What did Mike + the other Boys think of Jack Rieley's lyrics?

[Stephen W. Desper]

I  wonder what others who are mentioned in the book think/thought about it's accuracy or lack there of as far their experiences? (shooting a glance toward Stephen "Despar")

COMMENT:

Note it's Desper with "er" at the end or is that why you put the name in quotes?  

I don't know anything about the book. I will say that if Michael said anything like that to Brian it would be during one of their impromptu production meetings. These meetings happen from time to time and are regarded as a suspension of creative activities while a subject is discussed and a decision reached. Usually this will be a business related decision. Sometimes these meetings are called where conditions for secrecy is unavailable. So someone may have overheard Michael say something to Brian -- but take it way out of text or proportion. So under these circumstances I can see Mike relating his feelings. In this setting he has just as much say as anyone. But in daily overall conversations, interaction, and on a creative level, Michael and Brian worked well together, given Brian's condition. As to Michael's supposed sentiment to Brian, if Mike wished to stay with the surfing motif, why did he go on to create, work, write and sing on so many songs not of the surfing motif? In short, from my experiences of being around the group for many hours at a time, day in and day out, in the studio and on the road -- I think the Michael statement is over rated as some historical turning point . . . if it was ever muttered. ~swd

[Cam Mott]

I  wonder what others who are mentioned in the book think/thought about it's accuracy or lack there of as far their experiences? (shooting a glance toward Stephen "Despar")

COMMENT:

Note it's Desper with "er" at the end or is that why you put the name in quotes?  

I don't know anything about the book. I will say that if Michael said anything like that to Brian it would be during one of their impromptu production meetings. These meetings happen from time to time and are regarded as a suspension of creative activities while a subject is discussed and a decision reached. Usually this will be a business related decision. Sometimes these meetings are called where conditions for secrecy is unavailable. So someone may have overheard Michael say something to Brian -- but take it way out of text or proportion. So under these circumstances I can see Mike relating his feelings. In this setting he has just as much say as anyone. But in daily overall conversations, interaction, and on a creative level, Michael and Brian worked well together, given Brian's condition. As to Michael's supposed sentiment to Brian, if Mike wished to stay with the surfing motif, why did he go on to create, work, write and sing on so many songs not of the surfing motif? In short, from my experiences of being around the group for many hours at a time, day in and day out, in the studio and on the road -- I think the Michael statement is over rated as some historical turning point . . . if it was ever muttered. ~swd

Thank you Stephen for your sharing and patience. I've always thought that it is curious that Brian is supposed to have had so much resistance and grief from the Boys over and during the work yet none of it seems to have gotten on tape and the Boys themselves seem to know little if anything about it. Lots of good humor and hard work and cooperation from the Boys made it to tape though some how.

The "Despar" was a joke as that is how your name is misspelled through out Gaine's book.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Chapter 8, section 6 - Mike Love was the most vocal and vehement. "You're going to blow it, Brian," he said.  "Stick to the old stuff. Don't f*** with the formula."

Context is the BBs returning to California post tour for Smile vox sessions, then flipping out on purveying "the scene" and hearing the tracks.  The quote immediately follows on from the recollections of David Anderle.

Context is therefore wrong, as the "formula" quote has historically been associated with Pet Sounds. Ergo the source is questionable. As I said, the financial & managerial info is reliable. Anything else, not so much.

[Mike's Beard]

] So someone may have overheard Michael say something to Brian -- but take it way out of text or proportion. So under these circumstances I can see Mike relating his feelings. In this setting he has just as much say as anyone. But in daily overall conversations, interaction, and on a creative level, Michael and Brian worked well together, given Brian's condition. As to Michael's supposed sentiment to Brian, if Mike wished to stay with the surfing motif, why did he go on to create, work, write and sing on so many songs not of the surfing motif? In short, from my experiences of being around the group for many hours at a time, day in and day out, in the studio and on the road -- I think the Michael statement is over rated as some historical turning point . . . if it was ever muttered. ~swd

Can we nail this quote to the top of the main page on the board?

[guitarfool2002]

I'm trying to work out some of the logic being used in some recent posts here. First there was a post saying what is written in the Gaines book seems to be what actually happened based on talking to various insiders. The "don't f*** with the formula" quote stood out as one of the most repeated lines in various histories and among fans, and it's noted in the book as Alan Smith cited. But the reply to that was the business/contractual evidence is what was spot-on, the other points like that quote not so much, so despite the comment that what is in the book seems to be accurate, in this case it isn't. You'd expect the contract/business material would have more detail in the book since Stephen Love was a primary source for the book.

