Rocky Pamplin's THE BEACH BOYS' ENDLESS WAVE completed and published

[Debbie KL]

Debbie, I will presumptuously speak for one and all: we are all sending you and your husband our love and prayers for him to come through his health issues. As I've always said, you and Ray and Ed are the reasons why SS is the place to be for talking BBs--you guys are the "soul" of this place and we are always in your debt!

Kudos to Don. And Deb, just know that there are many, just many of us out here that are wishing you and your husband the best we can. I know it's just cyberspace, but the well wishes are in real time. You are our treasure.

You guys are great, and kind. I'm feelin' the love for my husband.

[JakeH]

Thx to you Jay. You couldn't have been more correct. I saw things no one should ever have to see. I won't be sharing them for that reason. Brian doesn't need to relive them, nor anyone else.

With respect, I agree with some of this, and less with other parts.

I saw things no one should ever have to see. I won't be sharing them for that reason.

Okay, yes, especially if this means that you will not share them on a random message board like this.

Brian doesn't need to relive them [ ]

Yeah, this sounds about right too, particularly at this late stage. In fact, one of the open questions in the study of trauma recovery (Brian Wilson is, among other things a survivor of a punishing regimen of trauma inflicted upon him, in one form or another, for 40 or 50 years, I would say; some of it inflicted intentionally with malice, some of it inadvertently, some it passively) is to what degree the survivor really needs to delve into the finer details of what occurred, in order to heal.  The problem, as far as I know, is that "reliving" can, in some cases, ultimately lead to healing, while in other cases, "reliving" only retraumatizes the person and doesn't make things better. (I'm not a doctor by the way, but even if I was, it wouldn't mean I knew what I was talking about)

[...]nor anyone else.

This is a very different question.  Brian has almost certainly made statements to the effect of, "I don't want to talk about" or "I don't like thinking about it," or he abruptly ends an interview, whatever.  I'm not sure that he has ever really said, "the public shouldn't know about it," or "people shouldn't talk about it etc." Strong case could be made that there's evidence that Brian does want (or at least doesn't mind if) people talk about this stuff. Certainly, in my opinion, the recent memoir, the movie and whatever that "mental illness" awareness campaign thing was indicates that he is on the side of open discussion.  It very well could be just that he , himself, doesn't want to be involved in that discussion.  The question is, how are these matters to be discussed.  Message board maybe not a great forum (it may seem like I'm discussing them here, but I'm barely tiptoeing around the edges) but they ought to be aired at some point. 

So, now, with Pamplin and Hamady, we have a fresh, formally published account of Brian's "mental illness" years (not the first, of course, much of the material has been laid out in earlier books)  The book is honest - they mean what they wrote and it is sensible as far as it goes: drugs bad, money good.  Beyond that, as I said before somewhere in this thread, the book is, simply, wrong.  Debbie's take is not necessarily "right," but it might take account of things that other people blow right past, such as, "hey, this is an actual human being." 

[Debbie KL]

Thx to you Jay. You couldn't have been more correct. I saw things no one should ever have to see. I won't be sharing them for that reason. Brian doesn't need to relive them, nor anyone else.

With respect, I agree with some of this, and less with other parts.

I saw things no one should ever have to see. I won't be sharing them for that reason.

Okay, yes, especially if this means that you will not share them on a random message board like this.

Brian doesn't need to relive them [ ]

Yeah, this sounds about right too, particularly at this late stage. In fact, one of the open questions in the study of trauma recovery (Brian Wilson is, among other things a survivor of a punishing regimen of trauma inflicted upon him, in one form or another, for 40 or 50 years, I would say; some of it inflicted intentionally with malice, some of it inadvertently, some it passively) is to what degree the survivor really needs to delve into the finer details of what occurred, in order to heal.  The problem, as far as I know, is that "reliving" can, in some cases, ultimately lead to healing, while in other cases, "reliving" only retraumatizes the person and doesn't make things better. (I'm not a doctor by the way, but even if I was, it wouldn't mean I knew what I was talking about)

[...]nor anyone else.

This is a very different question.  Brian has almost certainly made statements to the effect of, "I don't want to talk about" or "I don't like thinking about it," or he abruptly ends an interview, whatever.  I'm not sure that he has ever really said, "the public shouldn't know about it," or "people shouldn't talk about it etc." Strong case could be made that there's evidence that Brian does want (or at least doesn't mind if) people talk about this stuff. Certainly, in my opinion, the recent memoir, the movie and whatever that "mental illness" awareness campaign thing was indicates that he is on the side of open discussion.  It very well could be just that he , himself, doesn't want to be involved in that discussion.  The question is, how are these matters to be discussed.  Message board maybe not a great forum (it may seem like I'm discussing them here, but I'm barely tiptoeing around the edges) but they ought to be aired at some point. 

