Still Cruisin' and Summer In Paradise rerelease?

[CenturyDeprived]

I can't really explain the thinking behind the interview since Somewhere Near Japan was more Bruce than Michael anyway. Or maybe Michael just didn't like In My Car and Island Girl. In My Car would have been a GREAT Brian single but on Still Cruisin' it sticks out, even with the added Carl and Al vocals.

I think In My Car is RAD and underrated... it's got a bunch of those Brian-esque chord changes, where it doesn't do what you think it will do next, yet what it does do works way better than you could have expected. I also don't mind the production; I like it better than most of the 80s production style on BW88. I never have understood the In My Car haters. The home video of Brian playing the song on a keyboard at his (?) home during the Landy era also shows off the very Brian melodies which might be obscured by the eventual studio version's production.

It's the last great Beach Boys car song, though the song Still Crusin' IMO is somewhat ok.

[Douchepool]

I think it would have been better on a Brian album as opposed to Still Cruisin'. That's not a knock on the song; it just sticks WAY out on Still Cruisin'. The song Still Cruisin' is basically Getcha Back 2.0, so I have a soft spot for it.

[bonnevillemariner]

That is truly odd. I wonder why that happened (both the album going on Spotify, and it leaving just as quickly). Does anyone know if it sounded just like a digital CD rip of the album, or if it sounded in any way remastered?

I don't think it sounded any better or worse (or different, for that matter) than the cassette version from my childhood.  I never had the CD.  I love Still Cruisin' because it was given to me as a birthday present one year.  That same day I spent camped with some friends on the shores of a reservoir in Utah.  For three days it was us, a small cove, and Still Cruisin' blasting from my Walkman's portable speakers.  Ah, those days.  I'd love to know why Spotify yanked it.

[HeyJude]

"In My Car" is interesting in that it gives a glimpse of what it would have sounded like had Carl and Al sang on Brian's '88 solo album I guess.

[CenturyDeprived]

"In My Car" is interesting in that it gives a glimpse of what it would have sounded like had Carl and Al sang on Brian's '88 solo album I guess.

Totally. Carl and Al elevated the song, that's for sure.

I also love Make it Big. I don't care how cheesy it is. Carl sells it, and he truly makes me believe I can make it big if I want to. Could that song be considered the most overtly inspiring BB track? Where it directly is trying to specifically inspire the listener?

[Wirestone]

Brian's "Believe in Yourself" comes to mind.

[CenturyDeprived]

Brian's "Believe in Yourself" comes to mind.

Good one, forgot about it.

[Cam Mott]

“But how come he didn't mention that his song was guilty of the same things as theirs? Why did "In My Car" and "Island Girl" feel the wrath of Dr. Love, but "Somewhere Near Japan" was alright?”

“I was not happy” is wrath? No.  Explaining how a themed repackage broke its theme and came to be a mixed album, which is what he is explaining.

“If that's true, then it also implies Mike *really doesn't like* democracy within the band.........”

Not at all. I love democracy but don’t always like the politics or what the politics determines I will go along with because I support democracy.  

[CenturyDeprived]

“But how come he didn't mention that his song was guilty of the same things as theirs? Why did "In My Car" and "Island Girl" feel the wrath of Dr. Love, but "Somewhere Near Japan" was alright?”

“I was not happy” is wrath? No.  Explaining how a themed repackage broke its theme and came to be a mixed album, which is what he is explaining. 

That doesn't answer the first sentence in sweetdudejim's question.

[Cam Mott]

“But how come he didn't mention that his song was guilty of the same things as theirs? Why did "In My Car" and "Island Girl" feel the wrath of Dr. Love, but "Somewhere Near Japan" was alright?”

“I was not happy” is wrath? No.  Explaining how a themed repackage broke its theme and came to be a mixed album, which is what he is explaining.  

That doesn't answer the first sentence in sweetdudejim's question.

It does.

[CenturyDeprived]

“But how come he didn't mention that his song was guilty of the same things as theirs? Why did "In My Car" and "Island Girl" feel the wrath of Dr. Love, but "Somewhere Near Japan" was alright?”

