Documentary!

[rab2591]

Bad Vibrations: ‘The Beach Boys’ Documentary Is Mike Love Propaganda

https://decider.com/2024/06/03/the-beach-boys-documentary-mike-love-propaganda/

Some standout blurbs from the article:

"While the telling of this story deliberately minimizes the internecine tensions that would prove the Beach Boys’ undoing, its arrangement nonetheless channels and relitigates conflicts that left some members with evidently simmering, if unstated, resentments. To put it bluntly, this is Mike Love propaganda."

"This revanchist effort to elevate the other members of the band wouldn’t be all that objectionable if not for its flip side of moderate character assassination against Brian, smeared here as an egotist high on his own supply whose so-called “genius” (which was only ever a market construct anyway) actually held back everyone else’s brilliance."

"Love profiles Brian as a homebody unlaced by his fondness for drugs, missing the point that Brian only took the acid trips as a respite from the extreme anxiety and burgeoning schizophrenia that filled him with fear for the world."

"The main things we learn about [Pet Sounds] are 1. that it’s a real downer, and 2. that it was financially unsuccessful, nowhere near the depth of analysis or height of appreciation enjoyed by the sunnier early works"

"The chummy get-together closing out the film takes on a ghastly and exploitative quality in the hint that, between the lines, there’s an abler man taking advantage of a vulnerable one for the sake of grinding his axes to a finer point. If history books really are written by the victors, then it would appear that in life, the winner is the last one with the presence of mind to hold power of attorney."

I saw this in my news feed today. Haven't seen the movie yet, but thought I'd post it here to see what others think of this take.

[SMiLE Brian]

I am not crazy.....

[HeyJude]

Bad Vibrations: ‘The Beach Boys’ Documentary Is Mike Love Propaganda

https://decider.com/2024/06/03/the-beach-boys-documentary-mike-love-propaganda/

Some standout blurbs from the article:

"While the telling of this story deliberately minimizes the internecine tensions that would prove the Beach Boys’ undoing, its arrangement nonetheless channels and relitigates conflicts that left some members with evidently simmering, if unstated, resentments. To put it bluntly, this is Mike Love propaganda."

"This revanchist effort to elevate the other members of the band wouldn’t be all that objectionable if not for its flip side of moderate character assassination against Brian, smeared here as an egotist high on his own supply whose so-called “genius” (which was only ever a market construct anyway) actually held back everyone else’s brilliance."

"Love profiles Brian as a homebody unlaced by his fondness for drugs, missing the point that Brian only took the acid trips as a respite from the extreme anxiety and burgeoning schizophrenia that filled him with fear for the world."

"The main things we learn about [Pet Sounds] are 1. that it’s a real downer, and 2. that it was financially unsuccessful, nowhere near the depth of analysis or height of appreciation enjoyed by the sunnier early works"

"The chummy get-together closing out the film takes on a ghastly and exploitative quality in the hint that, between the lines, there’s an abler man taking advantage of a vulnerable one for the sake of grinding his axes to a finer point. If history books really are written by the victors, then it would appear that in life, the winner is the last one with the presence of mind to hold power of attorney."

I saw this in my news feed today. Haven't seen the movie yet, but thought I'd post it here to see what others think of this take.

I think the writer of this article is assuming or implying that Mike had far more editorial control over the documentary than he actually did.

Again, the fault here lies far more with Frank Marshall and Disney. I believe Marshall is simpatico with a lot of Mike's "version" of the story, but I don't believe it was engineered as "Mike Love propaganda", either by Mike or Marshall. It's arguably worse than that; I think Marshall just has a very simplistic, narrow view and vision and he did a bad job on this thing, and the result was something that was regressive as we've talked about at length. I'm sure Mike was enthusiastic to get *his* points across. But I really feel like it's reductive and over simplistic to just blame this documentary on Mike. I feel that's letting Disney and Frank Marshall (and Zimny), and whomever's decision it was to sign on with Disney and Marshall, off the hook far too much.

