Documentary!

[Lonely Summer]

My guess about why there are so many people trying to f... over Brian is simply: envy. Brian is rightly recognized as a genius, and many mediocre, talentless hacks just can't accept that. He has to be "downsized", at all costs.

People are trying to f--- over Brian? Today? 2024?

I mean artistically, of course. Refer to the Hoffman board to see that in action.

Specifically, where on the Hoffman board?

[HeyJude]

There were some vile things said about Melinda, for sure. I think it was a very, very small sliver of "fandom", but it did happen, yes.

Can someone draw the line to what that has to do with this new Disney documentary? Like, I've been in many a thread that veers. But what prompted a call-out of some fans who said negative stuff about Melinda and Brian, who have nothing to do with the Disney documentary and presumably are not here on this board now?

Is anybody suggesting the filmmakers had the same or similar motives as a few stridently anti-Brian/Melinda fans? If that's the case (and I'm not saying it is), then I'd say that certainly doesn't seem to be the case. As I've probably mentioned before, that type of weird film-based vendetta theory would involve the makers of the film putting in way more effort and having way more focus than they appear to have. I think Frank Marshall's idea of the Beach Boys is far, far too reductive to have any particular agenda beyond getting a product out the door based on remembering he dug some Beach Boys songs.

[rab2591]

The 1993 Good Vibrations box practically redefined the history of music in the last decades for me.
As I said before, after 1967 the Beach Boys disappeared in Italy. There was just one magazine covering pop/rock music, and it covered only mainstream rock, progressive rock and a sprinkling of fusion. The only "info" I had about the Boys was they "had disbanded due to their leader Brian Wilson falling into madness".
So from 1967 to 1993 I believed that what once was my favourite band did not even exist any more.
When I bought the GV box I did not know what I expect... and I was astonished, and delighted. I knew for the first time about SMiLE, and listened to those gorgeous sessions.
And then I marveled at all those other hidden gems... the 1967-to-1977 albums.
I returned, immediately, to being a rabid Beach Boys fan, only 1000%. And, yes, I realized that what I had thought I knew was a lie. An enormous lie.
And, of course, I could not foretell that Brian Wilson would return and sprinkle his magic again upon us.
I did not know that Dennis had penned his own Pet Sounds (Pacific Ocean Blue) and his SMiLE (Bambu).

Oh, what did I want to say?

I mean, there is so much about the Beach Boys, besides "the hits" and Pet Sounds. Insisting, like this 2024 doc, that after 1966 there was practically nothing of importance (maybe excepting Kokomo!) is, imho, unforgivable. A great disservice to the Beach Boys, to the fans and the world of music at large.

Yes, it's possible that 2 or 3 people, after seeing this doc, decide to try listening to, say, "Sunflower". I doubt that. Hope to be wrong.

The first line highlighted in yellow is Zenobi talking about the perception that some fans held that Brian/the band didn't do much after 1967. How it relates to the Disney+ documentary is that Zenobi thought it was sad that the documentary mostly ignores the music that came out after 1967 (thus potentially aiding in the continuation of the false perception of post-1967 Brian). Guitarfool, kinda naturally, pointed out the potential reason for said false perception (or, at least another instance where that perception was carried on further). Guitarfool mentioned in his post that he hopes that this documentary will at least be a catalyst for helping people dig deeper into the band.

Then Lonely Summer asked a question about Brian being f***ed with this year. As I stated previously (a few posts back, seems like you missed it) I responded to his question with examples of Brian being f***ed with in previous years. Lonely Summer has since clarified his question to Zenobi, specifically mentioning the Hoffman board.

Hopefully that clears up your confusion. As I stated before, message boards usually always have threads where the topic veers and meanders. Both Zenobi and Guitarfool mention the documentary in their posts and how it relates to Brian. They are fairly clear in their reasoning for bringing up what they did. NOBODY is suggesting that the filmmakers are anti-Brian or anti-Melinda and honestly I don't even know why you'd ask the question considering everyone posting here has been very clear about why they are posting what they are posting.

