based on the surviving evidence that I've seen, I think it's possible Carl was ambivalent about the material all along, that he didn't get it in the 60s but came to appreciate it later, or that he loved it in the 60s and grew ambivalent over time. But frankly, and in stark contrast to the speculation on the first page of this thread, I think maybe the last version sounds the most plausible to me. That while Smile was happening, Carl was maybe worried a little about how they would do it live, and about Brian's mental state, but was also really excited about what Brian was doing musically. But as Smile became this complicated, painful part of the band's legacy, his opinion became more ambivalent.

[Zenobi]

The main thing I get from reading some of these resurrected threads is how unbelievably obnoxious were several "fans".

[Julia]

I've never gotten this vibe from Carl. But I have long had the sense that Carl felt pretty burned by his relationship with Brian by the 80s and 90s. And I get it. To have a beloved brother you looked up to as a kid and young adult, who then struggles big time with drugs and mental illness and basically loses control of his life and checks out, is going to be really hard for anyone. On top of that, to have to live your entire professional life in that person's shadow (however extraordinary the life you got from it!) can't have been easy. I don't think you need Carl to not have liked the music to get this kind of ambivalent reaction, when Smile would have been tied up in so much complicated family, personal, and professional drama from his own life. Smile’s failure was a major turning point in Brian Wilson’s life. But it was also just as big a turning point in Carl Wilson’s life, except Carl had had no control over it and probably hadn’t even really understood what was happening while it was happening.

I may've been a little too harsh, but it seems to be my way where I over-emphasize a point if I feel it's been ignored for too long. I just think he's often put on a pedestal for dying young (not diminishing the tragedy of that) and for his public role as "the peacemaker." As a fan, I can't have been in his shoes during all the craziness, but sometimes it feels like he sold out his brothers' and the band's integrity to be commercial. I get it, it's his livelihood, but he had no right to essentially guilt/force Brian to stay in the band and do things he didn't want to do. It's understood by a lot of the non-band primary sources that Brian wanted to and should've gone solo, so I don't believe Carl was ignorant of these aspirations which he squashed time and again. With Carl, my reading of the material is he constantly pressured Brian to be productive again while simultaneously dumping on his output. That had to be straight up torturous for Brian, an unspoken reason he was so depressed and dysfunctional. There were absolutely hurt feelings on Brian's side,  even bluntly stated in interviews, but it gets dismissed as "oh that's just Landy's influence" when I think he was genuinely venting.

The Mt Vernon thing is a perfect example--it's like, Carl, he isn't into the hard rock vibe like you. You want him to make music, you take what he gives you and say "thank you" or leave him alone. As far as I recall, Carl was part of the Redwood incidents too, and wouldn't even record the Paley stuff out of some feigned concern trolling when really, I suspect, the reason is bitterness. (By then, Carl felt burned by things Brian said during the Landy years. I never got that far in WIBN but I've seen 80s interviews and I don't think Brian was being unfair there.) I just think Carl's hands aren't totally clean, he let Brian get bullied around, but unlike Mike he knows when to keep his mouth shut (and died tragically young, and had the best voice) so the fans give him a pass. That's the record I felt the need to correct when I wrote my comment.

Based on the surviving evidence that I've seen, I think it's possible Carl was ambivalent about the material all along, that he didn't get it in the 60s but came to appreciate it later, or that he loved it in the 60s and grew ambivalent over time. But frankly, and in stark contrast to the speculation on the first page of this thread, I think maybe the last version sounds the most plausible to me. That while Smile was happening, Carl was maybe worried a little about how they would do it live, and about Brian's mental state, but was also really excited about what Brian was doing musically. But as Smile became this complicated, painful part of the band's legacy, his opinion became more ambivalent.