As far as Mike being "abler" than Brian now, that is a very sensitive but obvious issue that is rearing its head now, and I think it's totally valid to have a discussion about that. Anybody that's given this some thought over the years as I have has surely thought about what happens if Mike is the "last man standing", versus whomever else. I'm not into just defaulting to going after Mike for anything and everything, but certainly it's fair to have some concern about Mike "controlling" some aspect of the narrative. By just being more verbal and available to, in this case Disney and Marshall, that *is* going to impact the story being told and can result in Brian (and many other topics) not getting a fair shake. But guess what? There *are* filmmakers that could and would make sure something like that doesn't happen. Frank Marshall is not one of those people, and that's why I still feel he's a main issue with this doc, at least until I hear any alternative information about Marshall's hands being tied on anything.

Thankfully, the team back at the *audio archives* doing those archival releases gets it, and I have full faith and trust in them knowing how to tell the *full* story and represent everybody (and truly get everybody enthusiastic and on board).

[SMiLE Brian]

Don’t f*** with the  (commerce) formula….

[Shady]

Minus some really nice footage I was really disappointed.

Good news is.. it seems to be turning a lot of people on to the band. So that's cool.

[SMiLE Brian]

Onto Mike’s narrative….

[Zenobi]

 The end of this will be like this:

"Good Vibrations (DO IT!  DO IT!)" - by Stamos/McGrath

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

I'm about halfway through the documentary now. I was struck by Al's modern-day quote about the period when the Beatles exploded onto the scene and were featured on Ed Sullivan, eclipsing the Beach Boys. Al says something like "we were just singers... but the Beatles... they were PLAYERS!" There's something really poignant about that.

[guitarfool2002]

Bad Vibrations: ‘The Beach Boys’ Documentary Is Mike Love Propaganda

https://decider.com/2024/06/03/the-beach-boys-documentary-mike-love-propaganda/

Some standout blurbs from the article:

"While the telling of this story deliberately minimizes the internecine tensions that would prove the Beach Boys’ undoing, its arrangement nonetheless channels and relitigates conflicts that left some members with evidently simmering, if unstated, resentments. To put it bluntly, this is Mike Love propaganda."

"This revanchist effort to elevate the other members of the band wouldn’t be all that objectionable if not for its flip side of moderate character assassination against Brian, smeared here as an egotist high on his own supply whose so-called “genius” (which was only ever a market construct anyway) actually held back everyone else’s brilliance."

"Love profiles Brian as a homebody unlaced by his fondness for drugs, missing the point that Brian only took the acid trips as a respite from the extreme anxiety and burgeoning schizophrenia that filled him with fear for the world."

"The main things we learn about [Pet Sounds] are 1. that it’s a real downer, and 2. that it was financially unsuccessful, nowhere near the depth of analysis or height of appreciation enjoyed by the sunnier early works"

"The chummy get-together closing out the film takes on a ghastly and exploitative quality in the hint that, between the lines, there’s an abler man taking advantage of a vulnerable one for the sake of grinding his axes to a finer point. If history books really are written by the victors, then it would appear that in life, the winner is the last one with the presence of mind to hold power of attorney."

I saw this in my news feed today. Haven't seen the movie yet, but thought I'd post it here to see what others think of this take.

I think that writer's article connects the dots with my two earlier posts, and I agree with much (but not all) of what was written. That's not the kind of history that should stand in peoples' minds going forward, it leans more toward revisionism than an actual reporting of fact, and yes it is filtered through Mike Love's "narrative" as described by Al Jardine in the Maui newspaper article. The word "downer" has become almost an expletive to my ears and eyes when related to Brian's music, which is why I specifically used it several pages ago. Absolutely ridiculous.

As much as some might want that kind of narrative to follow the band's legacy, it is not the accurate story of this band and their music.

Yes, this is a major issue with this documentary, and if other viewers and fans are also catching those vibes after watching it, it is well worth putting on the table if not trying to bust it entirely.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm about halfway through the documentary now. I was struck by Al's modern-day quote about the period when the Beatles exploded onto the scene and were featured on Ed Sullivan, eclipsing the Beach Boys. Al says something like "we were just singers... but the Beatles... they were PLAYERS!" There's something really poignant about that.