“I was not happy” is wrath? No.  Explaining how a themed repackage broke its theme and came to be a mixed album, which is what he is explaining.  

That doesn't answer the first sentence in sweetdudejim's question.

It does.

Cam, let's go ahead and make a long list of times that Mike has said something self-deprecating in an interview, without deflecting onto others, and I'll go ahead and turn on the TV, because there's a special on CNN where Kirk Cameron will be announcing he's embracing atheism.   

[Cam Mott]

Be my guest.

[CenturyDeprived]

Be my guest.

Here's my list:
_______
_______
_______

where's yours?

[Cam Mott]

Be my guest.

Here's my list:
_______
_______
_______

where's yours?

It doesn't have anything to do with the quote so I won't be making one.

CP I'm getting to the end of participating in these deals with you, the answers I give are never the ones you want or something and you keep getting sort of insulting. Sorry. I can have my opinion and you can have yours.

[Lonely Summer]

I think it would have been better on a Brian album as opposed to Still Cruisin'. That's not a knock on the song; it just sticks WAY out on Still Cruisin'. The song Still Cruisin' is basically Getcha Back 2.0, so I have a soft spot for it.

In My Car sounded much better when Brian sang it on the Endless Summer tv series. The album version just has the drum way to freaking loud!

[Please delete my account]

edit: (I must stop polluting the board with conjecture.)

[Andrew G. Doe]

There is *no other group* of obvious "defenders" of any person or faction of this group that go to this length to never admit "their guy" is wrong (and lumping him in with the entire group and saying "they were all to blame" about something doesn't count). Even hardcore Brian apologists will usually admit when some Brian interview doesn't make a lick of sense, or when Al says one of those random "Wtf?" things in an interview. Fans who think Dennis was the "coolest" BB will admit to his mistakes. But with Mike, the defenses eventually just start sounding like Jeremy the Boob from Yellow Submarine.

As I've pointed out before, I honestly think that there are people who have almost made some kind of pact (maybe literally, though probably not actually) that since Mike has unfairly been publicly judged for a number of things he is not necessarily guilty of, and because he is not respected for lots of great things he has brought to the table, that it is somehow necessary to never admit things that are actually very hypocritical or just outright poor behavior/treatment of others, are in fact such. That some "big picture" goals of Mike gaining more respect for what he deserves respect for history's sake for will somehow be compromised. I cannot conceive of any other motivation other than actual secret payroll status.

That'll be me then.  . Never ceases to amaze (and amuse) me that otherwise sensible posters can unexpectedly spout fluent bollocks. 

[Cam Mott]

There is *no other group* of obvious "defenders" of any person or faction of this group that go to this length to never admit "their guy" is wrong (and lumping him in with the entire group and saying "they were all to blame" about something doesn't count). Even hardcore Brian apologists will usually admit when some Brian interview doesn't make a lick of sense, or when Al says one of those random "Wtf?" things in an interview. Fans who think Dennis was the "coolest" BB will admit to his mistakes. But with Mike, the defenses eventually just start sounding like Jeremy the Boob from Yellow Submarine.

As I've pointed out before, I honestly think that there are people who have almost made some kind of pact (maybe literally, though probably not actually) that since Mike has unfairly been publicly judged for a number of things he is not necessarily guilty of, and because he is not respected for lots of great things he has brought to the table, that it is somehow necessary to never admit things that are actually very hypocritical or just outright poor behavior/treatment of others, are in fact such. That some "big picture" goals of Mike gaining more respect for what he deserves respect for history's sake for will somehow be compromised. I cannot conceive of any other motivation other than actual secret payroll status.

That'll be me then.  . Never ceases to amaze (and amuse) me that otherwise sensible posters can unexpectedly spout fluent bollocks. 

I guess all of the checks are still in the mail. Thanks Mike and Obama, right? 

[D Cunningham]

So this morning I've been working on my new novel-manuscript about the history
of fast food in Thailand. I've been googling all sorts of names and phrases...and when I
googled "fluent bollocks" I was sent to this site.  Excellent!

[Douchepool]

In My Car sounded much better when Brian sang it on the Endless Summer tv series. The album version just has the drum way to freaking loud!