[Zenobi]

I don't want to give the idea that my only problem with this documentary is that it does a disservice to Brian. Also, but the main problem is the disservice to the BEACH BOYS. All of them. To their legacy.
I started loving them in the 60's when I did not even know their personal names. For me, they were just a bunch of guys with great songs and angel voices... except one who had a distinctive, punchy tone when singing lead but was also an unforgettable bass/baritone in the harmonies.
I am now, also, a proud "Brianista", but for me that does not represent some "choice of a faction": it is the logic and natural offshot of being a Beach Boys lover. That it has been used as a kind of insult by some "fans", even distinguished ones, boggles the mind. Luckily, good Scott Totten once said that he is a Brianista himself! Being a Brianista does not mean you think less of the other Beach Boys: it is not a zero sum game. It means only that you recognize who did most of the songwriting etc. work.
(Of course there are extremists, both among the Branistas and the Mike Lovers - I am neither)

Back to the documentary: I don't think there is a conspiracy agaiinst either Brian or the Boys. I guess it's simply ignorance, or laziness. The documentary makers do not seem to realize that the Boys did anything really good after Good Vibrations. After all, there was no smash hit except Kokomo, right? So much for the importance of Art and Music.
And so, the timeline is reset YET AGAIN at "Surfin'", stretches to Pet Sounds, talks superficially of the SMiLE "fiasco" without ever hinting at how things ended in 2004/2011, and dumps down all the other woks of the Boys like a sack of hot potatoes, lest weak minds be troubled by subversive non-charting sounds.

About the questions some asked me: nah, I'm tired of that, and of that parsing of every single word one says. You kiddin' me.

[Don Malcolm]

Though he'll always have his own unique baggage, Jack Rieley is probably turning over in his grave at this moment given the shabby contour of the new documentary, and his famous quote still seems to be more appropriate than any of us would wish to be the case.

I think whatever chance we had for a more satisfying documentary was lost roughly a quarter of a century ago, when we were so unfortunate to lose Carl Wilson at such an early age. My sense is that if Carl were still here with us, we would have a much more balanced and more comprehensive film. I think we know that Brian's ongoing ambivalence about the group would preclude him from taking an active role in such a project, if only for the fact that it would mean he would be wrangling with Mike--something we know he prefers to avoid. But Carl would have taken a broader view of the band's history and would have advocated for the type of coverage that included many of the fascinating tangents that were left out.

None of the other band members--Al, Bruce, David--have the clout (or the family standing) to take on the role that disappeared when Carl died. Though he probably would have agreed to the sale to Azoff, I think he would have looked for a way to stay in the loop regarding how the band's legacy would be handled.

The best approach for the future would be for someone (or combination of someones) to focus on doing a documentary on the Wild Honey-Holland era, all the way up to Endless Summer and the Beachago tour. Someone get Desper to discuss the home studio, and someone front the $$ to bring out a new version of this book before his age/health makes that unfeasible. Focus on the period that deserves the coverage, that tells the ironic story about the band became a big deal again but then found themselves trapped in their past. Obviously the first choice for such a project would be Alan Boyd, and there are a slew of experts from the sessionography project who could take us through the period with a great deal of detail...

[FreakySmiley]

From day one I have been thinking to myself about how the Grateful Dead had that freaking 5 hour documentary a few years ago, why not The Beach Boys? Not that they necessarily need some crazy mega-marathon feature (5 hours of what we did get would certainly not be what I have in mind), but something with a more ambitious scope at the very least. It's hard to not get more than a little disappointed thinking about some of the incredible moments in this band's 60+ year history that will remain unknown/irrelevant trivia to all but the most ardent of fans.

[Lonely Summer]

Though he'll always have his own unique baggage, Jack Rieley is probably turning over in his grave at this moment given the shabby contour of the new documentary, and his famous quote still seems to be more appropriate than any of us would wish to be the case.

I think whatever chance we had for a more satisfying documentary was lost roughly a quarter of a century ago, when we were so unfortunate to lose Carl Wilson at such an early age. My sense is that if Carl were still here with us, we would have a much more balanced and more comprehensive film. I think we know that Brian's ongoing ambivalence about the group would preclude him from taking an active role in such a project, if only for the fact that it would mean he would be wrangling with Mike--something we know he prefers to avoid. But Carl would have taken a broader view of the band's history and would have advocated for the type of coverage that included many of the fascinating tangents that were left out.

None of the other band members--Al, Bruce, David--have the clout (or the family standing) to take on the role that disappeared when Carl died. Though he probably would have agreed to the sale to Azoff, I think he would have looked for a way to stay in the loop regarding how the band's legacy would be handled.

