Still Cruisin' and Summer In Paradise rerelease?

[Andrew G. Doe]

I remember a while back I criticized some blueboarders who compared Michael to Hitler. Imagine my surprise when it didn't go over well because, well, who in his right mind would compare a rock frontman to a murderous dictator (but that's another THREAD)? Those of us who are currently being pigeonholed into the "pro-Michael" camp (we're not necessarily pro-Michael and anti-everyone else, by the way) aren't trying to excuse everything the man does.

Some people, however, appear to be trying to do *just* that. Not pointing my finger at you, but do you really think such a mindset doesn't exist among a select few? The Hitler analogy is miles beyond despicable and repugnant, but I think reading comments like that has warped some people's sense of logic in the other direction. Do you discount that from being a possibility?  If one side is going to have extremists who are illogically (to say the least) making a nazi comparison, why is it so hard for some people to see that there is a flipside to that in the form of another line of extreme ill logic?

No argument - of course there are extreme factions on both sides of any given divide.

[Mike's Beard]

Mike's statement does make no sense unless either SNP was included at Capitol's insistence or it was due to be featured in a movie. The question I find myself asking is if Mike didn't want non soundtrack included songs featured, what would Still Crusin' have consisted of? There's the title track, Kokomo and Make it Big with 3 oldies - would the rest of the album been padded out with more old songs that had been featured in movies?

[Douchepool]

We'd have an album with Chasin' the Sky and It's a Beautiful Day most likely...and Capitol probably never would have bothered to try and license the former. Or, on the contrary, the album would be delayed until 1990 and PROBLEM CHILD would be added to it. 

[Mike's Beard]

Or, on the contrary, the album would be delayed until 1990 and PROBLEM CHILD would be added to it. 

Now THAT would have sucked.

[CenturyDeprived]

I don't see it as a mindset or even a secret Illuminati pact; it's just a few people who seem to have similar ideas. I don't think there is an active plot to discredit Brian for the benefit of Michael.

I'm not sure where the idea for "an active plot to discredit Brian" came from; I certainly never implied such. My question to you: Are you of the opinion that extreme, off-the-chart/illogical, and at times absurd Mike defense never occurs by some people on this very messageboard? We know and both can agree that the opposite occurs to ridiculous extremes, but it's time to concede that this too is an actual "thing" that happens by some individuals as well.

[Douchepool]

I wouldn't argue that extreme Michael defense occurs. "Extreme" would mean people defending some of the allegations made against him in the Gaines book, like the alleged wife-beating (which I doubt very much ever happened).

[Cam Mott]

This board discovers practically everyday that what we thought we knew about the Boys is wrong to some degree or other. Do we really think that isn't true for Mike as well?

[CenturyDeprived]

This board discovers practically everyday that what we thought we knew about the Boys is wrong to some degree or other. Do we really think that isn't true for Mike as well?

I have in fact learned that many negative things I thought about Mike were inaccurate, exaggerated, or outright wrong, as a result of this board. I would like to think you would think this is a very good thing. That doesn't mean that this extreme defensive mindset also can't be taken too far as to have an unintentional, reverse effect as well.

I don't think that the small group of people who defend Mike's actions to the far corners of the Earth have any kind of intended desire to turn people off to Mike, and to cause those whose views towards him have been positively modified to feel the opposite, but in fact, the extreme defense angle absolutely has a (presumably unintentional) reverse effect on others at a certain point.

[Cam Mott]

I guess I missed all of your accusing and complaining about and must-be-answered hypothetical "gotchas" of those in "extreme defense" of the other Boys.

[CenturyDeprived]

I guess I missed all of your accusing and complaining about and must-be-answered hypothetical "gotchas" of those in "extreme defense" of the other Boys.

If there's anyone on this board who is defending actions by the other Boys to anywhere near the degree to the degree that you defend actions by Mike, I'd sure like to know who they are. Name em. Because I surely haven't seen that. They probably exist on the blueboard, but I'll freely admit that that's one end of the extreme spectrum, which can go to as laughable extremes as you yourself do. In fact, people do deeply and brutally pick apart the personal actions of ALL the bandmates; if someone called out certain behaviors of Brian or Denny as being highly questionable and/or indefensible, I for one would happily admit that sh*tty behavior (such as parenting) is in fact sh*tty, and I'll call it such. I'll also add that they were often high as f*ck, abused as kids, AND in Brian's case took the additional step of publicly stating regret and embarrassment over past parenting actions. But conversely, Shawn still doesn't publicly exist. That makes THE difference in the eyes of many people. That's just the tip of the iceberg why Brian's actions don't get picked apart to the same degree as Mike's.