Now Cam comes back with the idea that despite all of the stories written and observations of people who were there including Brian Wilson himself, nothing seems to have been "captured on tape" to back up what has been said about the band members challenging Brian on certain material, especially in 1966-67.

Is this an assertion trying to suggest that because there are no session tapes that captured anything of the sort, that it didn't happen? That it never happened?

So if that is the case - It didn't happen because we don't have a "Heroes" session or something where we can hear a conversation taking place?

Taken to the extreme, that sounds like a suggestion that anything that wasn't captured on a studio session reel is more likely not to have happen despite observers saying it did? What about band meetings, BRI meetings, and the like? Are there any tapes of those conversations, are there minutes taken down of every meeting? Do we even know what the band was discussing at Columbia in Dec 1966 when CBS's camera crews were filming them for Inside Pop?

It seems to be a case of selective reasoning here, either the book got it right or it didn't, it's just funny that one or two examples pulled out of hundreds of pages gets parsed and suggested it "didn't happen", and a year ago there was a discussion about the failed spring 1968 Maharishi tour and how much that folly cost the band - Despite Nick Grillo giving specific details and numbers in the Gaines book, I remember Cam and others tried to parse those figures as well.

Just trying to understand the process being applied to reach some of these conclusions. I'd suggest using whether or not conversations were captured on tape and appear on bootlegs or box sets decades later isn't a good way of concluding that it never happened. The tapes that do exist add up to a micro-micro-microcosm of real life and everything that happens in a 24-hour day. If a Heroes session reel doesn't include Brian ordering a pastrami on rye from Canter's during a break, that doesn't mean he didn't order a pastrami on rye from Canter's during a break. If he says he did, and remembers it was one of the best sandwiches he ever had...then he's wrong because it's not on tape? That's illogical reasoning from the get-go.

[Mike's Beard]

Is that a no then?

[guitarfool2002]

It's a call to apply basic logic instead of cherrypicking details to refute or change them based on the content or implications. It would be easy to whitewash any number of events out of the band's history that were not captured on a reel of tape in the studio. Too easy and not accurate, either.

[bgas]

It's a call to apply basic logic instead of cherrypicking details to refute or change them based on the content or implications. It would be easy to whitewash any number of events out of the band's history that were not captured on a reel of tape in the studio. Too easy and not accurate, either.

Sure, but that's Cam's modus operandi

[drbeachboy]

I'm trying to work out some of the logic being used in some recent posts here. First there was a post saying what is written in the Gaines book seems to be what actually happened based on talking to various insiders. The "don't f*** with the formula" quote stood out as one of the most repeated lines in various histories and among fans, and it's noted in the book as Alan Smith cited. But the reply to that was the business/contractual evidence is what was spot-on, the other points like that quote not so much, so despite the comment that what is in the book seems to be accurate, in this case it isn't. You'd expect the contract/business material would have more detail in the book since Stephen Love was a primary source for the book.

Now Cam comes back with the idea that despite all of the stories written and observations of people who were there including Brian Wilson himself, nothing seems to have been "captured on tape" to back up what has been said about the band members challenging Brian on certain material, especially in 1966-67.

Is this an assertion trying to suggest that because there are no session tapes that captured anything of the sort, that it didn't happen? That it never happened?

So if that is the case - It didn't happen because we don't have a "Heroes" session or something where we can hear a conversation taking place?

Taken to the extreme, that sounds like a suggestion that anything that wasn't captured on a studio session reel is more likely not to have happen despite observers saying it did? What about band meetings, BRI meetings, and the like? Are there any tapes of those conversations, are there minutes taken down of every meeting? Do we even know what the band was discussing at Columbia in Dec 1966 when CBS's camera crews were filming them for Inside Pop?

It seems to be a case of selective reasoning here, either the book got it right or it didn't, it's just funny that one or two examples pulled out of hundreds of pages gets parsed and suggested it "didn't happen", and a year ago there was a discussion about the failed spring 1968 Maharishi tour and how much that folly cost the band - Despite Nick Grillo giving specific details and numbers in the Gaines book, I remember Cam and others tried to parse those figures as well.

Just trying to understand the process being applied to reach some of these conclusions. I'd suggest using whether or not conversations were captured on tape and appear on bootlegs or box sets decades later isn't a good way of concluding that it never happened. The tapes that do exist add up to a micro-micro-microcosm of real life and everything that happens in a 24-hour day. If a Heroes session reel doesn't include Brian ordering a pastrami on rye from Canter's during a break, that doesn't mean he didn't order a pastrami on rye from Canter's during a break. If he says he did, and remembers it was one of the best sandwiches he ever had...then he's wrong because it's not on tape? That's illogical reasoning from the get-go.