The best approach for the future would be for someone (or combination of someones) to focus on doing a documentary on the Wild Honey-Holland era, all the way up to Endless Summer and the Beachago tour. Someone get Desper to discuss the home studio, and someone front the $$ to bring out a new version of this book before his age/health makes that unfeasible. Focus on the period that deserves the coverage, that tells the ironic story about the band became a big deal again but then found themselves trapped in their past. Obviously the first choice for such a project would be Alan Boyd, and there are a slew of experts from the sessionography project who could take us through the period with a great deal of detail...

Thank you.

[Zenobi]

I agree Don, only I'd reach to Love You. Why exclude it? I know that not everybody likes it, but others consider it a bizarre "cult" gem, much like Smiley Smile. For example, if Jerry Garcia loved Smiley, Patti Smith loves Love You. In any, it's a rather bold artistic statement, like it or not.
Besides, it is both the swan song of the creative period of the Boys before the "singing jukebox" period, and a sort of introduction to Brian's solo career.
And I think there would be an elegant symmetry in bookending the history of the neglected but still artistically great 1967-1977 decade of the group with the two weird avant garde works, Smiley and Love You.

[Galaxy Liz]

I agree Don, only I'd reach to Love You. Why exclude it? I know that not everybody likes it, but others consider it a bizarre "cult" gem, much like Smiley Smile. For example, if Jerry Garcia loved Smiley, Patti Smith loves Love You. In any, it's a rather bold artistic statement, like it or not.
Besides, it is both the swan song of the creative period of the Boys before the "singing jukebox" period, and a sort of introduction to Brian's solo career.
And I think there would be an elegant symmetry in bookending the history of the neglected but still artistically great 1967-1977 decade of the group with the two weird avant garde works, Smiley and Love You.

A history is a whole history not just up to this or that album.  And Dennis once said "Brian is the Beach Boys" so it also has to include his solo career.  Only an independent film maker can do this.

[Angela Jones]

The thing that makes zero sense to me is why there'd be no mention of the biggest chart success the Beach Boys had for years - That's Why God Made the Radio. I can understand the reasons for not including Brian's solo material IN A WAY and it has had coverage elsewhere but if you're trying to introduce new fans to the story, some context would be nice.

[HeyJude]

None of the other band members--Al, Bruce, David--have the clout (or the family standing) to take on the role that disappeared when Carl died. Though he probably would have agreed to the sale to Azoff, I think he would have looked for a way to stay in the loop regarding how the band's legacy would be handled.

The band are still in the loop (the corporate members) .  They are partners with Iconic.  They didn't sell 100% of BRI. Plus,  clearly Bruce is consulted when his era is involved. 

[SMiLE Brian]

This documentary sucks but what can we expect from the last days of The Beach Boys. Brian has dementia this sh*t fucking awful….

[Don Malcolm]

I agree Don, only I'd reach to Love You. Why exclude it? I know that not everybody likes it, but others consider it a bizarre "cult" gem, much like Smiley Smile. For example, if Jerry Garcia loved Smiley, Patti Smith loves Love You. In any, it's a rather bold artistic statement, like it or not.
Besides, it is both the swan song of the creative period of the Boys before the "singing jukebox" period, and a sort of introduction to Brian's solo career.
And I think there would be an elegant symmetry in bookending the history of the neglected but still artistically great 1967-1977 decade of the group with the two weird avant garde works, Smiley and Love You.

A history is a whole history not just up to this or that album.  And Dennis once said "Brian is the Beach Boys" so it also has to include his solo career.  Only an independent film maker can do this.

I agree that it would be optimal to tell the entire story in one film, but that idea is quite probably blocked for some time due to what's just happened. I was just looking for a remedy that might happen if the right consortium of experts (led by Boyd) made a proposal to Iconic for a followup.

Zenobi, the reason why I left out the 75-80 time frame is that it is actually ripe material for a documentary of its own, as the band goes through so much stuff in that period that trying to put it into the "in and out of the wilderness" story runs the risk of becoming seriously exhausting. I'd tell the third part from the point of view of Brian's return. We might call that part "The Beach Boys 1975-80: Brian Returns...(and Goes Away For Awhile Again...)"

That last part really should be in small type...

As for TWGMTR, it's a story (along with the 50th reunion) that I think has to wait to be told only when all the principals are no longer with us--too much acrimony is still extant (particularly from Mike's viewpoint) for such a project to get green-lighted.

