Review Of "The Right Time" Single Posted On Examiner (Link)

[ESQ Editor]

I'd like to comment as well, but first I think something should be addressed if not clarified, and the opportunity given to do so.

Since the original article was published on Examiner and since the link appeared here with follow up comments, it looks like the original text has been changed and edited at the source. What this sets up is a situation where members here read it at some point yesterday, posted reactions to what they read, and sometime in the middle of all that the original text was changed. Those who may have read after the changes were made or who will read now or in the future will see text that has been edited if not nuanced to alter some of the original passages readers here had addressed specifically, if not disagreed with outright.

Why change the original text, and was it changed after readers questioned some of the content?

I'm fairly sure the text was changed after people here questioned the content, you can see it happening through the posts.  Why?  He may have agreed with what some had posted about his review and changed it. Probably as simple as that.

Yes, it was as simple as that.

I owe The Beach Boys (and everyone who has read the review) an apology.  I allowed myself to get off topic, and sucked into the drama stirred up in the Something Else Reviews! article.  That's what I reacted to…it admittedly upset me.  That was reflected in the article.  
 
A purely musical review will happen, as well as an article about misconceptions within the group dynamic since 2012.

[Lee Marshall]

And I'll be reading them.

S'all good David.  Sometimes here...is seems there's this FAN...and every now and then the 'sh*t' hits it...and kabloouie!!!

[The Shift]

...
Meanwhile here's a MINI review of the ALBUM from Bruce Johnston...YES...T H A T  Bruce Johnston...

http://www.boards2go.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id=1424531813.92145&user=bellagio

Thanks for sharing! "Age appropriate" - that sounds like a very, um, appropriate description of the stuff we got to hear, for better or worse.

Aye "age-appropriate" is an amusing term… I mean, what should these Beach Lads be doing as they enter their 70s? Producing Doris Day albums?

It does seem to be a bit odd, doesn't it?  Particularly with the young artists that are on this and the notable timelessness of Brian's music - God Only Knows a hit again, recently.  It did make me consider what music and performances might be age-inappropriate.  Brian's work isn't what came to mind. ;-)

I should point out the reason whine my reference btw, for anyone not up to speed on Bruce's recent album credits:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Heart_(Doris_Day_album)

[Andrew G. Doe]

I'd like to comment as well, but first I think something should be addressed if not clarified, and the opportunity given to do so.

Since the original article was published on Examiner and since the link appeared here with follow up comments, it looks like the original text has been changed and edited at the source. What this sets up is a situation where members here read it at some point yesterday, posted reactions to what they read, and sometime in the middle of all that the original text was changed. Those who may have read after the changes were made or who will read now or in the future will see text that has been edited if not nuanced to alter some of the original passages readers here had addressed specifically, if not disagreed with outright.

Why change the original text, and was it changed after readers questioned some of the content?

I'm fairly sure the text was changed after people here questioned the content, you can see it happening through the posts.  Why?  He may have agreed with what some had posted about his review and changed it. Probably as simple as that.

Yes, it was as simple as that.

I owe The Beach Boys (and everyone who has read the review) an apology.  I allowed myself to get off topic, and sucked into the drama stirred up in the Something Else Reviews! article.  That's what I reacted to…it admittedly upset me.  That was reflected in the article.  
 
A purely musical review will happen, as well as an article about misconceptions within the group dynamic since 2012.

Ah, now, THAT I look forward to reading with uncommon interest !

[Andrew G. Doe]

Also, I think it's high time we get some facts about just WHY this isn't a Beach Boys album.  David, you clearly say it has not as simple as what people say, and AGD can back you up.  I've heard at least part of the story from a reliable source, but I know other things had to have been at play.  Would really burn any bridges if you guys are telling the truth of what happened?  Or do we have to wait until Mike or Brian's book to get the whole story?  Honestly I'm just sick of how childish most here act about it.