So, now, with Pamplin and Hamady, we have a fresh, formally published account of Brian's "mental illness" years (not the first, of course, much of the material has been laid out in earlier books)  The book is honest - they mean what they wrote and it is sensible as far as it goes: drugs bad, money good.  Beyond that, as I said before somewhere in this thread, the book is, simply, wrong.  Debbie's take is not necessarily "right," but it might take account of things that other people blow right past, such as, "hey, this is an actual human being." 

I think I made it fairly clear(?) that my "take" is just that, just as is anyone else's. Everything I write is what I mean, as well. That was at the beginning of my willingness to address this thread. I also have the right to share what I choose to share and leave the rest to Brian, since we're speaking of his life. Beyond that, I'm not a doctor either, so offering some sort of diagnosis would be ridiculous for anyone involved in this relentless drama. I've chosen not to show people at their worst - some held in high esteem here, others who aren't. I'd prefer not to be remembered for my weakest moments, either.

I'm not really certain what you're challenging about my comments, but I hope this answers a few questions. If you're claiming a right to know whatever happened with Brian, you should take it up with him.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

Thx to you Jay. You couldn't have been more correct. I saw things no one should ever have to see. I won't be sharing them for that reason. Brian doesn't need to relive them, nor anyone else.

With respect, I agree with some of this, and less with other parts.

I saw things no one should ever have to see. I won't be sharing them for that reason.

Okay, yes, especially if this means that you will not share them on a random message board like this.

Brian doesn't need to relive them [ ]

Yeah, this sounds about right too, particularly at this late stage. In fact, one of the open questions in the study of trauma recovery (Brian Wilson is, among other things a survivor of a punishing regimen of trauma inflicted upon him, in one form or another, for 40 or 50 years, I would say; some of it inflicted intentionally with malice, some of it inadvertently, some it passively) is to what degree the survivor really needs to delve into the finer details of what occurred, in order to heal.  The problem, as far as I know, is that "reliving" can, in some cases, ultimately lead to healing, while in other cases, "reliving" only retraumatizes the person and doesn't make things better. (I'm not a doctor by the way, but even if I was, it wouldn't mean I knew what I was talking about)

[...]nor anyone else.

This is a very different question.  Brian has almost certainly made statements to the effect of, "I don't want to talk about" or "I don't like thinking about it," or he abruptly ends an interview, whatever.  I'm not sure that he has ever really said, "the public shouldn't know about it," or "people shouldn't talk about it etc." Strong case could be made that there's evidence that Brian does want (or at least doesn't mind if) people talk about this stuff. Certainly, in my opinion, the recent memoir, the movie and whatever that "mental illness" awareness campaign thing was indicates that he is on the side of open discussion.  It very well could be just that he , himself, doesn't want to be involved in that discussion.  The question is, how are these matters to be discussed.  Message board maybe not a great forum (it may seem like I'm discussing them here, but I'm barely tiptoeing around the edges) but they ought to be aired at some point. 

So, now, with Pamplin and Hamady, we have a fresh, formally published account of Brian's "mental illness" years (not the first, of course, much of the material has been laid out in earlier books)  The book is honest - they mean what they wrote and it is sensible as far as it goes: drugs bad, money good.  Beyond that, as I said before somewhere in this thread, the book is, simply, wrong.  Debbie's take is not necessarily "right," but it might take account of things that other people blow right past, such as, "hey, this is an actual human being." 

Has Brian ever even been asked about Rpcky? I know there are certain things he has said, "I'd rather not talk about it". But he has openly discussed Eugene Landy. He even indorsed Love and Mercy. Is his experience with Rocky any worse than that?

[Debbie KL]

Thx to you Jay. You couldn't have been more correct. I saw things no one should ever have to see. I won't be sharing them for that reason. Brian doesn't need to relive them, nor anyone else.

With respect, I agree with some of this, and less with other parts.

I saw things no one should ever have to see. I won't be sharing them for that reason.

Okay, yes, especially if this means that you will not share them on a random message board like this.