At this point does it really matter? It has a myth all it's own. Whether that quote actually was said or not, it can be concluded that most people who care will continue to believe whatever they want to believe. It is the Beach Boy way. The truth should never stand in the way of a good story or quote.

[CenturyDeprived]

I'm trying to work out some of the logic being used in some recent posts here. First there was a post saying what is written in the Gaines book seems to be what actually happened based on talking to various insiders. The "don't f*** with the formula" quote stood out as one of the most repeated lines in various histories and among fans, and it's noted in the book as Alan Smith cited. But the reply to that was the business/contractual evidence is what was spot-on, the other points like that quote not so much, so despite the comment that what is in the book seems to be accurate, in this case it isn't. You'd expect the contract/business material would have more detail in the book since Stephen Love was a primary source for the book.

Now Cam comes back with the idea that despite all of the stories written and observations of people who were there including Brian Wilson himself, nothing seems to have been "captured on tape" to back up what has been said about the band members challenging Brian on certain material, especially in 1966-67.

Is this an assertion trying to suggest that because there are no session tapes that captured anything of the sort, that it didn't happen? That it never happened?

So if that is the case - It didn't happen because we don't have a "Heroes" session or something where we can hear a conversation taking place?

Taken to the extreme, that sounds like a suggestion that anything that wasn't captured on a studio session reel is more likely not to have happen despite observers saying it did? What about band meetings, BRI meetings, and the like? Are there any tapes of those conversations, are there minutes taken down of every meeting? Do we even know what the band was discussing at Columbia in Dec 1966 when CBS's camera crews were filming them for Inside Pop?

It seems to be a case of selective reasoning here, either the book got it right or it didn't, it's just funny that one or two examples pulled out of hundreds of pages gets parsed and suggested it "didn't happen", and a year ago there was a discussion about the failed spring 1968 Maharishi tour and how much that folly cost the band - Despite Nick Grillo giving specific details and numbers in the Gaines book, I remember Cam and others tried to parse those figures as well.

Just trying to understand the process being applied to reach some of these conclusions. I'd suggest using whether or not conversations were captured on tape and appear on bootlegs or box sets decades later isn't a good way of concluding that it never happened. The tapes that do exist add up to a micro-micro-microcosm of real life and everything that happens in a 24-hour day. If a Heroes session reel doesn't include Brian ordering a pastrami on rye from Canter's during a break, that doesn't mean he didn't order a pastrami on rye from Canter's during a break. If he says he did, and remembers it was one of the best sandwiches he ever had...then he's wrong because it's not on tape? That's illogical reasoning from the get-go.

At this point does it really matter? It has a myth all it's own. Whether that quote actually was said or not, it can be concluded that most people who care will continue to believe whatever they want to believe. It is the Beach Boy way. The truth should never stand in the way of a good story or quote.

Setting aside whether it was recorded or verbatim said, do you doubt that the quote would have at least been what Mike would have thought at the time? It probably was, and likely moreso than the other Boys, and he probably communicated this thought nonverbally with body language too. What's done is done, but those claiming it's so incredibly farfetched, unbelievable, and out of character are trying to whitewash history themselves. Let's not deny that is a thing that that a faction of people on this board are prone to doing. Can we agree on that much?

In all likelihood, the quote and/or its sentiment is true in one way or another; people need to deal with it.

[drbeachboy]

I'm trying to work out some of the logic being used in some recent posts here. First there was a post saying what is written in the Gaines book seems to be what actually happened based on talking to various insiders. The "don't f*** with the formula" quote stood out as one of the most repeated lines in various histories and among fans, and it's noted in the book as Alan Smith cited. But the reply to that was the business/contractual evidence is what was spot-on, the other points like that quote not so much, so despite the comment that what is in the book seems to be accurate, in this case it isn't. You'd expect the contract/business material would have more detail in the book since Stephen Love was a primary source for the book.

Now Cam comes back with the idea that despite all of the stories written and observations of people who were there including Brian Wilson himself, nothing seems to have been "captured on tape" to back up what has been said about the band members challenging Brian on certain material, especially in 1966-67.

Is this an assertion trying to suggest that because there are no session tapes that captured anything of the sort, that it didn't happen? That it never happened?

So if that is the case - It didn't happen because we don't have a "Heroes" session or something where we can hear a conversation taking place?

Taken to the extreme, that sounds like a suggestion that anything that wasn't captured on a studio session reel is more likely not to have happen despite observers saying it did? What about band meetings, BRI meetings, and the like? Are there any tapes of those conversations, are there minutes taken down of every meeting? Do we even know what the band was discussing at Columbia in Dec 1966 when CBS's camera crews were filming them for Inside Pop?