I can only repeat what I kept telling that idiot Cohen repeatedly, and have also stated here in a different context: you start revealing in a public forum, or even PMs, what your sources have told you in strict confidence and suddenly they're former sources more rapidly that you'd believe possible. The whole end of C50 thing isn't anything close to as black and white as some here and elsewhere would want it to be - and that's not rocket science or arcane insider knowledge, these are The Beach Boys, only a half wit, maybe a quarter wit would think it's all heroes & villains - and hopefully Brian & Mike's books will address this. Snag there is, you'll still be getting two takes on the same nonsense, albeit from a closer viewpoint.

I can also only stand back in amazement that any single thread can erupt in such spectacular fasion without any contribution from me ! Guess I'm slipping...  

[Ang Jones]

Also, I think it's high time we get some facts about just WHY this isn't a Beach Boys album.  David, you clearly say it has not as simple as what people say, and AGD can back you up.  I've heard at least part of the story from a reliable source, but I know other things had to have been at play.  Would really burn any bridges if you guys are telling the truth of what happened?  Or do we have to wait until Mike or Brian's book to get the whole story?  Honestly I'm just sick of how childish most here act about it.

I can only repeat what I kept telling that idiot Cohen repeatedly, and have also stated here in a different context: you start revealing in a public forum, or even PMs, what your sources have told you in strict confidence and suddenly they're former sources more rapidly that you'd believe possible. The whole end of C50 thing isn't anything close to as black and white as some here and elsewhere would want it to be - and that's not rocket science or arcane insider knowledge, these are The Beach Boys, only a half wit, maybe a quarter wit would think it's all heroes & villains - and hopefully Brian & Mike's books will address this. Snag there is, you'll still be getting two takes on the same nonsense, albeit from a closer viewpoint.

I can also only stand back in amazement that any single thread can erupt in such spectacular fasion without any contribution from me ! Guess I'm slipping...  

I agreed with some of the points made in the Something Else review, especially the one about how Brian, Al and David may not have the name but they have the sound.

As for the end of the C50, I can understand why it is impossible to reveal information without losing sources but the 'I have a secret and I won't tell' explanation wouldn't be acceptable in a court of law and it isn't acceptable anywhere really. You can't refute anything with hints. Mike took a lot of flak after the end of the C50 - if he had evidence that laid it at someone else's door, why didn't he reveal it? Leaking it to a few friends, who feel unwilling to lose his confidence, isn't enough. HE could have revealed this himself in his letter to the LA Times  - 'I did not fire Brian Wilson ' blah de blah. Until he is prepared to come clean, he can't expect anyone to believe him. BUT - even had Brian hypothetically told Mike 'I've had enough! That's it!' - the way this was announced by Mike and the timing of the announcement were down to Mike and seem to have been made that way for maximum embarrassment or with an incredible lack of consideration.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Also, I think it's high time we get some facts about just WHY this isn't a Beach Boys album.  David, you clearly say it has not as simple as what people say, and AGD can back you up.  I've heard at least part of the story from a reliable source, but I know other things had to have been at play.  Would really burn any bridges if you guys are telling the truth of what happened?  Or do we have to wait until Mike or Brian's book to get the whole story?  Honestly I'm just sick of how childish most here act about it.

I can only repeat what I kept telling that idiot Cohen repeatedly, and have also stated here in a different context: you start revealing in a public forum, or even PMs, what your sources have told you in strict confidence and suddenly they're former sources more rapidly that you'd believe possible. The whole end of C50 thing isn't anything close to as black and white as some here and elsewhere would want it to be - and that's not rocket science or arcane insider knowledge, these are The Beach Boys, only a half wit, maybe a quarter wit would think it's all heroes & villains - and hopefully Brian & Mike's books will address this. Snag there is, you'll still be getting two takes on the same nonsense, albeit from a closer viewpoint.

I can also only stand back in amazement that any single thread can erupt in such spectacular fasion without any contribution from me ! Guess I'm slipping...  

I agreed with some of the points made in the something Else review, especially the one about how Brian, Al and David may not have the name but they have the sound.

As for the end of the C50, I can understand why it is impossible to reveal information without losing sources but the "I have a secret and I won't tell' explanation wouldn't be acceptable in a court of law and it isn't acceptable anywhere really.

Well, that's just too bad. And this place is, if anything a kangaroo court.