Brian doesn't need to relive them [ ]

Yeah, this sounds about right too, particularly at this late stage. In fact, one of the open questions in the study of trauma recovery (Brian Wilson is, among other things a survivor of a punishing regimen of trauma inflicted upon him, in one form or another, for 40 or 50 years, I would say; some of it inflicted intentionally with malice, some of it inadvertently, some it passively) is to what degree the survivor really needs to delve into the finer details of what occurred, in order to heal.  The problem, as far as I know, is that "reliving" can, in some cases, ultimately lead to healing, while in other cases, "reliving" only retraumatizes the person and doesn't make things better. (I'm not a doctor by the way, but even if I was, it wouldn't mean I knew what I was talking about)

[...]nor anyone else.

This is a very different question.  Brian has almost certainly made statements to the effect of, "I don't want to talk about" or "I don't like thinking about it," or he abruptly ends an interview, whatever.  I'm not sure that he has ever really said, "the public shouldn't know about it," or "people shouldn't talk about it etc." Strong case could be made that there's evidence that Brian does want (or at least doesn't mind if) people talk about this stuff. Certainly, in my opinion, the recent memoir, the movie and whatever that "mental illness" awareness campaign thing was indicates that he is on the side of open discussion.  It very well could be just that he , himself, doesn't want to be involved in that discussion.  The question is, how are these matters to be discussed.  Message board maybe not a great forum (it may seem like I'm discussing them here, but I'm barely tiptoeing around the edges) but they ought to be aired at some point. 

So, now, with Pamplin and Hamady, we have a fresh, formally published account of Brian's "mental illness" years (not the first, of course, much of the material has been laid out in earlier books)  The book is honest - they mean what they wrote and it is sensible as far as it goes: drugs bad, money good.  Beyond that, as I said before somewhere in this thread, the book is, simply, wrong.  Debbie's take is not necessarily "right," but it might take account of things that other people blow right past, such as, "hey, this is an actual human being." 

Has Brian ever even been asked about Rpcky? I know there are certain things he has said, "I'd rather not talk about it". But he has openly discussed Eugene Landy. He even indorsed Love and Mercy. Is his experience with Rocky any worse than that?

This is why I'm leaving any negative comments that Brian might want "out there" to him. You'll probably hear few, if any from him.  Rocky was a complicated part of Brian's life, to say the least. I haven't read the book and can't anytime soon (emotionally) since I'm dealing with a complicated situation with my husband's health. I wasn't happy with what I saw, but I'm guessing Stan and Rocky were doing what they thought was their jobs. Also on a few things Rocky posted here in response to me comments - let's just say my memory was quite different. I didn't correct them. The truth is, it doesn't matter anymore. My sense is that Brian wants to be at peace with it all, and that certainly works for me. Brian (and I) truly don't like being at odds with others, and he deals with these things in his own way. I know I got really angry with people here since I'm so protective of Brian, family and friends. I said things I shouldn't have. I was just exhausted with all the destructive misinformation people were sharing and made a bad choice.  Brian is NOT forced to tour. It's his choice. So if anyone trashes his tour plans implying that it's against his will, I see red. They're diminishing the supportive people around Brian and his own personal choices, and I love and care about these people - the ones who REALLY knows what's going on with Brian without a personal agenda are the ones who are there for him personally.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

Thx to you Jay. You couldn't have been more correct. I saw things no one should ever have to see. I won't be sharing them for that reason. Brian doesn't need to relive them, nor anyone else.

With respect, I agree with some of this, and less with other parts.

I saw things no one should ever have to see. I won't be sharing them for that reason.

Okay, yes, especially if this means that you will not share them on a random message board like this.

Brian doesn't need to relive them [ ]

Yeah, this sounds about right too, particularly at this late stage. In fact, one of the open questions in the study of trauma recovery (Brian Wilson is, among other things a survivor of a punishing regimen of trauma inflicted upon him, in one form or another, for 40 or 50 years, I would say; some of it inflicted intentionally with malice, some of it inadvertently, some it passively) is to what degree the survivor really needs to delve into the finer details of what occurred, in order to heal.  The problem, as far as I know, is that "reliving" can, in some cases, ultimately lead to healing, while in other cases, "reliving" only retraumatizes the person and doesn't make things better. (I'm not a doctor by the way, but even if I was, it wouldn't mean I knew what I was talking about)

[...]nor anyone else.