I personally think he didn't particularly like it, not as overtly hostile as Mike (I think Mike, for all his faults, was at least man enough to say what the other guys were thinking to Brian's face) but then recognized its commercial potential soon after. Carl, I think, was the weakest songwriter of the Wilsons BY FAR but still had instincts enough to tell which way the wind was blowing by 1968. I think Carl realized they missed the boat, hence 20/20 and Surf's Up. But I don't think he really liked the material, just realized "hey it turns out having a weird psychedelic album was the thing to do in '67 after all!" He certainly didn't "love it" or there'd be quotes like Dennis', or primary sources saying "Carl was his biggest supporter/defended it" like they say for Dennis. We can't know for certain, that's just my impression.

I may be too harsh in my characterization but Im trying to swing the pendulum back a bit, I guess. What a lot of people call "playing the peacemaker" I call "playing politics" and "being two-faced." Like, right here, he's acting as if he were Brian's supporter all along when he was dumping on the Paley stuff at the exact time this interview was filmed. He didn't "learn his lesson" and was behaving in a manner contrary to the image he wants to present to the viewing audience. I call that disingenuous, and I see that behavior a lot with Carl. (People can say there were extenuating circumstances in the '90s but I say bull--Carl just never expected the Paley drama to go public.) Carl acted entitled to Brian's creative output while dissing it all through the 70s and that really rubs me the wrong way. If you're gonna shackle your bro to a failing band he's clearly outgrown, that wouldn't even exist if not for him, you should play his songs and be thankful for his effort. But I guess easier said than done.

[BJL]

I've never gotten this vibe from Carl. But I have long had the sense that Carl felt pretty burned by his relationship with Brian by the 80s and 90s. And I get it. To have a beloved brother you looked up to as a kid and young adult, who then struggles big time with drugs and mental illness and basically loses control of his life and checks out, is going to be really hard for anyone. On top of that, to have to live your entire professional life in that person's shadow (however extraordinary the life you got from it!) can't have been easy. I don't think you need Carl to not have liked the music to get this kind of ambivalent reaction, when Smile would have been tied up in so much complicated family, personal, and professional drama from his own life. Smile’s failure was a major turning point in Brian Wilson’s life. But it was also just as big a turning point in Carl Wilson’s life, except Carl had had no control over it and probably hadn’t even really understood what was happening while it was happening.

I may've been a little too harsh, but it seems to be my way where I over-emphasize a point if I feel it's been ignored for too long. I just think he's often put on a pedestal for dying young (not diminishing the tragedy of that) and for his public role as "the peacemaker." As a fan, I can't have been in his shoes during all the craziness, but sometimes it feels like he sold out his brothers' and the band's integrity to be commercial. I get it, it's his livelihood, but he had no right to essentially guilt/force Brian to stay in the band and do things he didn't want to do. It's understood by a lot of the non-band primary sources that Brian wanted to and should've gone solo, so I don't believe Carl was ignorant of these aspirations which he squashed time and again. With Carl, my reading of the material is he constantly pressured Brian to be productive again while simultaneously dumping on his output. That had to be straight up torturous for Brian, an unspoken reason he was so depressed and dysfunctional. There were absolutely hurt feelings on Brian's side,  even bluntly stated in interviews, but it gets dismissed as "oh that's just Landy's influence" when I think he was genuinely venting.

The Mt Vernon thing is a perfect example--it's like, Carl, he isn't into the hard rock vibe like you. You want him to make music, you take what he gives you and say "thank you" or leave him alone. As far as I recall, Carl was part of the Redwood incidents too, and wouldn't even record the Paley stuff out of some feigned concern trolling when really, I suspect, the reason is bitterness. (By then, Carl felt burned by things Brian said during the Landy years. I never got that far in WIBN but I've seen 80s interviews and I don't think Brian was being unfair there.) I just think Carl's hands aren't totally clean, he let Brian get bullied around, but unlike Mike he knows when to keep his mouth shut (and died tragically young, and had the best voice) so the fans give him a pass. That's the record I felt the need to correct when I wrote my comment.