None of the other band members--Al, Bruce, David--have the clout (or the family standing) to take on the role that disappeared when Carl died. Though he probably would have agreed to the sale to Azoff, I think he would have looked for a way to stay in the loop regarding how the band's legacy would be handled.

The band are still in the loop (the corporate members) .  They are partners with Iconic.  They didn't sell 100% of BRI. Plus,  clearly Bruce is consulted when his era is involved. 

All true, but it's clear from what we just watched that some are more "in the loop" than others. There is no one "in the loop" championing the post-GV phase of the band, and I think only Carl (if he were here) would/could do that. And in that vacuum, Mike is there to fill it up...

[HeyJude]

All true, but it's clear from what we just watched that some are more "in the loop" than others. There is no one "in the loop" championing the post-GV phase of the band, and I think only Carl (if he were here) would/could do that. And in that vacuum, Mike is there to fill it up...

Well, you have to differentiate between the Disney doc and everything else.

All of the members, including Mike and Al, have been very involved with and positive about post-GV material, as evidenced by their heavy involvement in and enthusiasm for the "Feel Flows and "Sail on Sailor" boxed sets.

The Disney doc was clearly handed over to people (Disney and Frank Marshall, etc.) and while BRI remained nominally as "producer" on the doc, I don't think any of them had any particular editorial control. Clearly Al is cranky about the doc for instance. Maybe Frank Marshall's sort of regressive, reductive view of the band is less of a frustration-inducing issue for Mike than Al for instance, but I don't think that means any members have been more "in the loop" on the doc.

As for Carl, it's difficult to say what he would have done or thought. I don't know that he was particularly more "championing" the later era stuff, or more progressive material in general, in the 90s for instance. He had some issues with even the "Pet Sounds Sessions" set, he sometimes was nixing certain outtakes ("Soulful Old Man Sunshine"), and he wasn't a big champion of the band doing the Paley tracks. Now, I don't think he had any aversion as a general rule to later-era material. He tended to more granular, specific issues with things. But I can't really sign on to the idea that, as of like 1996 or something, Carl was a way bigger champion of later-era material than the other guys. Carl and Al were clearly into that short run of extended shows in 1993 where they did some deep cuts. Other than that, I don't know if Carl would have gotten away from being as skittish about later-era material. I mean, I'd guess that would be the case, because Al and Mike and the other guys did too. I'd like to think he would have come around and been heavy into sets like "Feel Flows" and "Sail on Sailor." But I can't be sure of that, because Carl's musical tastes got pretty kind of safe/bland/conservative by the 90s.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike’s been planning this since the downfall of smile…

[HeyJude]

Planning what? What is happening?

Truly, check my fifty zillion posts, I've criticized Mike plenty over the years.

But a discussion of this Disney doc has turned into complaining about apparent anti-Brian slivers of fandom either from other boards, or from the distant past, and vague, nebulous statements about some sort of Mike Love agenda.

Make no mistake, Mike has a point of view and an agenda, and it's one I think plenty of people don't agree with. But if you actually stop and try to reverse-engineer what went wrong with this Disney documentary, I don't know how you come out of that railing against "anti Brian" *fans* that aren't even on this board, or spinning vague accusations/references to a Mike Love "plan" or agenda. Watching that Disney doc and immediately complaining about the "anti-Brian" forces out there, and implying, I guess?, that the doc is part of some Mike Love agenda/conspiracy, only plays into the incorrect perception that some fans will always and for-any-reason go after Mike Love, and that they're overly-defensive concerning anything to do with Brian Wilson.

There are a million things to criticize Mike Love for. I don't think this doc is really one of them. The worst I can say about Mike concerning this doc is that he doesn't really seem to be actively trying to help/console Al Jardine about Al's clear ill feelings towards elements of this doc. I think Mike is probably fine with the doc, or certainly ambivalent at worst. But that's not really a *cause* of anything, that's just the outcome of a documentary which, as I mentioned, due to it's regressive and reductive angle, I think just tends to fall more into line with a "narrative" that doesn't particularly bug Mike. But that doesn't mean Mike made it so.

[SMiLE Brian]

Look, Mike’s narrative of questionable songwriting credits has become a central canon in the group’s history. The rewrite is complete.

