Still Cruisin' and Summer In Paradise rerelease?

[CenturyDeprived]

Totally 100% agreed about Smart Girls.

But what about IMC seems so specifically stinking of a Landy touch? If you hate the production or lyrics, I can understand that - but Landy had nothing to do with the awesome chord changes (especially in the choruses/bridge).

Yeah, mainly the lyrics and the production as well.  I just see Landy driving (no pun intended) the creation IMC, with BW being involved because Landy told him to.  For me it comes across as a very unimaginative, uninspired composition and performance.  The energy level seems contrived and fake to me.

Despite all of the horrific behind the scenes going ons, I prefer Brian's stuff with Landy to what he's putting out these days with Otto Chune.

Due to production reasons, vocal reasons, or songwriting reasons?

[ontor pertawst]

Or maybe just an exciting preview of this summer's spectacular Landy arguments.

[CenturyDeprived]

Or maybe just an exciting preview of this summer's spectacular Landy arguments.

I wonder with the upcoming film, and Landy posthumously returning to the "spotlight", if any news outlet or publication will attempt to score an interview with Alexandra Morgan, Landy's son or assistants, or any of those folk. If any insiders like them will come out of the woodwork to defend Landy in some way, since he will surely get slaughtered. Will be interesting to see how that plays out...

[Mike's Beard]

Totally 100% agreed about Smart Girls.

But what about IMC seems so specifically stinking of a Landy touch? If you hate the production or lyrics, I can understand that - but Landy had nothing to do with the awesome chord changes (especially in the choruses/bridge).

Yeah, mainly the lyrics and the production as well.  I just see Landy driving (no pun intended) the creation IMC, with BW being involved because Landy told him to.  For me it comes across as a very unimaginative, uninspired composition and performance.  The energy level seems contrived and fake to me.

Despite all of the horrific behind the scenes going ons, I prefer Brian's stuff with Landy to what he's putting out these days with Otto Chune.

Due to production reasons, vocal reasons, or songwriting reasons?

All three really. I love Brian Wilson 88 and despite being inferior, find Sweet Insanity to be a natural progression to it. I really like In My Car too. I like the way the synths drove his songs back in that period.

[CenturyDeprived]

Totally 100% agreed about Smart Girls.

But what about IMC seems so specifically stinking of a Landy touch? If you hate the production or lyrics, I can understand that - but Landy had nothing to do with the awesome chord changes (especially in the choruses/bridge).

Yeah, mainly the lyrics and the production as well.  I just see Landy driving (no pun intended) the creation IMC, with BW being involved because Landy told him to.  For me it comes across as a very unimaginative, uninspired composition and performance.  The energy level seems contrived and fake to me.

Despite all of the horrific behind the scenes going ons, I prefer Brian's stuff with Landy to what he's putting out these days with Otto Chune.

Due to production reasons, vocal reasons, or songwriting reasons?

All three really. I love Brian Wilson 88 and despite being inferior, find Sweet Insanity to be a natural progression to it. I really like In My Car too. I like the way the synths drove his songs back in that period.

I'm down with numerous elements of all of the aforementioned Brian eras, but they all have their strengths and weaknesses, to be sure. The 80s synths are rad though. Better driving synthy production on IMC when compared to BW88 or Sweet Insanity, IMO. Sweet Insanity while highly flawed, is still underrated IMO. After reading reviews, I expected an album that was unlistenable, and much of it is far from that. Then again, I will also defend MIU, and to a lesser degree, SIP, in that they both have their moments.

[CenturyDeprived]

I have answered your questions like this all the time, but your right I'm going to stop.

Its' you're right two do so if you feel its' necessary.

Interesting, he *claims* he answered all the questions, but still never had the stones to either admit that either the "Macarena" is four times better than "Kokomo" due to it selling four times the copies or that his equation that "sales equals quality" when it comes to what is labeled as "pop music."