It's absolutely true though: Just take a look at the amount of live shows The Beatles played in 1962 and 1963 leading up to that Sullivan appearance in February 1964. It is absolutely staggering how many shows those guys played...and that's not even counting the marathon shows that could last anywhere between 8 and 14 hours each night when they made their several trips to Hamburg. And not counting how often they would rehearse at the Cavern during their off hours while still holding a daytime residency there.

It's an amazing work ethic, and a band that plays together that often is going to be a well-oiled machine at that point, also boosting a wide repertoire of material in all styles and tempos which they could literally pull out on demand like a jukebox. Hundreds of songs.

So yes, The Beatles came to the Sullivan show playing with a stacked deck in terms of their experience as a band and all of those hours of experience on stage and in rehearsal. The Beach Boys, instrumentally, did not have that same resume, and it's not their fault, but they just didn't come up in the business the same way the Beatles did and they were not as experienced as stage performers by 1964. Al pretty much nailed it in that quote, but the poignancy might also be in how so many people might not realize how hard the Beatles really worked to get to that point, and how dedicated and driven they were as musicians in order to sound that way and be able to play so tight as a group.

I don't like comparing the two, but I always say there is a reason why The Beatles became who they were, and likewise The Beach Boys. It's just that one group had a lot more experience than the other, and their ultimate goals beyond making good music were two versions of the same thing. The Beach Boys vocals will never be equaled in popular music, and nor will The Beatles as a self-contained band.

[CenturyDeprived]

Despite the fact that I still quite enjoyed watching the documentary, I can't wholly disagree with the statements from the article below. Perhaps the truth  is somewhere in the middle. It is interesting to have as many documentaries as we do about the band from different perspectives, and we can draw our own perspective.

 It's definitely such a complicated band and as I said before, it's possible for multiple things to be true at the same time.

 One interesting thing about Frank Marshall is that I really did enjoy the Bee Gees documentary that he directed for HBO Max a few years back.

Has anybody here seen that? I'm not nearly the Bee Gees historian that I am when it comes to this band, so it's hard for me to know if there are  legit complaints about how that film turned out, that I may have overlooked.  In that film as well I was able to definitely get quite an emotional response from the filmmaking.

As much as I love the Bee Gees, I'm ultimately a casual fan when it comes to their history, but I did quite love that film. I wonder how people who are huge superfans of the Bee Gees think of that film and Frank Marshall's contributions to it?

For whatever degree anybody wants to rag on Frank Marshall and him being the wrong person for this documentary, there's no doubt in my mind that the filmmaking on this film was influenced/handicapped by the politics of the current stakeholders of the band. There's no way that's not at play here.

Bad Vibrations: ‘The Beach Boys’ Documentary Is Mike Love Propaganda

https://decider.com/2024/06/03/the-beach-boys-documentary-mike-love-propaganda/

Some standout blurbs from the article:

"While the telling of this story deliberately minimizes the internecine tensions that would prove the Beach Boys’ undoing, its arrangement nonetheless channels and relitigates conflicts that left some members with evidently simmering, if unstated, resentments. To put it bluntly, this is Mike Love propaganda."

"This revanchist effort to elevate the other members of the band wouldn’t be all that objectionable if not for its flip side of moderate character assassination against Brian, smeared here as an egotist high on his own supply whose so-called “genius” (which was only ever a market construct anyway) actually held back everyone else’s brilliance."

"Love profiles Brian as a homebody unlaced by his fondness for drugs, missing the point that Brian only took the acid trips as a respite from the extreme anxiety and burgeoning schizophrenia that filled him with fear for the world."

"The main things we learn about [Pet Sounds] are 1. that it’s a real downer, and 2. that it was financially unsuccessful, nowhere near the depth of analysis or height of appreciation enjoyed by the sunnier early works"

"The chummy get-together closing out the film takes on a ghastly and exploitative quality in the hint that, between the lines, there’s an abler man taking advantage of a vulnerable one for the sake of grinding his axes to a finer point. If history books really are written by the victors, then it would appear that in life, the winner is the last one with the presence of mind to hold power of attorney."