This is a very different question.  Brian has almost certainly made statements to the effect of, "I don't want to talk about" or "I don't like thinking about it," or he abruptly ends an interview, whatever.  I'm not sure that he has ever really said, "the public shouldn't know about it," or "people shouldn't talk about it etc." Strong case could be made that there's evidence that Brian does want (or at least doesn't mind if) people talk about this stuff. Certainly, in my opinion, the recent memoir, the movie and whatever that "mental illness" awareness campaign thing was indicates that he is on the side of open discussion.  It very well could be just that he , himself, doesn't want to be involved in that discussion.  The question is, how are these matters to be discussed.  Message board maybe not a great forum (it may seem like I'm discussing them here, but I'm barely tiptoeing around the edges) but they ought to be aired at some point. 

So, now, with Pamplin and Hamady, we have a fresh, formally published account of Brian's "mental illness" years (not the first, of course, much of the material has been laid out in earlier books)  The book is honest - they mean what they wrote and it is sensible as far as it goes: drugs bad, money good.  Beyond that, as I said before somewhere in this thread, the book is, simply, wrong.  Debbie's take is not necessarily "right," but it might take account of things that other people blow right past, such as, "hey, this is an actual human being." 

Has Brian ever even been asked about Rpcky? I know there are certain things he has said, "I'd rather not talk about it". But he has openly discussed Eugene Landy. He even indorsed Love and Mercy. Is his experience with Rocky any worse than that?

This is why I'm leaving any negative comments that Brian might want "out there" to him. You'll probably hear few, if any from him.  Rocky was a complicated part of Brian's life, to say the least. I haven't read the book and can't anytime soon (emotionally) since I'm dealing with a complicated situation with my husband's health. I wasn't happy with what I saw, but I'm guessing Stan and Rocky were doing what they thought was their jobs. Also on a few things Rocky posted here in response to me comments - let's just say my memory was quite different. I didn't correct them. The truth is, it doesn't matter anymore. My sense is that Brian wants to be at peace with it all, and that certainly works for me. Brian (and I) truly don't like being at odds with others, and he deals with these things in his own way. I know I got really angry with people here since I'm so protective of Brian, family and friends. I said things I shouldn't have. I was just exhausted with all the destructive misinformation people were sharing and made a bad choice.  Brian is NOT forced to tour. It's his choice. So if anyone trashes his tour plans implying that it's against his will, I see red. They're diminishing the supportive people around Brian and his own personal choices, and I love and care about these people - the ones who REALLY knows what's going on with Brian without a personal agenda are the ones who are there for him personally.

First, I want to send my prayers to you and your husband! I have been through that with loved ones as well!

Any rumors I heard concerning Brian's current state was laid to rest when Al Jardine began touring with Brian. Al is a life long friend and I know that if anything was going on, he would have been against it. I think that Mike Love deeply cares for Brian as well and I can understand his suspicions based on those who have used Brian in the past. I have seen Mike tear up when talking about Brian.

[Debbie KL]

Thx to you Jay. You couldn't have been more correct. I saw things no one should ever have to see. I won't be sharing them for that reason. Brian doesn't need to relive them, nor anyone else.

With respect, I agree with some of this, and less with other parts.

I saw things no one should ever have to see. I won't be sharing them for that reason.

Okay, yes, especially if this means that you will not share them on a random message board like this.

Brian doesn't need to relive them [ ]

Yeah, this sounds about right too, particularly at this late stage. In fact, one of the open questions in the study of trauma recovery (Brian Wilson is, among other things a survivor of a punishing regimen of trauma inflicted upon him, in one form or another, for 40 or 50 years, I would say; some of it inflicted intentionally with malice, some of it inadvertently, some it passively) is to what degree the survivor really needs to delve into the finer details of what occurred, in order to heal.  The problem, as far as I know, is that "reliving" can, in some cases, ultimately lead to healing, while in other cases, "reliving" only retraumatizes the person and doesn't make things better. (I'm not a doctor by the way, but even if I was, it wouldn't mean I knew what I was talking about)

[...]nor anyone else.

This is a very different question.  Brian has almost certainly made statements to the effect of, "I don't want to talk about" or "I don't like thinking about it," or he abruptly ends an interview, whatever.  I'm not sure that he has ever really said, "the public shouldn't know about it," or "people shouldn't talk about it etc." Strong case could be made that there's evidence that Brian does want (or at least doesn't mind if) people talk about this stuff. Certainly, in my opinion, the recent memoir, the movie and whatever that "mental illness" awareness campaign thing was indicates that he is on the side of open discussion.  It very well could be just that he , himself, doesn't want to be involved in that discussion.  The question is, how are these matters to be discussed.  Message board maybe not a great forum (it may seem like I'm discussing them here, but I'm barely tiptoeing around the edges) but they ought to be aired at some point. 