I think it would literally cause a conniption for certain people to admit any flaw in their premise. Or maybe this is equivelant to what would happen if a mother puts headphones (with an endless 9-month-long loop of "wheeeen") on her tummy on an infant in utero.  

[Bittersweet-Sanity]

Or maybe just an exciting preview of this summer's spectacular Landy arguments.

I wonder with the upcoming film, and Landy posthumously returning to the "spotlight", if any news outlet or publication will attempt to score an interview with Alexandra Morgan, Landy's son or assistants, or any of those folk. If any insiders like them will come out of the woodwork to defend Landy in some way, since he will surely get slaughtered. Will be interesting to see how that plays out...

Alexandra Morgan has no desire to get involved in any legal or online controversy on Brian Wilson, so i don't see her or any Landy associates having anything to say to the press.

[CenturyDeprived]

CP, so you can't think of anyone else doing this so-called "extreme defense" for any other Boys? Fascinating.

And I don't have to answer your hypothetical questions but, if I don't, I must have "something to hide" with "Swiss cheese holes" in my "logic"? Super fascinating.

Have you ever considered just giving your opinion without all of the personalized insinuation or the hypothetical demands?

"Do you think your extreme defense angle absolutely has a reverse effect on others at a certain point? I don't know what your thoughts would be on that, other than to yet again deflect blame onto those persons, instead of looking at your own argumentative tactics a bit. Just a bit."

Back at ya.

Cam - as evidenced by my ability to easily say that Brian has exhibited some undeniably sh*tty parenting behaviors, and I say that honestly...  how does that show me as having any kind of extreme defense angle? You have the inability to say something similar about Mike, except to say you don't like Wrinkles (thus avoiding dealing with any substantive topic). And it's remarkable that instead of addressing my italicized sentence, you found a way to avoid answering that question too.

Is it ridiculous, utterly crazy of me to think that when a hypothetical question I pose is avoided, that it means the recipient perhaps, just maybe knows there's some truth in what I'm getting at, but doesn't want to admit it? And is it possible for you to actually answer this question without your answer simply being another question?

So have you taken anyone to task with all of the personal insinuation and hypothetical questions for their extreme defense in these cases ?

You are welcome to your opinion, I don't agree with your premise. That is my answer.

One more thing just occurred to me, Cam. It's a touch ironic that the man whose actions you so fervently defend was the guy who you'll say had every right to demand answers and explanations for lyrics in 1966, who directed those questions towards a lyricist who felt it absurd to be forced to answer anything... while you think it's perfectly ok to try and shut down a convo, and have gone out of your way to say that you don't have to answer certain questions posed to you.

[Nicko1234]

CP, so you can't think of anyone else doing this so-called "extreme defense" for any other Boys? Fascinating.

And I don't have to answer your hypothetical questions but, if I don't, I must have "something to hide" with "Swiss cheese holes" in my "logic"? Super fascinating.

Have you ever considered just giving your opinion without all of the personalized insinuation or the hypothetical demands?

"Do you think your extreme defense angle absolutely has a reverse effect on others at a certain point? I don't know what your thoughts would be on that, other than to yet again deflect blame onto those persons, instead of looking at your own argumentative tactics a bit. Just a bit."

Back at ya.

Cam - as evidenced by my ability to easily say that Brian has exhibited some undeniably sh*tty parenting behaviors, and I say that honestly...  how does that show me as having any kind of extreme defense angle? You have the inability to say something similar about Mike, except to say you don't like Wrinkles (thus avoiding dealing with any substantive topic). And it's remarkable that instead of addressing my italicized sentence, you found a way to avoid answering that question too.

Is it ridiculous, utterly crazy of me to think that when a hypothetical question I pose is avoided, that it means the recipient perhaps, just maybe knows there's some truth in what I'm getting at, but doesn't want to admit it? And is it possible for you to actually answer this question without your answer simply being another question?

So have you taken anyone to task with all of the personal insinuation and hypothetical questions for their extreme defense in these cases ?

You are welcome to your opinion, I don't agree with your premise. That is my answer.