I saw this in my news feed today. Haven't seen the movie yet, but thought I'd post it here to see what others think of this take.

[Zenobi]

Bad Vibrations: ‘The Beach Boys’ Documentary Is Mike Love Propaganda

https://decider.com/2024/06/03/the-beach-boys-documentary-mike-love-propaganda/

Some standout blurbs from the article:

"While the telling of this story deliberately minimizes the internecine tensions that would prove the Beach Boys’ undoing, its arrangement nonetheless channels and relitigates conflicts that left some members with evidently simmering, if unstated, resentments. To put it bluntly, this is Mike Love propaganda."

"This revanchist effort to elevate the other members of the band wouldn’t be all that objectionable if not for its flip side of moderate character assassination against Brian, smeared here as an egotist high on his own supply whose so-called “genius” (which was only ever a market construct anyway) actually held back everyone else’s brilliance."

"Love profiles Brian as a homebody unlaced by his fondness for drugs, missing the point that Brian only took the acid trips as a respite from the extreme anxiety and burgeoning schizophrenia that filled him with fear for the world."

"The main things we learn about [Pet Sounds] are 1. that it’s a real downer, and 2. that it was financially unsuccessful, nowhere near the depth of analysis or height of appreciation enjoyed by the sunnier early works"

"The chummy get-together closing out the film takes on a ghastly and exploitative quality in the hint that, between the lines, there’s an abler man taking advantage of a vulnerable one for the sake of grinding his axes to a finer point. If history books really are written by the victors, then it would appear that in life, the winner is the last one with the presence of mind to hold power of attorney."

I saw this in my news feed today. Haven't seen the movie yet, but thought I'd post it here to see what others think of this take.

I actually agree with much of this article. I don't think of it as "Mike-bashing", though many on other boards will no doubt consider it exactly that. For me, it's just a very blunt and uncompromising take on a real phenomenon, i.e. the ongoing attempt to "revise" history, "downsizing" Brian.
Criticising, even very harshly, Mike or whoever on such realistic and on-topic grounds is perfectly legit imho, whatever is one's personal stance.

What I consider Mike-bashing, and find annoying, are personal attacks on him based on, say, his political stances. I know that in 2024 nobody seems to believe any more in freedom of expression, but it is SAD. Worse, it is terrible. And I am no conservative.

I hope - hope- that this clarifies how can one "defend" Mike and at the same time "attack" him, though I never LIKE "attacking" him.

[Robbie Mac]

“Propaganda” is such a loaded word, though. It implies willful deception, which I don’t think fits the description of the film being slanted towards Mike. 

This was not just a bad film. It was a shockingly incompetent film all across the board. It felt like Frank Marshall did the movie because “hey,it would be fun to do a Beach Boys doc!” He knew very little about the subject and it shows in how the principal members were presented.  If it was my film, you would not have current Brian in it at all (it was painful to watch, was completely unnecessary, and it unwittingly highlighted the contrast between current Brian and current Mike).  A more seasoned interviewer with knowledge of their history (like an Alan Boyd or Howie Edelson) could ask Mike good follow up questions that might elicit answers that don’t make him look like a petty asshole.  Don’t get me wrong, Mike Love’s gonna Mike Love. But his side being over represented is the result of Marshall’s and Disney’s incompetence, not the cause of it.

Also, unless I missed something, Irving Azoff was a credited EP and Iconic was among the entitles with vanity cards at the beginning. No Beach Boys were given EP as far as I know.

[guitarfool2002]

I think it is telling though that the author of the article cited above is, I assume, someone outside the bubble of the familiar online fanbase, and they're also calling bullshit on the Mike "narrative" slant in this film, outside of the usual online discussions. I disagree with some of the wording he used, but as I said above, I can't disagree with the points he made, in fact some are spot on correct. And it does look like there were attempts made to either diminish or lessen the image of Brian or his role in the band's history in order to boost Mike's profile in the story. The Pet Sounds stuff alone is ridiculous.

I'll say it again, if this writer saw it, Al Jardine saw it, I and others here and elsewhere in various comments saw it...it's a major flaw in this documentary.