[rab2591]

But if you actually stop and try to reverse-engineer what went wrong with this Disney documentary, I don't know how you come out of that railing against "anti Brian" *fans* that aren't even on this board,

There were around 18 posts (5 of which are yours) about anti-Brian fans out of a conversation with 267 posts. If anything, your constant "rebuttals" of the posts are making your supposed problem worse because it keeps dragging this topic on and on. Also making it worse is your apparent disregard of the explanations of those posts.

No one ever even hinted that the reason they brought up anti-Brian fans was because they were attempting to "reverse engineer" what went wrong with the film. I have repeatedly told you specifically how the topic came about, I have posted quotes that show exactly how the topic came up, and yet you keep making these false statements such as where you suggested people were insinuating the filmmakers were anti-Melinda. Good grief.

To put it as simply as I possibly can, the topic was solely brought up because someone hoped that this film wouldn't perpetuate the false narrative that The Beach Boys didn't do much after 1967. A couple people commented specifically on one part of that post. That's it. NO ONE insinuated that the filmmakers are anti-Melinda or that the anti-Brian topic came up because someone was trying to theorize what went wrong with this film.

For the third time, it's a message-board where topics veer/meander. Given that from the start of the "anti-Brian" topic, MOST of the posts have specifically been about the documentary itself, I don't see why this is something worth gatekeeping. Again, 18 (most of them short comments/questions, and 5 posts by YOU) out of 267 posts is nothing to get constantly worked up about.

[HeyJude]

But if you actually stop and try to reverse-engineer what went wrong with this Disney documentary, I don't know how you come out of that railing against "anti Brian" *fans* that aren't even on this board,

There were around 18 posts (5 of which are yours) about anti-Brian fans out of a conversation with 267 posts. If anything, your constant "rebuttals" of the posts are making your supposed problem worse because it keeps dragging this topic on and on. Also making it worse is your apparent disregard of the explanations of those posts.

No one ever even hinted that the reason they brought up anti-Brian fans was because they were attempting to "reverse engineer" what went wrong with the film. I have repeatedly told you specifically how the topic came about, I have posted quotes that show exactly how the topic came up, and yet you keep making these false statements such as where you suggested people were insinuating the filmmakers were anti-Melinda. Good grief.

To put it as simply as I possibly can, the topic was solely brought up because someone hoped that this film wouldn't perpetuate the false narrative that The Beach Boys didn't do much after 1967. A couple people commented specifically on one part of that post. That's it. NO ONE insinuated that the filmmakers are anti-Melinda or that the anti-Brian topic came up because someone was trying to theorize what went wrong with this film.

For the third time, it's a message-board where topics veer/meander. Given that from the start of the "anti-Brian" topic, MOST of the posts have specifically been about the documentary itself, I don't see why this is something worth gatekeeping. Again, 18 (most of them short comments/questions, and 5 posts by YOU) out of 267 posts is nothing to get constantly worked up about.

I'm not going to belabor sharing an alternative count on what may or may not constitute "on topic" of "off topic", nor how *5 posts* somehow constitutes "constantly" getting "worked up."

I've participated, obviously, in many, many threads that have veered off topic.

I appreciate your explanation for *how* it veered off topic. I can see how there were initial misgivings about what narrative the doc would tell. That all makes sense. But I'm still at a loss as to how that veered into fans that aren't on this board having years ago said nasty things about Melinda and Brian. It was either a random complaint I guess, or an attempt to relate *that* to the perceived "anti-Brian" narrative in the documentary. I guess? That's why some of my previous posts honed in on my belief that there's not much of "agenda" on this doc, and it's drawbacks (which we all mostly seem to agree are present) are due, in my opinion, to laziness and the makers being ill equipped to make the doc, rather than any particular agenda.

But I guess my point, to be more direct, is that my question of what this has to do with the Disney documentary is partly sort of rhetorical. That is, I'm not complaining that some posts went "off topic."

Rather, I feel there have been some posts that are trying to draw a line between "the documentary's narrative being anti-Brian" in some way, and other "anti-Brian" figures (fans on other boards, Mike Love I guess?). Because some posts showing concern that the doc might "perpetuate a false narrative" turned into references to other fans on other boards, and a seeming lingering animosity *years after the fact* about what a few fans (who don't post here anymore) said about Melinda many years ago, and even went back to bringing up nearly decade-old complaints about fans who didn't like "No Pier Pressure."