Based on the surviving evidence that I've seen, I think it's possible Carl was ambivalent about the material all along, that he didn't get it in the 60s but came to appreciate it later, or that he loved it in the 60s and grew ambivalent over time. But frankly, and in stark contrast to the speculation on the first page of this thread, I think maybe the last version sounds the most plausible to me. That while Smile was happening, Carl was maybe worried a little about how they would do it live, and about Brian's mental state, but was also really excited about what Brian was doing musically. But as Smile became this complicated, painful part of the band's legacy, his opinion became more ambivalent.

I personally think he didn't particularly like it, not as overtly hostile as Mike (I think Mike, for all his faults, was at least man enough to say what the other guys were thinking to Brian's face) but then recognized its commercial potential soon after. Carl, I think, was the weakest songwriter of the Wilsons BY FAR but still had instincts enough to tell which way the wind was blowing by 1968. I think Carl realized they missed the boat, hence 20/20 and Surf's Up. But I don't think he really liked the material, just realized "hey it turns out having a weird psychedelic album was the thing to do in '67 after all!" He certainly didn't "love it" or there'd be quotes like Dennis', or primary sources saying "Carl was his biggest supporter/defended it" like they say for Dennis. We can't know for certain, that's just my impression.

I may be too harsh in my characterization but Im trying to swing the pendulum back a bit, I guess. What a lot of people call "playing the peacemaker" I call "playing politics" and "being two-faced." Like, right here, he's acting as if he were Brian's supporter all along when he was dumping on the Paley stuff at the exact time this interview was filmed. He didn't "learn his lesson" and was behaving in a manner contrary to the image he wants to present to the viewing audience. I call that disingenuous, and I see that behavior a lot with Carl. (People can say there were extenuating circumstances in the '90s but I say bull--Carl just never expected the Paley drama to go public.) Carl acted entitled to Brian's creative output while dissing it all through the 70s and that really rubs me the wrong way. If you're gonna shackle your bro to a failing band he's clearly outgrown, that wouldn't even exist if not for him, you should play his songs and be thankful for his effort. But I guess easier said than done.

Yea, I see what you're saying on all this. And I totally get what you mean about making your point in a strong way because you're trying to move the pendulum. You really do have to do that if you want to shift how people think about something!

[WillJC]

This seems like a pretty uncharitable read of Carl based on a lot of mistruths. The most negative reaction I've ever heard of him giving to Brian's music in the 60s and 70s might be an initial "Huh?" (understandably) before coming around and working hard to see it finished. Many of these attitudes he supposedly had were either nuanced human situations in reality or just not things that he even said or did at all.

[Julia]

This seems like a pretty uncharitable read of Carl based on a lot of mistruths. The most negative reaction I've ever heard of him giving to Brian's music in the 60s and 70s might be an initial "Huh?" (understandably) before coming around and working hard to see it finished. Many of these attitudes he supposedly had were either nuanced human situations in reality or just not things that he even said or did at all.

Im open to being schooled on what I said that's untrue if you have the time, but I understand if its not something you wanna get bogged down in either. I acknowledge he was in a tough spot too, Carl, watching his bro that everyone relied on fall apart. But from what I can see, Brian had outgrown the guys and wanted to go solo--his friends could see it, and I think this is part of why they were pushed out. Also there was clearly a lot of hurt on both sides in the 80s and 90s and I dont think that came from nowhere; I also think blaming it solely on Landy is a convenient scapegoat, not that he doesn't deserve a mountain of blame and ridicule for his own actions. In a lot of Beach Boy retrospectives it feels like the band is divided into two camps--the Wilsons and the Squares, with Carl either on the "cool kids" side or playing mediator. I think some of that is understandable--Brian and Dennis were out of control by the late seventies--but I also think he played a not insignificant part in getting them to that point. If Brian had been allowed to branch out and Dennis' contributions more respected, actually included over Mike and Al's mediocre songs on albums--I'm willing to bet they wouldn't have spiraled as badly as they did.

Im not nearly as much an expert as others, so I'll admit I could be wrong. But this is where I stand now based on the evidence I've seen. That's probably the nicest way I can express my feelings on Carl's mixed legacy. (They ALL have mixed legacies, of course. Carl never offered his own kid drugs or had sex with his cousin's much younger daughter out of spite.)