I see Frank Marshall getting blamed for the shortcomings. When it comes to including some things while excluding others, whether it be songs or archival clips, then yes that falls on him and the final edit. My question is this: If Marshall isn't as knowledgeable on the deep-dive type of information behind the band, and ultimately it's not up to him to research all of that anyway in his executive role, this project had a team of researchers and staff who did do the digging, who did do the research, and who did the asking around to gather the info and pull it all together.

So what sources did they use, or who did they ask, for that info?

If some feel that the film seems to show favor towards Mike's narrative of events, as Al suggested and which the article's observations back up with examples...without even mentioning the unusual amount of time spent on Mike's songwriting credits lawsuit to boot...where would that information have come from other than Mike's book, Mike himself, or from someone/somewhere else entirely?

Find me another available source of research, of the kind Marshall's research staff would have consulted, where Mike's credit lawsuit is cited as a major part of the band's history, and where Pet Sounds and Smile are viewed that way...I can't think of any except from Mike himself, or his book.

And it gets to what CD was saying above about the politics of the current stakeholders of the band. I agree that's probably more of an influence on the information in the film than Frank Marshall himself, and it always will be a factor unless a project is done by someone truly outside the bubble and removed from the politics of it all, if that's even possible. It is a handicap indeed to have competing narratives existing alongside decades-old grudges and inner-band politics.

Again it should be asked, what sources did the research staff use, or who did they consult for the info used in this film?

[Angela Jones]

Bad Vibrations: ‘The Beach Boys’ Documentary Is Mike Love Propaganda

https://decider.com/2024/06/03/the-beach-boys-documentary-mike-love-propaganda/

Some standout blurbs from the article:

"While the telling of this story deliberately minimizes the internecine tensions that would prove the Beach Boys’ undoing, its arrangement nonetheless channels and relitigates conflicts that left some members with evidently simmering, if unstated, resentments. To put it bluntly, this is Mike Love propaganda."

"This revanchist effort to elevate the other members of the band wouldn’t be all that objectionable if not for its flip side of moderate character assassination against Brian, smeared here as an egotist high on his own supply whose so-called “genius” (which was only ever a market construct anyway) actually held back everyone else’s brilliance."

"Love profiles Brian as a homebody unlaced by his fondness for drugs, missing the point that Brian only took the acid trips as a respite from the extreme anxiety and burgeoning schizophrenia that filled him with fear for the world."

"The main things we learn about [Pet Sounds] are 1. that it’s a real downer, and 2. that it was financially unsuccessful, nowhere near the depth of analysis or height of appreciation enjoyed by the sunnier early works"

"The chummy get-together closing out the film takes on a ghastly and exploitative quality in the hint that, between the lines, there’s an abler man taking advantage of a vulnerable one for the sake of grinding his axes to a finer point. If history books really are written by the victors, then it would appear that in life, the winner is the last one with the presence of mind to hold power of attorney."

I saw this in my news feed today. Haven't seen the movie yet, but thought I'd post it here to see what others think of this take.

I agreed with most of the bits you quoted. I didn't agree that Brian had been 'over-mythologised'. As I wrote elsewhere: ''Overly mythologised'? Is some mythologising OK then? I don't think Brian was driven mad by his talent either.
'The exact causes of schizophrenia are unknown. Research suggests a combination of physical, genetic, psychological and environmental factors can make a person more likely to develop the condition. Some people may be prone to schizophrenia, and a stressful or emotional life event might trigger a psychotic episode.'

Brian surely had plenty of stressful life events with which to contend.

[SMiLE Brian]

This whole situation is just sad.

[Angela Jones]

The Decider review is coming in for loads of criticism from certain sources. Methinks they protest too much. I'm sure most can guess which sources too.