One more thing just occurred to me, Cam. It's a touch ironic that the man whose actions you so fervently defend was the guy who you'll say had every right to demand answers and explanations for lyrics in 1966, who directed those questions towards a lyricist who felt it absurd to be forced to answer anything... while you think it's perfectly ok to try and shut down a convo, and have gone out of your way to say that you don't have to answer certain questions posed to you.

It strikes me that you and Cam are very similar. Different sides of the same coin.

It`s a shame that he and filledeplage are already married as you would have been made for each other. 

[SMiLE Brian]

Nice try Frankie Teardrop.

[Jay]

Summer In Paradise needs to be re-released, if only for the sole purpose of having Andrew do the liner notes. 

[Cam Mott]

It`s a shame that he and filledeplage are already married as you would have been made for each other.  

My fan club not only pre-answers for me and won't take my answer but have pre-arranged all of my forced weddings. I'm sure they can make room for CD as my third "wife". I hope my checks from Mike finally come in, forced weddings don't pay for themselves you know.

[CenturyDeprived]

CP, so you can't think of anyone else doing this so-called "extreme defense" for any other Boys? Fascinating.

And I don't have to answer your hypothetical questions but, if I don't, I must have "something to hide" with "Swiss cheese holes" in my "logic"? Super fascinating.

Have you ever considered just giving your opinion without all of the personalized insinuation or the hypothetical demands?

"Do you think your extreme defense angle absolutely has a reverse effect on others at a certain point? I don't know what your thoughts would be on that, other than to yet again deflect blame onto those persons, instead of looking at your own argumentative tactics a bit. Just a bit."

Back at ya.

Cam - as evidenced by my ability to easily say that Brian has exhibited some undeniably sh*tty parenting behaviors, and I say that honestly...  how does that show me as having any kind of extreme defense angle? You have the inability to say something similar about Mike, except to say you don't like Wrinkles (thus avoiding dealing with any substantive topic). And it's remarkable that instead of addressing my italicized sentence, you found a way to avoid answering that question too.

Is it ridiculous, utterly crazy of me to think that when a hypothetical question I pose is avoided, that it means the recipient perhaps, just maybe knows there's some truth in what I'm getting at, but doesn't want to admit it? And is it possible for you to actually answer this question without your answer simply being another question?

So have you taken anyone to task with all of the personal insinuation and hypothetical questions for their extreme defense in these cases ?

You are welcome to your opinion, I don't agree with your premise. That is my answer.

One more thing just occurred to me, Cam. It's a touch ironic that the man whose actions you so fervently defend was the guy who you'll say had every right to demand answers and explanations for lyrics in 1966, who directed those questions towards a lyricist who felt it absurd to be forced to answer anything... while you think it's perfectly ok to try and shut down a convo, and have gone out of your way to say that you don't have to answer certain questions posed to you.

It strikes me that you and Cam are very similar. Different sides of the same coin.

It`s a shame that he and filledeplage are already married as you would have been made for each other.  

We are both stubborn SOBs (not an insult; I'm throwing myself in with that label too), and of course fans of this band. The big difference being that one is making futile moves to try to rewrite history, and one isn't.

[Cam Mott]

Two accusations in two sentences. Awesome.

[Andrew G. Doe]

No question that the pendulum has occasionally been swung a tad too far by those who take a balanced view and don't regard Mike as being Satan Incarnate... but equally, no reasonable poster here could say that any defence of ML has been as rabid and infantile as the invective regularly spouted by posters here and on other social media.

[Douchepool]

I don't see people comparing Brian to Hitler...just sayin'.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Also, this:

I also have to question why some middle-aged guy who lives in Nowheresville, USA is so incredibly obsessed with standing up for Mike Love, someone he's likely never met, and likely has next to nothing in common with.

Excellent question, but let's modify it a little:

"I also have to question why some middle-aged guy who lives in Nowheresville, USA is so incredibly obsessed with vilifying Mike Love, someone he's likely never met, and likely has next to nothing in common with."