So, now, with Pamplin and Hamady, we have a fresh, formally published account of Brian's "mental illness" years (not the first, of course, much of the material has been laid out in earlier books)  The book is honest - they mean what they wrote and it is sensible as far as it goes: drugs bad, money good.  Beyond that, as I said before somewhere in this thread, the book is, simply, wrong.  Debbie's take is not necessarily "right," but it might take account of things that other people blow right past, such as, "hey, this is an actual human being." 

Has Brian ever even been asked about Rpcky? I know there are certain things he has said, "I'd rather not talk about it". But he has openly discussed Eugene Landy. He even indorsed Love and Mercy. Is his experience with Rocky any worse than that?

This is why I'm leaving any negative comments that Brian might want "out there" to him. You'll probably hear few, if any from him.  Rocky was a complicated part of Brian's life, to say the least. I haven't read the book and can't anytime soon (emotionally) since I'm dealing with a complicated situation with my husband's health. I wasn't happy with what I saw, but I'm guessing Stan and Rocky were doing what they thought was their jobs. Also on a few things Rocky posted here in response to me comments - let's just say my memory was quite different. I didn't correct them. The truth is, it doesn't matter anymore. My sense is that Brian wants to be at peace with it all, and that certainly works for me. Brian (and I) truly don't like being at odds with others, and he deals with these things in his own way. I know I got really angry with people here since I'm so protective of Brian, family and friends. I said things I shouldn't have. I was just exhausted with all the destructive misinformation people were sharing and made a bad choice.  Brian is NOT forced to tour. It's his choice. So if anyone trashes his tour plans implying that it's against his will, I see red. They're diminishing the supportive people around Brian and his own personal choices, and I love and care about these people - the ones who REALLY knows what's going on with Brian without a personal agenda are the ones who are there for him personally.

First, I want to send my prayers to you and your husband! I have been through that with loved ones as well!

Any rumors I heard concerning Brian's current state was laid to rest when Al Jardine began touring with Brian. Al is a life long friend and I know that if anything was going on, he would have been against it. I think that Mike Love deeply cares for Brian as well and I can understand his suspicions based on those who have used Brian in the past. I have seen Mike tear up when talking about Brian.

Thanks so much for your support. And I prefer to remember Mike's lyrics to "Warmth of the Sun," his love of star-gazing, and his true generosity as a host than lawsuits from the past. Life works better that way.

[Joel Goldenberg]

I'm almost finished the book. One question I have (and I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if it was mentioned)- the infamous angry argument between the Beach Boys on the airport tarmac in 1977 is not dealt with at all. Considering, from what I've read, that at least some of the argument was about Stephen Love, why was this omitted?

[Pretty Funky]

Is it just me or is this a ‘who farted’ moment?   

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

?

[CenturyDeprived]

I'm almost finished the book. One question I have (and I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if it was mentioned)- the infamous angry argument between the Beach Boys on the airport tarmac in 1977 is not dealt with at all. Considering, from what I've read, that at least some of the argument was about Stephen Love, why was this omitted?

If one reads Rocky's many posts on this board in anticipation of the book's release, and compare it to the final product, there's no doubt in my mind (and there should truly be no doubt in anyone's mind) that a great deal of items in the book were quashed and completely omitted, reneging on most everything he seemed intent on bringing to light in his posts. It would seem this tarmac incident would very likely have been one of them. Basically, Rocky promised to dish some dirt and say some brutally honest things about what he witnessed during his time, and then did a complete about face.  

So basically, logic would dictate that Rocky and the co-author found it in their best interest to sanitize elements of the story, this probably being one of them. I can only think the motivation would be an interested party would not want things discussed that would portray a person's or persons' actions in a negative light. I suppose some stuff is best not even known, because this was surely a very ugly incident. 

[Emily]

What they did to him then was not only immoral (IMO) but illegal (factually).

Hmm. Illegal? I doubt that. Was what Murry was doing in the 1940s and 1950s illegal? Can't imagine him being prosecuted for loving his children and sacrificing for them.  For that matter, it also would have been awfully difficult to successfully prosecute Eugene Landy in the 1980s or 1990s.

Sorry. Just saw this reply.  I don’t come around much.
I was not talking about Murry but about The Stephen/Rocky/Stan set up. It’s kidnapping, physical threats, and forced labor. All illegal as they were then.

[mtaber]

Emily Emily Emily!!! So nice to hear from you!  I miss our sparring sessions with Rocky!  Those were so much fun!  I hope you’re doing  well, last I remember there were some challenges going on.  Peace!