[rab2591]

The writer of that article never stated that Mike Love was in editorial control of the film (or had any control over it), nor did he state that Marshall or Love engineered this to be propaganda (unless I missed something in the article), so I don’t know why that’s even being argued here and elsewhere. While Mike didn’t have any editorial control, he is still in control of his own mouth (unless we want to blame Frank Marshall for that, too). It being “propaganda” doesn’t mean it has to be “engineered” by the makers of the film - much like how an interviewer of a newspaper isn’t engineering propaganda by publishing Mike’s 2014 words “Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs”, the interviewer/editor is just unwittingly spreading Mike’s bullsh*t propaganda. Propaganda is just bias/misleading information that promotes a certain point of view…which apparently, according to many people (including Al Jardine), this film is full of.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree that there are MANY people and factors that are to blame for this film being a dud. But that fact doesn’t conflict with the Decider writer’s point that this film supposedly supports/is Mike Love’s narrative/propaganda. The fact that Al Jardine (who, in case we forgot, is an actual member of the band ‘The Beach Boys’) and many others have said the same thing makes it a hard point to argue with.

[Ian]

The thing I don’t like about the documentary is that it basically retreats to the old trope that the BBs sort of died in 1966 and Endless Summer saved their butts. Thus-it negates Smile to holland as irrelevant. Even if the film does have Mike’s pov more than the others, I cannot imagine that he supports that. It’s only to his interest to have the 67-73 period critically reevaluated. The film should have spent more time discussing smile, Wild Honey, friends, 20-20, Sunflower, Surf’s up and Holland then it did

[Zenobi]

Love You, too.

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

I'm about halfway through the documentary now. I was struck by Al's modern-day quote about the period when the Beatles exploded onto the scene and were featured on Ed Sullivan, eclipsing the Beach Boys. Al says something like "we were just singers... but the Beatles... they were PLAYERS!" There's something really poignant about that.

It's absolutely true though: Just take a look at the amount of live shows The Beatles played in 1962 and 1963 leading up to that Sullivan appearance in February 1964. It is absolutely staggering how many shows those guys played...and that's not even counting the marathon shows that could last anywhere between 8 and 14 hours each night when they made their several trips to Hamburg. And not counting how often they would rehearse at the Cavern during their off hours while still holding a daytime residency there.

It's an amazing work ethic, and a band that plays together that often is going to be a well-oiled machine at that point, also boosting a wide repertoire of material in all styles and tempos which they could literally pull out on demand like a jukebox. Hundreds of songs.

So yes, The Beatles came to the Sullivan show playing with a stacked deck in terms of their experience as a band and all of those hours of experience on stage and in rehearsal. The Beach Boys, instrumentally, did not have that same resume, and it's not their fault, but they just didn't come up in the business the same way the Beatles did and they were not as experienced as stage performers by 1964. Al pretty much nailed it in that quote, but the poignancy might also be in how so many people might not realize how hard the Beatles really worked to get to that point, and how dedicated and driven they were as musicians in order to sound that way and be able to play so tight as a group.

I don't like comparing the two, but I always say there is a reason why The Beatles became who they were, and likewise The Beach Boys. It's just that one group had a lot more experience than the other, and their ultimate goals beyond making good music were two versions of the same thing. The Beach Boys vocals will never be equaled in popular music, and nor will The Beatles as a self-contained band.

All this -- well said! It's just an interesting thought that that 'insecurity', for lack of a better word, was kind of baked into The Beach Boys from the very beginning.

To a casual fan back then these two groups (and other pop groups) were all similar, but The Beatles 100% benefitted from that shared experience of touring over many years prior to 1964. That's true even by the time of the later/thornier Let It Be sessions, and I think you've written about that here before. In the rooftop concert you can feel the muscle memory of their earlier love of playing kick in, with the song "One After 909" as kind of a cherry on top.

Those years of touring also likely helped to forge The Beatles' identity as a group, with some kind of shared vision taking place. What must The Beach Boys have been thinking watching The Beatles on Ed Sullivan? Even in those early years of youth and success, they must have felt some fear, that they couldn't keep up and it would all come to an end soon. From that standpoint the 'don't F with the formula' mentality would have had a powerful allure.

[rab2591]

Love You, too.

I think one of the best post-1970 Beach Boys moments (and it’s on tape!) is when Mike reacts to Brian’s middle-eight (or whatever) in Brian’s demo of ‘I’ll Bet He’s Nice’. No idea if that was in this documentary. There was nothing but love and admiration in that moment - a moment that deserves to be in any documentary/series labeled “definitive”, imo of course.