It seems to be a case of selective reasoning here, either the book got it right or it didn't, it's just funny that one or two examples pulled out of hundreds of pages gets parsed and suggested it "didn't happen", and a year ago there was a discussion about the failed spring 1968 Maharishi tour and how much that folly cost the band - Despite Nick Grillo giving specific details and numbers in the Gaines book, I remember Cam and others tried to parse those figures as well.

Just trying to understand the process being applied to reach some of these conclusions. I'd suggest using whether or not conversations were captured on tape and appear on bootlegs or box sets decades later isn't a good way of concluding that it never happened. The tapes that do exist add up to a micro-micro-microcosm of real life and everything that happens in a 24-hour day. If a Heroes session reel doesn't include Brian ordering a pastrami on rye from Canter's during a break, that doesn't mean he didn't order a pastrami on rye from Canter's during a break. If he says he did, and remembers it was one of the best sandwiches he ever had...then he's wrong because it's not on tape? That's illogical reasoning from the get-go.

At this point does it really matter? It has a myth all it's own. Whether that quote actually was said or not, it can be concluded that most people who care will continue to believe whatever they want to believe. It is the Beach Boy way. The truth should never stand in the way of a good story or quote.

Setting aside whether it was recorded or verbatim said, do you doubt that the quote would have at least been what Mike would have thought at the time? It probably was, and likely moreso than the other Boys, and he probably communicated this thought nonverbally with body language too. What's done is done, but those claiming it's so incredibly farfetched, unbelievable, and out of character are trying to whitewash history themselves. Let's not deny that is a thing that that a faction of people on this board are prone to doing. Can we agree on that much?

In all likelihood, the quote and/or its sentiment is true in one way or another; people need to deal with it.

Personally, I do think he did say something to that effect. Probably not said in the context or the extreme seriousness that some fans take it. It was more likely said in frustration as the studio work was arduous and that it was not Mike's favorite place to be. If it was said during the Pet Sounds sessions, Mike had to have had second thoughts about it, with Sloop, WIBN, GOK and GV all doing very well on the world charts. Again, most likely said while having a bad day in the studio and taken way out of context.

[Andrew G. Doe]

The alleged "formula" quote. No-one has, to my knowledge - as ever I stand to be corrected - any reference to it prior to the mid seventies, and certainly not in any contemporary media. Few years ago, as I posted here at the time, I asked Mike about it and he gave me a source, viz. one of the suits at Capitol when he and Brian presented the finished Pet Sounds to them. He admitted it sounded like something he might say, given his love of alliteration.

As for the filmed "Surf's Up" session, the notes make no reference to any argument or dissection.

[drbeachboy]

The alleged "formula" quote. No-one has, to my knowledge - as ever I stand to be corrected - any reference to it prior to the mid seventies, and certainly not in any contemporary media. Few years ago, as I posted here at the time, I asked Mike about it and he gave me a source, viz. one of the suits at Capitol when he and Brian presented the finished Pet Sounds to them. He admitted it sounded like something he might say, given his love of alliteration.

As for the filmed "Surf's Up" session, the notes make no reference to any argument or dissection.

So, how to reply to gf2k's question? What is to believed these days? Does it take more than one source to confirm or dismiss a story or quote from a band member? Maybe it is just my age showing, but it just seems that in all the books and articles written about the Boys', it seems like just about everyone in the story had some kind of agenda. To whom to pass blame too when things went out of kilter. I mean, most of the myth that we know today came from Brian's friends & associates during the Pet Sounds-Smile era. I always found it odd that for a band that was never around much, constantly touring, that They or Mike was responsible for all the bad things that happened during that period.

[tortapuerco]

The alleged "formula" quote. No-one has, to my knowledge - as ever I stand to be corrected - any reference to it prior to the mid seventies, and certainly not in any contemporary media. Few years ago, as I posted here at the time, I asked Mike about it and he gave me a source, viz. one of the suits at Capitol when he and Brian presented the finished Pet Sounds to them. He admitted it sounded like something he might say, given his love of alliteration.

Tom Nolan Rolling Stone article, October 28, 1971.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beach-boys-a-california-saga-19711028?page=6

"Mike Love was the tough one for David (Anderle). Mike really befriended David: He wanted his aid in going one direction while David was trying to take it the opposite way. Mike kept saying, 'You're so good, you know so much, you're so realistic, you can do all this for us-why not do it this way.' and David would say 'Because Brian wants it that way.' 'Gotta be this way.' David really holds Mike Love responsible for the collapse. Mike wanted the bread, 'and don't f*** with the formula.'"