You can't refute anything with hints. Mike took a lot of flak after the end of the C50 - if he had evidence that laid it at someone else's door, why didn't he reveal it? Leaking it to a few friends, who feel unwilling to lose his confidence, isn't enough. HE could have revealed this himself in his letter to the LA Times  - "I did not fire Brian Wilson ' blah de blah. Until he is prepared to come clean, he can't expect anyone to believe him. BUT - even had Brian hypothetically told Mike 'I've had enough! That's it!' - the way this was announced by Mike and the timing of the announcement were down to Mike and seem to have been made that way for maximum embarrassment or with an incredible lack of consideration.

I fully agree that Mike's post-C50 press release and the timing thereof was, to be polite, regrettable. As for "evidence", he has revealed it. As for "Until he is prepared to come clean, he can't expect anyone to believe him", your implication is that he has something to hide. Here's some news for you: everyone has something to hide. You... me... Brian... the Pope... everyone.

[Ang Jones]

Maybe I've missed something - but then Mike's reasons were so numerous I've perhaps lost track. Was it the existing M&B tour plans with the lead piping in the conservatory, or maybe the over exposure with the candlestick in the dining room,  or Mike's daughter's suggestion of the shady people surrounding Brian Wilson (with God knows what weapon and presumably in all of the rooms...).

'Regrettable' is incredibly polite - I wonder if you would have let any of those people with whom you are so impatient off so lightly.

My implication is that Mike has not provided to the best of my knowledge (which leaves room for manoeuvre admittedly) anything that I would consider convincing proof that the end of the C50 and the manner of its ending was the decision of anyone other than Mike himself. Of course, he could be reluctant to tell all he knows (I'll avoid the 'come clean' this time which suggests he isn't clean at the moment) simply because he is protecting other people. Perhaps Brian's and Mike's respective biographies will elucidate. But those letters to the LA Times didn't. Had Brian been happy with the way it ended all he had to do after Mike's letter was absolutely nothing, or if he felt particularly happy about it, issue a statement to the effect that the C50 was always intended to be a finite arrangement, it was fun, now it's over and perhaps they could 'do it again' at some point in the future.

[JohnMill]

Everytime Mike Love is interviewed he gives you his evidence.  The issue isn't black and white but it's right in front of your face.  There is enough evidence right in front of your face as to why the members of The Beach Boys aren't touring inclusively of each other, why "No Pier Pressure" isn't the the latest Beach Boys record and all the rest.  Mike Love ever since the end of the C50 has been asked every which way about why the group isn't carrying on inclusive of one another and he's given the same answer everytime.  There were certain aspects of the C50 he enjoyed but one huge aspect where he felt he was misled.  Now is there more to the story than Mike Love is sharing with the general public?  Probably but when it comes to matters like this, most public figures don't want to air their dirty laundry out for everyone to see.  

But the fact of the matter is you don't need to inspect every nuance regarding this issue to understand it.  I've understood it perfectly since around four months or so after it was announced that the C50 was not going to be continuing in any way, shape or form.  The only other thing to add to that is yes things were handled badly in how the aforementioned information was initially relayed to the public but there is not much anyone can do about that now.  For Beach Boys fans the whole thing is unfortunate but in the end Mike Love is still out there touring to enthusiastic audiences and Brian Wilson has what seems like a spectacular new record he's about to drop on us and a tour of his own waiting in the wings as well.  So if you want to look at this as a glass half full scenario, there it is for you.

[Lee Marshall]

I'd say that the glass is closer to 80% full.  It has always taken 2 to tango.  Nobody was playin' solitaire.  Expectations weren't met.  But really?  I personally don't think that *we*, the fans, are suffering because of it.  The only one's incurring any negativity, backlash and missed opportunity used to wear striped shirts to work.

Those days are done.  So too should those expectations be done.

[Ang Jones]

Mike has given his reasons - I wouldn't call what he has said evidence because some of it doesn't add up. I can understand why Mike and Bruce felt they had to honour tour commitments but this was a temporary obstacle only. The over-exposure thing is downright silly in the light of the number of shows Mike and Bruce do (and brought more bad Press from the Eagles management). The stuff about shady people cited by Mike's daughter was vague. The most honest of the reasons seems to be Mike's disappointment at not being able to write more with Brian but I think Mike was hoping for a return to the successes of the past and probably for the same kind of music as they did in the past which IMO was unrealistic.