An explanation for how *that* happened remains sort of elusive. It's either that some see a connection between something to do with the doc and those other things, or it was just a random diversion to re-grind axes with people who aren't on the board anymore (and in the case of the Hoffman board, maybe never were?), and to rail against some "anti-Brian" something out there.

The *apparent* line went from "this documentary was unfair to Brian" to "all the people trying to f**k Brian over", which seemed an odd jump, and something I still find as a really odd phraseology to use, especially in reference to fans on message boards. Like, "Mike tried to f**k Brian over on this business issue"; that sort of use of the phrase makes sense. But a vague "all the people trying to f**k Brian over" starts, to be frank, to start sounding conspiracy theory-ish. And that's just kind of weird and embarrassing, in my opinion. And counterproductive in light of incorrect perceptions and misdeeds concerning the BBs that might *actually* need attention, be true, and might actually have a chance to be corrected.

[SMiLE Brian]

Open your eyes about those guys exiled on Endless Harmony were doing. Their negative posts about BW were vanilla compared to what they sent about the BW/ Melinda Wilson and Al Jardine in PMs. Legendary historians my ass…

[HeyJude]

I used to regularly have endless back-and-forths with multiple people who I felt regularly engaged in trollish behavior who are no longer on this board and now post on the other board. I get it!

But what does that have to do with this documentary?

I'm not the "on topic" police, really! What I'm trying to say is that from the outside, this thread has a few pages of posts that just look like random, arbitrary axe-grinding against other fans from other boards, and regarding things that in many cases happened like a decade ago. I won't belabor the point; if people want this thread to be that, then that's how it'll be I guess.

[rab2591]

But I'm still at a loss as to how that veered into fans that aren't on this board having years ago said nasty things about Melinda and Brian.

I am at a loss as to how you can't go back and read the progression of the comments and see how the conversation veered.

1) someone brought up the "lie" that the post-1967 Beach Boys didn't do much. This poster was VERY clear in how their comments relate to the documentary.
2) someone else saw the "lie" part of that post and made a post relating to a connecting "lie" which related to the anti-Brian/Melinda drama from years past.
3) someone questioned whether Brian was being f***ed with this year.
4) someone responded with an answer that brought up previous posters of this board f***ing with Brian.

I have stated this numerous times, and it is painfully clear just going back and reading the thread, so I very much don't understand how you're "at a loss" at why or how things "veered". Again, it's a message board and topics will veer on threads. I mention that your 5 posts are "constantly" complaining about it, because you keep mentioning the same complaints even after given clear explanation.

So four+ people commented on the anti-Brian thing. Is it necessary to question the existence of those 13 posts 5+ times? Honestly I would argue that your constant questioning of the posts themselves is FAR more off topic than the posts in question - because the original posts at least have a logical progression of existence in this thread relating to Brian Wilson.

[Don Malcolm]

All true, but it's clear from what we just watched that some are more "in the loop" than others. There is no one "in the loop" championing the post-GV phase of the band, and I think only Carl (if he were here) would/could do that. And in that vacuum, Mike is there to fill it up...

Well, you have to differentiate between the Disney doc and everything else.

All of the members, including Mike and Al, have been very involved with and positive about post-GV material, as evidenced by their heavy involvement in and enthusiasm for the "Feel Flows and "Sail on Sailor" boxed sets.

The Disney doc was clearly handed over to people (Disney and Frank Marshall, etc.) and while BRI remained nominally as "producer" on the doc, I don't think any of them had any particular editorial control. Clearly Al is cranky about the doc for instance. Maybe Frank Marshall's sort of regressive, reductive view of the band is less of a frustration-inducing issue for Mike than Al for instance, but I don't think that means any members have been more "in the loop" on the doc.

As for Carl, it's difficult to say what he would have done or thought. I don't know that he was particularly more "championing" the later era stuff, or more progressive material in general, in the 90s for instance. He had some issues with even the "Pet Sounds Sessions" set, he sometimes was nixing certain outtakes ("Soulful Old Man Sunshine"), and he wasn't a big champion of the band doing the Paley tracks. Now, I don't think he had any aversion as a general rule to later-era material. He tended to more granular, specific issues with things. But I can't really sign on to the idea that, as of like 1996 or something, Carl was a way bigger champion of later-era material than the other guys. Carl and Al were clearly into that short run of extended shows in 1993 where they did some deep cuts. Other than that, I don't know if Carl would have gotten away from being as skittish about later-era material. I mean, I'd guess that would be the case, because Al and Mike and the other guys did too. I'd like to think he would have come around and been heavy into sets like "Feel Flows" and "Sail on Sailor." But I can't be sure of that, because Carl's musical tastes got pretty kind of safe/bland/conservative by the 90s.