[drbeachboy]

The alleged "formula" quote. No-one has, to my knowledge - as ever I stand to be corrected - any reference to it prior to the mid seventies, and certainly not in any contemporary media. Few years ago, as I posted here at the time, I asked Mike about it and he gave me a source, viz. one of the suits at Capitol when he and Brian presented the finished Pet Sounds to them. He admitted it sounded like something he might say, given his love of alliteration.

Tom Nolan Rolling Stone article, October 28, 1971.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beach-boys-a-california-saga-19711028?page=6

"Mike Love was the tough one for David (Anderle). Mike really befriended David: He wanted his aid in going one direction while David was trying to take it the opposite way. Mike kept saying, 'You're so good, you know so much, you're so realistic, you can do all this for us-why not do it this way.' and David would say 'Because Brian wants it that way.' 'Gotta be this way.' David really holds Mike Love responsible for the collapse. Mike wanted the bread, 'and don't f*** with the formula.'"

Do you ever wonder if any of these ever talked to each other? If they all owned a piece of Brother Records and hired Anderle to run it, did they not have a plan? Did they not sit down and discuss how the business was to be run. Wasn't Anderle making decisions in the day to day running of the business? A business that new, one would think that in the beginning they would all be on the same page getting it up and running. Sounds like buck passing or Anderle was too much under Brian's sway to make his own business decisions.

[clack]

If Mike ever said "don't f**k with the formula" : what could he have meant by the "formula"?

Not surf/car songs, which they had long since abandoned, and which were no longer commercially viable in any case. Does Pet Sounds have a hugely different formula than that of the 2nd side of Today, which Mike co-wrote? Is that Mike what meant by the formula (if he ever said it, that is), side 1 up-beat songs, side 2 introspective?

Or by formula did Mike mean that he, Mike, co-writes the lyrics, rather than Tony Asher?

It's hard to use that quote to knock Mike unless we know what he would have meant by it,  assuming he had said it.

[drbeachboy]

If Mike ever said "don't f**k with the formula" : what could he have meant by the "formula"?

Not surf/car songs, which they had long since abandoned, and which were no longer commercially viable in any case. Does Pet Sounds have a hugely different formula than that of the 2nd side of Today, which Mike co-wrote? Is that Mike what meant by the formula (if he ever said it, that is), side 1 up-beat songs, side 2 introspective?

Or by formula did Mike mean that he, Mike, co-writes the lyrics, rather than Tony Asher?

It's hard to use that quote to knock Mike unless we know what he would have meant by it,  assuming he had said it.

To me it more likely sounds as if he is questioning how Brian changed his recording techniques. Not hearing fully rooted songs using the modular method.

[CenturyDeprived]

If Mike ever said "don't f**k with the formula" : what could he have meant by the "formula"?

Not surf/car songs, which they had long since abandoned, and which were no longer commercially viable in any case. Does Pet Sounds have a hugely different formula than that of the 2nd side of Today, which Mike co-wrote? Is that Mike what meant by the formula (if he ever said it, that is), side 1 up-beat songs, side 2 introspective?

Or by formula did Mike mean that he, Mike, co-writes the lyrics, rather than Tony Asher?

It's hard to use that quote to knock Mike unless we know what he would have meant by it,  assuming he had said it.

I think Mike meant the band shouldn't abandon the relatable boy/girl subject matter from being the primary focus of a large amount of songs. Deeper, more painful and personal subject matter, touched on with the title lyric Child is Father of the Man... songs like I Just Wasn't Made for These Times,  etc... those songs are blatantly fucking with the formula. I'd imagine that a small handful of those types of songs could have been stomached, but when more and more came to push in that direction, it was qualified by Mike as formula-fucking.

[drbeachboy]

If Mike ever said "don't f**k with the formula" : what could he have meant by the "formula"?

Not surf/car songs, which they had long since abandoned, and which were no longer commercially viable in any case. Does Pet Sounds have a hugely different formula than that of the 2nd side of Today, which Mike co-wrote? Is that Mike what meant by the formula (if he ever said it, that is), side 1 up-beat songs, side 2 introspective?

Or by formula did Mike mean that he, Mike, co-writes the lyrics, rather than Tony Asher?

It's hard to use that quote to knock Mike unless we know what he would have meant by it,  assuming he had said it.

I think Mike meant the band shouldn't abandon the relatable boy/girl subject matter from being the primary focus of a large amount of songs. Deeper, more painful and personal subject matter, touched on with the title lyric Child is Father of the Man... songs like I Just Wasn't Made for These Times,  etc... those songs are blatantly fucking with the formula. I'd imagine that a small handful of those types of songs could have been stomached, but when more and more came to push in that direction, it was qualified by Mike as formula-fucking.