[WillJC]

This seems like a pretty uncharitable read of Carl based on a lot of mistruths. The most negative reaction I've ever heard of him giving to Brian's music in the 60s and 70s might be an initial "Huh?" (understandably) before coming around and working hard to see it finished. Many of these attitudes he supposedly had were either nuanced human situations in reality or just not things that he even said or did at all.

Im open to being schooled on what I said that's untrue if you have the time, but I understand if its not something you wanna get bogged down in either. I acknowledge he was in a tough spot too, Carl, watching his bro that everyone relied on fall apart. But from what I can see, Brian had outgrown the guys and wanted to go solo--his friends could see it, and I think this is part of why they were pushed out. Also there was clearly a lot of hurt on both sides in the 80s and 90s and I dont think that came from nowhere; I also think blaming it solely on Landy is a convenient scapegoat, not that he doesn't deserve a mountain of blame and ridicule for his own actions. In a lot of Beach Boy retrospectives it feels like the band is divided into two camps--the Wilsons and the Squares, with Carl either on the "cool kids" side or playing mediator. I think some of that is understandable--Brian and Dennis were out of control by the late seventies--but I also think he played a not insignificant part in getting them to that point. If Brian had been allowed to branch out and Dennis' contributions more respected, actually included over Mike and Al's mediocre songs on albums--I'm willing to bet they wouldn't have spiraled as badly as they did.

Im not nearly as much an expert as others, so I'll admit I could be wrong. But this is where I stand now based on the evidence I've seen. That's probably the nicest way I can express my feelings on Carl's mixed legacy. (They ALL have mixed legacies, of course. Carl never offered his own kid drugs or had sex with his cousin's much younger daughter out of spite.)

"With Carl, my reading of the material is he constantly pressured Brian to be productive again while simultaneously dumping on his output." - I'm wondering what would even inform that impression of him and their working relationship. When are we talking? 60s? 70s? 90s? Aside from his public dejection about the way 15 Big Ones turned out (which he produced the mixdown of, uncredited), where does this idea come from?

Mount Vernon - I mean, Carl co-produced that whole thing side by side with Brian, assembled the edit, and he's the reason it was ever actually completed at all. Not understanding how that would be an example of Carl not supporting Brian's music.

"Like, right here, he's acting as if he were Brian's supporter all along when he was dumping on the Paley stuff at the exact time this interview was filmed." - This whole thing sits somewhere between a wild exaggeration perpetuated on forums and a total falsehood. And anyway, the Beach Boys reunion sessions happened in November 1995. You're talking about an interview Carl shot in August 1994, where he's repeating the same sentiments that he expressed in numerous other interviews throughout his life. I would recommend reading the interview he gave to Geoffrey Himes in 1983 included in Kingsley Abbott's Back to the Beach. If you want to get a sense of what Carl actually thought about the music he recorded as a Beach Boy, that's the place to start.

[guitarfool2002]

As usual the truth sits somewhere in the middle, but Carl's actions and decisions are not infallible either in some of these cases. I'm not out to drag Carl at all, but I do feel in some instances the pendulum of hindsight has swung too far as to not include some of the things Julia mentioned, and to suggest Carl was the great peacemaker and stood the high ground.

As far as examples - and I've both dug up and researched and heard directly some of these cases (some not for publication) - I go to the one right after Brian got "free" of the Landy situation and was working most with Don Was and Andy Paley. Brian told Don the one thing he wanted to do was get back to making music with his band. He had a collection of songs and demos for them, as we all know. Brian invited "his band" to come listen to what he had for them. And no one showed up. They ghosted him, in today's slang.