I certainly don't consider the glass half empty. I have absolutely no problem with the idea of Mike and Bruce continuing to tour as the Beach Boys and especially not with Brian doing his own thing, releasing an album which the tracks we have heard in full and the previews suggest is going to be something for which to look forward.

Whether there is anything to hide about the C50 has yet to be proven but the argument that 'everyone does it' is known as  'The Golden Rationalization'. http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.html  "If someone really is making the argument that an action is no longer unethical because so many people do it, then that person is either in dire need of ethical instruction, or an idiot." (The Dissonance Drag in the above link is worth reading here too.)

[Please delete my account]

Personally I am very happy the record is coming out, regardless of the name on the spine. I think most of us feel very positively about the situation, and await the record with great anticipation. Its just a fact that if someone pokes a hornet's nest, hornets are likely to come out.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Whether there is anything to hide about the C50 has yet to be proven but the argument that 'everyone does it' is known as  'The Golden Rationalization'. http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.html  "If someone really is making the argument that an action is no longer unethical because so many people do it, then that person is either in dire need of ethical instruction, or an idiot." (The Dissonance Drag in the above link is worth reading here too.)

And this has precisely what to do with the topic under discussion ?

[Ang Jones]

Whether there is anything to hide about the C50 has yet to be proven but the argument that 'everyone does it' is known as  'The Golden Rationalization'. http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.html  "If someone really is making the argument that an action is no longer unethical because so many people do it, then that person is either in dire need of ethical instruction, or an idiot." (The Dissonance Drag in the above link is worth reading here too.)

And this has precisely what to do with the topic under discussion ?

Surely self evident? But in a way you're right. The subject that should be under discussion is Brian's new album and I am sorry I was sidetracked into more about the C50 (but wasn't the first person to mention it - I was responding to continued innuendo with no supporting evidence).

So, to the new album! The tracks I have heard in full are splendid. The previews fill me with anticipation. My glass is damn near full and I shall be happy to raise it and toast Brian's future success.

[filledeplage]

Whether there is anything to hide about the C50 has yet to be proven but the argument that 'everyone does it' is known as  'The Golden Rationalization'. http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.html  "If someone really is making the argument that an action is no longer unethical because so many people do it, then that person is either in dire need of ethical instruction, or an idiot." (The Dissonance Drag in the above link is worth reading here too.)

And this has precisely what to do with the topic under discussion ?

Surely self evident? But in a way you're right. The subject that should be under discussion is Brian's new album and I am sorry I was sidetracked into more about the C50 (but wasn't the first person to mention it - I was responding to continued innuendo with no supporting evidence).

So , to the new album! The tracks I have heard in full are splendid. The previews fill me with anticipation. My glass is damn near full and I shall be happy to raise it and toast Brian's future success.

Ang - If people are given information in confidence, it should be respected, and not pushed to reveal what was told to them.  Discretion is the better part of valour. 

If I've learned nothing as a BB/BW fan, it is that when you least expect it, you will be pleasantly surprised.  C50 was a surprise.  I still love surprises! If I had to guess, there will be others in the future.  In the meantime, I just enjoy the music! 

[Ang Jones]

Whether there is anything to hide about the C50 has yet to be proven but the argument that 'everyone does it' is known as  'The Golden Rationalization'. http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_fallacies.html  "If someone really is making the argument that an action is no longer unethical because so many people do it, then that person is either in dire need of ethical instruction, or an idiot." (The Dissonance Drag in the above link is worth reading here too.)

And this has precisely what to do with the topic under discussion ?

Surely self evident? But in a way you're right. The subject that should be under discussion is Brian's new album and I am sorry I was sidetracked into more about the C50 (but wasn't the first person to mention it - I was responding to continued innuendo with no supporting evidence).

So , to the new album! The tracks I have heard in full are splendid. The previews fill me with anticipation. My glass is damn near full and I shall be happy to raise it and toast Brian's future success.