I doubt Mike had big problems with album cuts. I think his issue was with songs that would/could be slated for singles. I could see him feeling that way with the Smile material. There is nothing AM radio hit worthy on Smile. The modular method of recording probably made it even harder to figure out.

[Cam Mott]

Here I'll say Stephen was intimately involved in the process for years, not a visitor to a few sessions over the course of a few months. He is speaking from a much more informed position and I think what he said speaks directly to how the group, and specificly Mike, were not trying to keep Brian from F-ing with the F-ula. Maybe I misunderstand Stephen and I hope he corrects me if I am.

I suggest another thread be started and I'll be glad to try to answer for all of the words being put in my mouth. If not I guess I can do it here too.

[ontor pertawst]

[Cam Mott]

I'm trying to work out some of the logic being used in some recent posts here. First there was a post saying what is written in the Gaines book seems to be what actually happened based on talking to various insiders. The "don't f*** with the formula" quote stood out as one of the most repeated lines in various histories and among fans, and it's noted in the book as Alan Smith cited.

I can’t speak for Ian, but I didn’t have the impression he was pronouncing the entire book as true. He can correct me if he meant what you claim.

As for me I passed on what Grillo said. As I said, he didn’t say everything in the book was true, just what was attributed to him, so that leaves a lot of the book outside his endorsement.

Now Cam comes back with the idea that despite all of the stories written and observations of people who were there including Brian Wilson himself, nothing seems to have been "captured on tape" to back up what has been said about the band members challenging Brian on certain material, especially in 1966-67.

Is this an assertion trying to suggest that because there are no session tapes that captured anything of the sort, that it didn't happen? That it never happened?

No, it’s an observation that nothing like the sort was captured on tape, that is known. Just what I said, not what you projected. What IS captured on tape in abundance is the exact opposite of the “sort”, as I said, the Boys at work seemingly doing everything as told, being cooperative, working hard and with good humor.


Taken to the extreme, that sounds like a suggestion that anything that wasn't captured on a studio session reel is more likely not to have happen despite observers saying it did? What about band meetings, BRI meetings, and the like? Are there any tapes of those conversations, are there minutes taken down of every meeting? Do we even know what the band was discussing at Columbia in Dec 1966 when CBS's camera crews were filming them for Inside Pop?

Most of the evidence of the sort is claimed to take place at sessions with the Boys. Is there any evidence they discussed anything of the sort at band meetings or Columbia? Does anybody have band meetings tapes or transcripts? If not, are you suggesting it means they then must have discussed things of the sort? I’m not suggesting it.

It seems to be a case of selective reasoning here, either the book got it right or it didn't, it's just funny that one or two examples pulled out of hundreds of pages gets parsed and suggested it "didn't happen", and a year ago there was a discussion about the failed spring 1968 Maharishi tour and how much that folly cost the band - Despite Nick Grillo giving specific details and numbers in the Gaines book, I remember Cam and others tried to parse those figures as well.

I agree there is some selective reasoning going on. Mike denies it happened, but he is just the guy who was supposed to have said it. Are we to selectively ignore that?

Are we to ignore Stephen’s perspective?

Even Anderle says the Boys weren’t antagonistic rather there was love and they worked hard and sang beautifully trying to please Brian.

Point me to the Grillo thread please, and I’ll take a look.

Just trying to understand the process being applied to reach some of these conclusions. I'd suggest using whether or not conversations were captured on tape and appear on bootlegs or box sets decades later isn't a good way of concluding that it never happened. The tapes that do exist add up to a micro-micro-microcosm of real life and everything that happens in a 24-hour day.

Since I didn’t do that I don’t have a comment except to agree we probably shouldn’t conclude too much from  the micro-micro-micro-micro-microcosm of the impressions of a couple of guys from a few sessions over a few months out of a 50+ year career about somebody else.

[Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard]

If Mike ever said "don't f**k with the formula" : what could he have meant by the "formula"?

Not surf/car songs, which they had long since abandoned, and which were no longer commercially viable in any case. Does Pet Sounds have a hugely different formula than that of the 2nd side of Today, which Mike co-wrote? Is that Mike what meant by the formula (if he ever said it, that is), side 1 up-beat songs, side 2 introspective?

Or by formula did Mike mean that he, Mike, co-writes the lyrics, rather than Tony Asher?

It's hard to use that quote to knock Mike unless we know what he would have meant by it,  assuming he had said it.