Now of course there can be many reasons, many excuses...but at that specific time, when interest in Brian particularly was gaining a lot of steam in fan circles outside the normal nostalgia Beach Boys circuit, and when there was a palpable momentum for something to happen, when Brian emerges from all of the bullshit he was dealing with and was "free", and he says he has new original songs for the Beach Boys, that's pretty big news, right? At least give him some respect and come to his invited listening party...but they didn't. Carl didn't. And eventually it was Carl who put the kibosh on Soul Searchin and the other Wilson-Paley tracks they had at least begun working on.

Also keep in mind, this was at a time when the Beach Boys could not beg, borrow, or steal a record deal, and they had little or nothing in the tank as far as something original to offer for a deal. Brian as much as said this in interviews from that time, where he says flat out I want to help the guys get a deal. And whatever Carl and the others didn't feel right about caused them to stumble around and eventually decide to go with Mike's idea to bring in Joe Thomas and do the country covers/tribute record instead of new music.

I have the full article where that case is described, I've posted many other examples here in the past and would just need to dig them up. In case anyone thinks it's not true, it did happen, and that's just scraping the surface. When Brian said he wanted to make music with his band again, he was rejected in favor of a series of ideas that were questionable at best, ridiculous at worst.

I'll cite as well another long-form interview published where Brian briefly gets into the brother and family dynamic between him and Carl in the 90's, and even in a few statements the sense of anger and hurt comes through pretty clear. Again I think Brian was hurt by some of Carl's actions, and vice versa. But it wasn't a case of one person being the infallible high ground of morality and peacemaking that the telling of the story sometimes suggests. There was much more to it in the 90's than what meets the eye, and again some of it is not for publication.

Consider too that there is a difference between working on the fairy tale music in 1972 and Brian being told "no" repeatedly throughout the 90's, after Landy was out of the picture.

[WillJC]

As ever, it's a deeply nuanced situation where the personal relationships and working dynamics do and don't clash. Nobody would deny that Brian and Carl had a difficult time with each other in the post-Landy years. It's the idea that Carl was being disingenuous in the Was interview and in his general attitude about Brian's music that I think just isn't a fair or accurate characterisation of the guy.

The oft repeated accusation that Carl hated Brian's new tunes and shut down the Beach Boys reunion sessions is such a puzzling thing when you actually get down to what's been said about it. Because, well... he just didn't.

The Baywatch Nights session was a one-off in March '95. According to Andy, he thought the session with Carl and Mike had gone well, until afterwards Brian announced without explanation that he'd hated the experienced and never wanted to do it again. The "Beach Boys are trying to destroy me" interview appeared a few months down the line. I'm not refreshed on whether the snubbed listening invite happened in '94 or '95, but again according to Andy, there was a listening session with Carl at Don Was' house in 1995 where Carl reacted very favourably to the material. Only two days at Ocean Way were booked in November as a test to see if the group would get on with each other, which they apparently did, aside from a slightly strange atmosphere around Mike, who arrived on his lonesome on the second afternoon. Eyewitnesses (Mike Harris, Cindy Lee Berryhill, Andy Paley, Matt Jardine) all describe an enthusiastic atmosphere with Carl upbeat, professional, and down to sing whatever Brian wanted however he wanted it.

Nothing further was planned, but the thought was that the sessions might move to Don Was' Chomsky Ranch studio on the proviso that he coordinate their schedules. He didn't, and in Don's own memory of what happened next (via Mark Dillon's book), a month passed before he told Brian that the material wasn't up to snuff, and that he should write better songs before they work on an album. Brian's enthusiasm obviously evaporated at that, and the situation never came up again. The group had already committed to Stars & Stripes at that point (started beforehand, in October '95) and by early 1996 were in Nashville working with Joe Thomas. Brian and Melinda put the blame on Carl for changing his tune and deciding Soul Searchin' wasn't commercial enough some amount of time after the fact, but clearly whenever this conversation took place it was already a non-starter. Bruce was gunning for the group to work with Sean O'Hagan and Melinda was gunning for Brian to focus on a solo album with Joe Thomas. Carl certainly didn't shut a project in progress down, and it isn't a situation where you can assign blame to any one person. Don Was, if someone has to take the fall.