No argument there. Such was the late 1980s. The songs from Brian's first album performed live at the time also sounded better in concert.

[CenturyDeprived]

There is *no other group* of obvious "defenders" of any person or faction of this group that go to this length to never admit "their guy" is wrong (and lumping him in with the entire group and saying "they were all to blame" about something doesn't count). Even hardcore Brian apologists will usually admit when some Brian interview doesn't make a lick of sense, or when Al says one of those random "Wtf?" things in an interview. Fans who think Dennis was the "coolest" BB will admit to his mistakes. But with Mike, the defenses eventually just start sounding like Jeremy the Boob from Yellow Submarine.

As I've pointed out before, I honestly think that there are people who have almost made some kind of pact (maybe literally, though probably not actually) that since Mike has unfairly been publicly judged for a number of things he is not necessarily guilty of, and because he is not respected for lots of great things he has brought to the table, that it is somehow necessary to never admit things that are actually very hypocritical or just outright poor behavior/treatment of others, are in fact such. That some "big picture" goals of Mike gaining more respect for what he deserves respect for history's sake for will somehow be compromised. I cannot conceive of any other motivation other than actual secret payroll status.

That'll be me then.  . Never ceases to amaze (and amuse) me that otherwise sensible posters can unexpectedly spout fluent bollocks.  

My payroll comment was admittedly facetious, but the "big picture" mindset I think is not far off from some people's way of thinking, even if it's possibly subconscious. Particularly those who won't a budge an inch from an extreme point of view, or who will only chime in regarding the defense of one particular individual. An opposition to that extremism in fact is the only real thing that keeps certain conversations going on this board. And AGD - Just because there admittedly ARE a hoard of people who very unfortunately say awful things on Youtube and Facebook comment sections and the like (which I honestly shake my head at when reading, too), doesn't mean that equally inaccurate, illogical, and frankly in some cases, laughable extremism isn't being spouted by a select few online on the other side of the BB "political" spectrum. Let's not deny that that in fact exists and is an actual occurrence. And that kind of extremist talk doesn't right any wrongs, so to speak.

[Andrew G. Doe]

There is *no other group* of obvious "defenders" of any person or faction of this group that go to this length to never admit "their guy" is wrong (and lumping him in with the entire group and saying "they were all to blame" about something doesn't count). Even hardcore Brian apologists will usually admit when some Brian interview doesn't make a lick of sense, or when Al says one of those random "Wtf?" things in an interview. Fans who think Dennis was the "coolest" BB will admit to his mistakes. But with Mike, the defenses eventually just start sounding like Jeremy the Boob from Yellow Submarine.

As I've pointed out before, I honestly think that there are people who have almost made some kind of pact (maybe literally, though probably not actually) that since Mike has unfairly been publicly judged for a number of things he is not necessarily guilty of, and because he is not respected for lots of great things he has brought to the table, that it is somehow necessary to never admit things that are actually very hypocritical or just outright poor behavior/treatment of others, are in fact such. That some "big picture" goals of Mike gaining more respect for what he deserves respect for history's sake for will somehow be compromised. I cannot conceive of any other motivation other than actual secret payroll status.

That'll be me then.  . Never ceases to amaze (and amuse) me that otherwise sensible posters can unexpectedly spout fluent bollocks. 

My payroll comment was admittedly facetious, but the "big picture" mindset I think is not far off from some people's way of thinking, even if it's possibly subconscious. Particularly those who won't a budge an inch from an extreme point of view, or who will only chime in regarding the defense of one particular individual. An opposition to that extremism in fact is the only real thing that keeps certain conversations going on this board. And AGD - Just because there admittedly ARE a hoard of people who very unfortunately say awful things on Youtube comment sections and the like (which I honestly shake my head at when reading, too), doesn't mean that equally inaccurate, illogical, and frankly in some cases, laughable extremism isn't being spouted by a select few online on the other side of the BB "political" spectrum. And that kind of extremist talk doesn't right any wrongs, so to speak.

YouTube comments, message boards, Facebook groups.... truly, shitweasels & fuckwits abound.  :

[Douchepool]

I remember a while back I criticized some f*ggots 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.

[CenturyDeprived]

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?

[Douchepool]

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.