I think Mike meant the band shouldn't abandon the relatable boy/girl subject matter from being the primary focus of a large amount of songs. Deeper, more painful and personal subject matter, touched on with the title lyric Child is Father of the Man... songs like I Just Wasn't Made for These Times,  etc... those songs are blatantly fucking with the formula. I'd imagine that a small handful of those types of songs could have been stomached, but when more and more came to push in that direction, it was qualified by Mike as formula-fucking.

I doubt Mike had big problems with album cuts. I think his issue was with songs that would/could be slated for singles. I could see him feeling that way with the Smile material. There is nothing AM radio hit worthy on Smile. The modular method of recording probably made it even harder to figure out.

He just picked the worst possible song, imho. Why take what, as far as I can gather, was a formless 3 minute musical comedy that even included My Only Sunshine at one point and make that the single? Or, if you're gonna do that, stick with it. Don't spend months making it commercial and more verse/chorus/verse if that so obviously wasn't the plan before. Pick something already like that, such as cabin essence. Even something like Surfs Up, as we were saying in another thread. The title would capture less aware old fans, the tv plug the general public, and word of mouth would do the rest. They could have gotten a second hit off SMiLE if they just backed the right horse

[Don Malcolm]

I will try to summarize the general history of the band and its inner dynamics from the "fall from grace" that followed Good Vibrations. We will also focus on Mike's involvement with the creative efforts of that time. You can all take potshots at that as you see fit with respect to any interpretations of behavior and involvement between the various band members. We begin with Smiley Smile. Steve Desper is most welcome to add any details regarding the period in which he was in attendance as the band's sound genius.

SS--With none of the other BBs ready/able to take over production & songwriting chores, Brian is forced/cajoled into creating a quickie surrogate. The LP continues the already in-process transition to Carl as the key alternate lead vocalist to Mike.

Mike's involvement: moderate (leads/lyrics on "She's Goin' Bald" and "Gettin' Hungry," the usual peerless background singing).

WH--The BBs "reload" with an album that pushes away from their signature sound and channels Motown/R&B. Carl becomes yet more prominent as a lead vocalist, moving into uptempo songs that had previously been the province of Mike.

Mike's involvement: heavy (lyrics on many songs, with lots of emphasis on "boy/girl").

Friends--Almost a Brian solo project, nearly a 180-degree shift from WH. Dennis debuts as a songwriter.

Mike's involvement: slight (away in India for a good bit of the sessions).

20/20--The rest of the band begins to flex its songwriting/production muscles as Brian goes through an emotional decline, necessitating Carl to augment/finish two SMiLE tracks.

Mike's involvement: moderate-to-heavy (more leads here since Summer Days/Summer Nights). Brings back "the formula" by coaxing Brian into writing/recording "Do It Again."

Sunflower--The product of an enormous burst of creativity from all band members, including Brian, who writes some terrific songs in extending the classic BBs' sound ("This Whole World," "All I Wanna Do"). The band supports everyone's songwriting efforts; Steve Desper perfects his sound  mastery to create one of the greatest-sounding LPs in pop music history.

Mike's involvement: moderate- to-heavy (lyrics on many songs, one of his best leads ever on "All I Wanna Do", peerless backing vocals).

With the commercial crash-and-burn of the LP, Jack Reiley enters the picture, angling the group toward new songs stressing topical issues (particularly ecology, a subject that seems to resonate with Al and Mike).

SU--The LP isn't quite successful in following Sunflower's pattern and reflects some factionalizing in the band as Brian's involvement wavers (only two new songs on the LP, "Day in the Life of a Tree" and "Til I Die." The schizoid nature of the material, coupled with the aura of the SMiLE treasure "Surf's Up," revives the band's commercial fortunes despite the lack of an AM hit.

Mike's involvement: light to moderate (leads on two songs, co-writing--but none with Brian). Tom Nolan's RS article repeats the anecdotal notion that Mike is a conservative force in the band; observers of the band during the 1971 tour intimate that Mike seems more enthusiastic for the earlier songs.

CATP--Jack Reiley, with Carl's blessing, shakes up the band; the BB's risk losing their earlier identity in a wide-ranging series of tracks that sound more disjointed than they are thanks to being packaged with a reissue of Pet Sounds. Carl stands in for Brian, with Mike mostly as a cheerleader on the sidelines.

Mike's involvement: light-to-moderate (lead on "He Come Down," half-lead on "Marcella"). His support for the songs on the LP is broad but not deep.

Holland--The "change of venue" LP only comes together when "Sail On Sailor" emerges from the ether after the LP is rejected by Warner/Reprise. The LP more successfully blends the disparate sounds of the band than CATP, but it doesn't have the former LPs high points or range.