Equally excellent question, no ?

[Douchepool]

I don't envy the verbal abuse you'll receive for that remark. Brianistas don't like having their views challenged.

[job]

I'm like Jesus...I love them all.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I don't envy the verbal abuse you'll receive for that remark. Brianistas don't like having their views challenged.

Verbal abuse ? Pah - I could eat Alphabetti Spaghetti and sh*t better invective. 

[Douchepool]

Verbal abuse ? Pah - I could eat Alphabetti Spaghetti and sh*t better invective. 

Oldsurferdude just popped a pimple for your sins. Amen.

[CenturyDeprived]

No question that the pendulum has occasionally been swung a tad too far by those who take a balanced view and don't regard Mike as being Satan Incarnate... but equally, no reasonable poster here could say that any defence of ML has been as rabid and infantile as the invective regularly spouted by posters here and on other social media.

Agreed. There is a rabid and infantile edge to the writings of a chunk of anti-Mike people on social media, getting well into absurd territory. And believe me - I have defended a number of things related to Mike over the years to people in conversations in person. I'm quite honestly doing my part as a fan for trying to quash one-sided thinking.

But the term absurd (a different type of absurd, obviously) can be also applied to the writings of a small chunk of people on the other side of the team. The pendulum for some has swung quite a bit more than a tad too far, don't you think? We know (and agree) that anti-Mike extremism exists. If you wouldn't quantify some Mike defenders' writings on this board as over-the-top extremism of its own kind (writings can be extremist without Hitler references), I'd like to know what exactly would constitute pro-Mike extremism.

[Douchepool]

Well, what do you consider pro-Michael extremism? Give us something to go by.

[Jim V.]

Also, this:

I also have to question why some middle-aged guy who lives in Nowheresville, USA is so incredibly obsessed with standing up for Mike Love, someone he's likely never met, and likely has next to nothing in common with.

Excellent question, but let's modify it a little:

"I also have to question why some middle-aged guy who lives in Nowheresville, USA is so incredibly obsessed with vilifying Mike Love, someone he's likely never met, and likely has next to nothing in common with."

Equally excellent question, no ?

I have no interest in vilifying Mike Love though Andrew. And I think you'd know this. My beef is with a poster on here who is incapable of admitting the man has ever done wrong. I personally find Mike extremely interesting and I'm super excited for his book. And his solo album, if it happens. Though I'm extremely doubtful.

I mean, if there's a poster around here saying that because "Song A" (let's say "Kokomo") sold more than "Song B" (let's say "This Whole World), that makes it a better song, I'm gonna challenge said poster on that assertion. And when said poster doesn't have the guts to hold his equation to it's logical conclusion (like, for instance the "Macarena" with four million sold, is four times the song "Kokomo" is, with one million sold), it seems like he's either just bullshitting us all, or likes to twist things to always glorify Doctor Love. So really, the fact that any of this is even about Mike Love is wrong. It's to stop these people on this board from peddling bullshit. I mean, it's obvious that you've come to see things more from Mike's perspective lately due to access, but you still wouldn't make asinine statements that would say 15 Big Ones is better than Sunflower simply because it sold more copies. You wouldn't say stuff like TWGMTR and "Summer's Gone" is Brian Wilson and Joe Thomas *pretending* to be The Beach Boys, while defending Summer In Paradise.

And somebody will jump in and say, but...but...but..."OldSurferDude is mean to Mike!" And to that I'd say, why yes he is. But he almost comes off as cartoonish in his Doctor Love insults. Whereas Cameron Mott is actually trying to rewrite history with Mike Love as the John Lennon to Brian's Paul McCartney (or vice versa). And instead of having that sh*t peddled I think we'd be much better served without absolute crap being peddled like that.

[CenturyDeprived]

Well, what do you consider pro-Michael extremism? Give us something to go by.

An inability to conceive to say a bad thing about him except that he wrote Wrinkles, or something similarly lightweight/ innocuous.