The point that you seem to be consciously trying to miss here is exactly the massive difference between Disney's mega-media approach and the mining of the archives by Capitol and Boyd/Linett. Try to recall just how on edge everyone was about the shaky status of FEEL FLOWS--hell, Jude, you don't have to try...just read some of the 171-page thread adjacent to this one that's mostly anxiety/anger about whether it would see the light of day at all. Thankfully, Howie and others prevailed and that set was a significant success, which probably had a lot to do with everyone in the band being muh more supportive from the get-go for SAIL ON SAILOR...where everyone in the Capitol food chain got too greedy and overpriced it. The good news there seems to be that everyone still wants more product, and perhaps Iconic is just focused on trying to max what they can achieve from whatever is available from the various content sources.

Mike hasn't divulged much about his level of involvement re the documentary, but we can infer at least a bit about comparative levels of input and "in the loopness" from Al's remarks. Clearly Bruce is going along for the ride and will defer to Mike whenever it makes sense to do so.

Those points about Carl are reasonable caveats as far as they go, but I think you understate the fact that over the twenty-odd years that we've had "parallel bands", we have no idea how that dynamic would have worked if Carl hadn't died. (And, of course, we never will...) Some have speculated that Brian would have remained reluctant to embark on a solo career with Carl still alive and active. But let's leave those imponderables aside and get to the core of the issue: if Carl were still with us, and the idea of FEEL FLOWS had been broached to him in 2018-19, one strongly suspects that his massive level of involvement in shaping that material and making the bulk of the decisions about it back in the day would have prompted him to support the idea that it should be released and honored as part of the band's legacy.

I can't say that with 100% certainty, of course, as Carl had mostly taken the course after the band's progressive period came to an end that each project was a kind of separate fungible unit in that there could no longer be any "grand design" for what the band as a whole was doing...but in a legacy context, I feel highly confident that Carl would have listened to what was in the archives and decided that it was worthy of seeing the light of day. That was, after all, his period more than anyone else's. And if band members were given some level of input in how the Disney documentary was going to be shaped, a cumulative recognition of the value of the archive materials from that time frame would have been more prominent in his mind than anyone else in the band, for precisely that reason. And that might very well have led to some advocacy for a different "coverage arc" for the documentary...

[rab2591]

I'm not the "on topic" police, really! What I'm trying to say is that from the outside, this thread has a few pages of posts that just look like random, arbitrary axe-grinding against other fans from other boards, and regarding things that in many cases happened like a decade ago. I won't belabor the point; if people want this thread to be that, then that's how it'll be I guess.

HeyJude, it was at max 5 specific posts that mentioned the supposed arbitrary "axe-grinding" you speak of. How the heck does that constitute a few pages?? I even wrote in my last post that out of 75 posts there were 18 that talked about the anti-Brian thing. 18 doesn't even make up a page, and again, 5 of those were your posts. Most of the posts in the last 3 pages relate directly to the documentary.

This ridiculous back and forth you and I are having about this is more obnoxious than the posts in question. So I recommend, if you're having an issue with the supposed perception of what these threads look like "from the outside", perhaps don't spend 6+ posts complaining/arguing about the 5 posts you're peeved about.

[HeyJude]

1) someone brought up the "lie" that the post-1967 Beach Boys didn't do much. This poster was VERY clear in how their comments relate to the documentary.
2) someone else saw the "lie" part of that post and made a post relating to a connecting "lie" which related to the anti-Brian/Melinda drama from years past.

This is probably at the heart of it. There is no connection. In my opinion, obviously.

My issue has been that a productive dissection/analysis of this documentary goes *completely off the rails* when it draws ANY connection to fan drama bulls**t. And I say that as someone who is *very well versed* in both the history of the band, fandom on the internet for the last nearly 30 years (going back to the Usenet days), and of course specifically this board since 2005. The documentary has serious problems, and I feel that veering into stuff regarding a sliver of "anti-Melinda/Brian" fans from a decade ago COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT.

But as I mentioned in my previous post, I shouldn't belabor the point much beyond that, and if people want the thread to be that, then that's how it'll proceed.