Mike's involvement: moderate (solo composition, leads on "Big Sur," "Caiifornia", co-writing on several songs, including the deleted "We Got Love". In '72 Mike seems to be reasonably integrated into the current creative framework of the band, even co-writing with Dennis and Blondie/Ricky.

The continuing absence and ongoing decline of Brian in '73-'75, coupled with the escalating resurgence in popularity of the band (in large part due to Endless Summer) seems to be the watershed for Mike, who more emphatically embraced the oldies segment of the live performances and began calling for the band to return to its roots, eventually advocating that Brian be brought back to do a high-wire act in a windstorm and write "new old" BB classics with his lyrical assistance.

15 BO: The lone example of a Wilson-Love collaboration is "It's OK," Brian's rewrite of "Mess of Help" as a summer tune. Mike's lyrics betray a little middle-age resignation that pushes back a bit against the "fun in the sun" veneer, but it's a momentary crack in his armor.

Mike's involvement: moderate (lead vocal on "Rock'n'Roll Music," "It's OK", "A Casual Look", songwriting "Everyone's In Love With You")

Love You--Brian's second near-solo effort, completed by Carl with guest appearances from most of the rest of the band.

Mike's involvement: slight (leads on "Roller Skating Child," "Johnny Carson", half-leads on "Let Us Go On This Way," "Airplane").

By this point Mike had "effed with the formula" a number of times, and he was still in search of a summer hit that evoked the good old days. With Brian regressing after his first round of treatment with Gene Landy, the band tried to rally for its first LP for CBS, but they were still crippled by their near-breakup in 1977 and the material was unfocused. Mike himself began to tire of the BBs chaotic creative democracy, and began to pursue side projects that more accurately reflected his desires to go back to the pre-Pet Sounds commercial glory days. 

Once Dennis died and Bruce returned as an active member, Mike pursued the America's band monicker as a ticket to ongoing commercial success, an approach that for the most part has remained in play over the past 30+ years. He wants to write new-old BBs classics with Brian, and actually got close to the general vicinity with TWGMTR, singing exceptionally well for a septuagenarian, but Brian stole the show artistically and commercially with cuts co-written with others.

To conclude: Mike's desire to return to the good old days has consistently increased as time has passed, and his revisionist comments tend to overlook/downplay his genuine involvement in the more artistically adventurous periods of BB history. Despite the fact that he has nothing to lose by embracing these intriguing tangents of BB history, Mike has mostly chosen to eschew that aspect of the band, which has only served to confirm for many who believe that he was a intransigent dissenter against any/all "veering away from the formula." While there is truth in that, it seems certain that it has been exaggerated. But Mike would do well to sit down with some journalist (perhaps in his autobio) and simply expound more on the entire BB oeuvre, including the period that he seems least inclined to discuss--the band's 1968-74 "alternate identity." Simply doing that might go a long way toward dousing the flames that he sometimes seems intent on fanning.

[Andrew G. Doe]

The alleged "formula" quote. No-one has, to my knowledge - as ever I stand to be corrected - any reference to it prior to the mid seventies, and certainly not in any contemporary media. Few years ago, as I posted here at the time, I asked Mike about it and he gave me a source, viz. one of the suits at Capitol when he and Brian presented the finished Pet Sounds to them. He admitted it sounded like something he might say, given his love of alliteration.

Tom Nolan Rolling Stone article, October 28, 1971.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beach-boys-a-california-saga-19711028?page=6

"Mike Love was the tough one for David (Anderle). Mike really befriended David: He wanted his aid in going one direction while David was trying to take it the opposite way. Mike kept saying, 'You're so good, you know so much, you're so realistic, you can do all this for us-why not do it this way.' and David would say 'Because Brian wants it that way.' 'Gotta be this way.' David really holds Mike Love responsible for the collapse. Mike wanted the bread, 'and don't f*** with the formula.'"

Do you ever wonder if any of these ever talked to each other? If they all owned a piece of Brother Records and hired Anderle to run it, did they not have a plan? Did they not sit down and discuss how the business was to be run. Wasn't Anderle making decisions in the day to day running of the business? A business that new, one would think that in the beginning they would all be on the same page getting it up and running. Sounds like buck passing or Anderle was too much under Brian's sway to make his own business decisions.

Profound thanks for that: I'm away from the Bellagio Archives right now and couldn't check. So, it's back to fall 1971... however, Anderle doesn't attach it to Pet Sounds but rather during Smile. More problems. There's another caveat in that, along with all the New Best Friends, David isn't exactly a neutral voice. Curiouser and curiouser.