It's sort of like, we can agree that Mike got screwed over regarding song credits by Murry and Brian. So we agree on that, right? We can say that Mike developed a complex about that, which is tragic, and has likely effected him emotionally for years. Agreed, right? But when it comes to saying (even if we can empathize for the underlying reasons), "yeah... that behavior he's doing regularly... that seems pretty sh*tty", you just cannot bring yourself to admit such, whereas as evidenced above, I am (and most logical people on this board are) capable of stating such for Brian/Denny. So there goes your argument out the window.

You can, of course, either directly answer (or not answer/avoid/find ways around directly answering) any hypothetical posed to you; it's your right, it's a free country. But if one has a point in a conversation, I do not for the life of me know why answering a hypothetical raised by someone with an opposing viewpoint is suddenly "out of bounds" to be avoided. When people suddenly refuse to answer something on the bounds that it's irrelevant, it certainly implies there's something to hide, Swiss cheese holes in the defensive person's logic, so to speak.  

And again, since you didn't address what I said in my last post, I'll state again to you that the extreme defense angle absolutely has a reverse effect on others (even those with an open mind about Mike) 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.

[Custom Machine]

Concerning "In My Car" (Wilson, Landy, Morgan), I consider ti a prime example of Brian Wilson turned into a musical zombie by Dr. Eugene E. Landy. But the number one example of zombie like crap during that period of BW's life is Landy's ill conceived idea for "Smart Girls". More than any other BW song during the Landy era, Smart Girls exemplifies the toxic effect Landy had on Brian Wilson's creative endeavors. "In My Car", while not nearly as cringeworthy as "Smart Girls", is yet another example of Eugene E. Landy spewing his own personal brand of garbage all over Brian Wilson's musical undertakings.

[CenturyDeprived]

Concerning "In My Car" (Wilson, Landy, Morgan), I consider ti a prime example of Brian Wilson turned into a musical zombie by Dr. Eugene E. Landy. But the number one example of zombie like crap during that period of BW's life is Landy's ill conceived idea for "Smart Girls". More than any other BW song during the Landy era, Smart Girls exemplifies the toxic effect Landy had on Brian Wilson's creative endeavors. "In My Car", while not nearly as cringeworthy as "Smart Girls", is yet another example of Eugene E. Landy spewing his own personal brand of garbage all over Brian Wilson's musical undertakings.

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).

Also... since Mike spoke of the song being "forced" upon the band by Dr. Landy... I wonder if the lyric in In My Car "still crusin' after all these years" was there all along? Or if it was put into the song at a later point? I would think that, especially with that lyric specifically, the song would be in keeping with the title theme, even if it's a non-soundtrack tune.

[Cam Mott]

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.

[Jim V.]

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

Don't know who this "CP" is, but if you're referring to CenturyDeprived, and you're asking about the "extreme defense" thing, show us other members who do indeed do what you're saying?

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.

It's odd. Rather than getting upset at global warming or taxes or the death penalty or what-have-you, instead we have a one-man crusade to show how Al Jardine put "hatchets" in the back of Mike, Brian and Carl's family. And of course the crusade to show that Mike didn't put an end to C50, even though he's been the biggest complainer about it since it ended. Odd.

[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?

[Cam Mott]

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

Don't know who this "CP" is, but if you're referring to CenturyDeprived, and you're asking about the "extreme defense" thing, show us other members who do indeed do what you're saying?

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.

It's odd. Rather than getting upset at global warming or taxes or the death penalty or what-have-you, instead we have a one-man crusade to show how Al Jardine put "hatchets" in the back of Mike, Brian and Carl's family. And of course the crusade to show that Mike didn't put an end to C50, even though he's been the biggest complainer about it since it ended. Odd.

Yes, CD, CenturyDeprived. My apologies.

It is CD's claim. He won't post a list until he can think of any.

IF any of that were true, you know what would be even odder: rather than getting upset at global warming or taxes or the death penalty or what-have-you that someone was so extremely obsessed with it, even to the point of feeling entitled to name calling and personal attack.

[Cam Mott]

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.

[ontor pertawst]

Weak sauce, Mr. Mott.

[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.

You probably will not answer this question too, but I will ask you one more thing. In the world, in all of humankind, beyond message boards and the interwebs, do you think there are people (not necessarily yourself) who have ever avoided answering a question, or answered a question with another question,  *for the primary reason* of avoiding dealing with what they know is the truth?

Beyond the bounds of this conversation, does that *ever* happen between humans?  

[Cam Mott]

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

[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.

[Jim V.]

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."

[Custom Machine]

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.

[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.

[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.

Weird. I respectfully must completely disagree. There are a good number of Brian solo tunes which I feel that way about to varying degrees, but IMC just kinda rules the school for me. I think there are some neat production touches on that specific recording which aren't found on most of Brian's other songs from that era, and the songwriting is top notch for Brian at the time, IMO - kind of like Being With the One You Love, another highly underrated song from its era. I also buy into IMC's energy and blast the song when driving sometimes. I just don't go out of my way to think about Landy or the circumstances surrounding its creation, and just rock out to the melodies. They are top notch Brian melodies too.