Ang - If people are given information in confidence, it should be respected, and not pushed to reveal what was told to them.  Discretion is the better part of valour.  

If I've learned nothing as a BB/BW fan, it is that when you least expect it, you will be pleasantly surprised.  C50 was a surprise.  I still love surprises! If I had to guess, there will be others in the future.  In the meantime, I just enjoy the music!  

Indeed - I have no problem with people keeping confidences. I just don't like innuendo without supporting evidence.  The best way of keeping a secret is to say nothing.

I like surprises too and I am certainly enjoying the latest of the music I have heard.

[SMiLE Brian]

Ang is calling how she sees it as an objective observer. AGD is not at this point and is using the secret sources strawman to hide it.

[Ang Jones]

Thanks SMiLE Brian! (like the name BTW!) One correction - 'how she sees it'. Short for Angela.

[SMiLE Brian]

Thanks SMiLE Brian! (like the name BTW!) One correction - 'how she sees it'. Short for Angela.

Woops, I changed it!

[Lee Marshall]

Ang is calling how he sees it as an objective observer. AGD is not at this point and is using the secret sources strawman to hide it.

In fairness now SB...and I very much like both Ang and Andrew...known 'em both for a LONG time [abeit only via the internet but still...] AGD  H A S  to hide behind "no comment" or he loses his sources and connections.  The rest of us can just spout off...free as a flock of birds.  Gives US the advantage.  We get to be right AND wrong/accurate or inaccurate and we just, then, skate away on the thin ice of our new day.

Poor AGD has to tread water no matter how thick the ice is.

Hey Ang.  Yes she is a woman.

Oh...and I'm a guy.  [or the bearded lady from the circus. ]

[bgas]

Ang is calling how he sees it as an objective observer. AGD is not at this point and is using the secret sources strawman to hide it.

In fairness now SB...and I very much like both Ang and Andrew...known 'em both for a LONG time [abeit only via the internet but still...] AGD  H A S  to hide behind "no comment" or he loses his sources and connections.  The rest of us can just spout off...free as a flock of birds.  Gives US the advantage.  We get to be right AND wrong/accurate or inaccurate and we just, then, skate away on the thin ice of our new day.

Poor AGD has to tread water no matter how thick the ice is.

Hey Ang.  Yes she is a woman.

Oh...and I'm a guy.  [or the bearded lady from the circus. ]

Does the bearded lady at the circus comment have something to do with David Beard? 

My take on this is similar to the > if you don't have anything nice  to say, don't say anything at all<  adage. 
Sure , there are people with sources, but don't come here and tease folks with them if you can't be specific as to what you''ve heard.

[filledeplage]

Thanks SMiLE Brian! (like the name BTW!) One correction - 'how she sees it'. Short for Angela.

More ladies in the Smiley Smile House! 

It's all good! 

[Lee Marshall]

No bgas...It does NOT.  It's more about my beard.

Yes Filled...agreed.  Nudge nudge/wink wink.

Say No More.

[Hank Briarstem]

Ah yes, Sacramento (C50 the code name devised by a very clever Derek Taylor, California being one of 50 states and Sacramento its capital). Who was responsible? Surely not me, though admittedly I might have done more with the gumball machine idea.

But who knew? I met my second wife in Sacramento, I think. Or perhaps not. In any case, it’s irrelevant. David Marks might have commented on this. Fact checkers anywhere?

Why did the Sacramento concert come undone? I will argue that the failure to include a vocal track on Denny’s Drums was critical and shouldn’t be ignored. As for Brian being upset with Michael -- who wasn’t after he failed to pick up the cleaning and the boys had to take the stage in orchid polos?

These things happen, though, and probably should be put to bed at this point – perhaps with some warm milk and cookies. Michael claimed at the time that Brian failed to give him the laundry ticket. I think not. Some of you collectors might shed light. At any rate, I take no position on C50 other than “Wow! Great concert!” We can only hope this is addressed in the dueling autobiographies.

[ontor pertawst]

The main question I have is: why didn't Mike Love tell the LA Times? He had a great opportunity to clear the air and tell his side to an outlet that (as hard as that is to believe) has greater reach than AGD. So why the changing story?