[Rocker]

I'm about halfway through the documentary now. I was struck by Al's modern-day quote about the period when the Beatles exploded onto the scene and were featured on Ed Sullivan, eclipsing the Beach Boys. Al says something like "we were just singers... but the Beatles... they were PLAYERS!" There's something really poignant about that.

It's absolutely true though: Just take a look at the amount of live shows The Beatles played in 1962 and 1963 leading up to that Sullivan appearance in February 1964. It is absolutely staggering how many shows those guys played...and that's not even counting the marathon shows that could last anywhere between 8 and 14 hours each night when they made their several trips to Hamburg. And not counting how often they would rehearse at the Cavern during their off hours while still holding a daytime residency there.

It's an amazing work ethic, and a band that plays together that often is going to be a well-oiled machine at that point, also boosting a wide repertoire of material in all styles and tempos which they could literally pull out on demand like a jukebox. Hundreds of songs.

So yes, The Beatles came to the Sullivan show playing with a stacked deck in terms of their experience as a band and all of those hours of experience on stage and in rehearsal. The Beach Boys, instrumentally, did not have that same resume, and it's not their fault, but they just didn't come up in the business the same way the Beatles did and they were not as experienced as stage performers by 1964. Al pretty much nailed it in that quote, but the poignancy might also be in how so many people might not realize how hard the Beatles really worked to get to that point, and how dedicated and driven they were as musicians in order to sound that way and be able to play so tight as a group.

I don't like comparing the two, but I always say there is a reason why The Beatles became who they were, and likewise The Beach Boys. It's just that one group had a lot more experience than the other, and their ultimate goals beyond making good music were two versions of the same thing. The Beach Boys vocals will never be equaled in popular music, and nor will The Beatles as a self-contained band.

Another point may be that the Beach Boys - except probably for Carl - seemingly never were much into their instruments. It's not like Al or Dennis sat down and thought about how to get new sounds out of the drums, find new playing or tuning techniques from foreign influences etc. When it comes to the Beach Boys the focus was more on the recording process, the studio, the harmonies and the songwriting. The Beatles - and this is just my impression as I'm not expert on them - actually tried to imitate the sounds they heard on records and analyzed the guitar parts a.s.o. until they could repliate them

[guitarfool2002]

The thing I don’t like about the documentary is that it basically retreats to the old trope that the BBs sort of died in 1966 and Endless Summer saved their butts. Thus-it negates Smile to holland as irrelevant. Even if the film does have Mike’s pov more than the others, I cannot imagine that he supports that. It’s only to his interest to have the 67-73 period critically reevaluated. The film should have spent more time discussing smile, Wild Honey, friends, 20-20, Sunflower, Surf’s up and Holland then it did

I have a hot take on this, and it's just my observations and opinion of course.

What hook is Mike using to promote his summer concerts this year? The "anniversary" of the Endless Summer album. That's the album which, as you said, was part of the old trope that Endless Summer "saved" the band commercially and otherwise. Mike at various points in the past decade was claiming that he "produced" that collection, heck that claim was even on his website for a time (it may still be, I don't know...). So combining the various tropes, Endless Summer saved the band's butts, Mike has in the past taken producer's credit for Endless Summer = Mike saved the band with that collection, and he's touring to commemorate Endless Summer this year, and lo and behold a new documentary puts more of a focus on Endless Summer than it does roughly 6-7 years of Beach Boys original music and original albums.

So it sounds like there was some cross promotion happening, if the documentary focus essentially stops around Endless Summer as some have said.

And I'm not saying Mike was directly involved in the editorial or historical content of the film, but that's why I was asking who was actually involved in the research and content in order to create a project that some of us feel lays too heavily on the Mike narrative, including the "saving" of the band via the Endless Summer album to the detriment of some great albums between 67 and 73 that got brushed under the rug...instead to highlight Endless Summer which coincidentally Mike is currently promoting and celebrating on his own tour this summer.

[HeyJude]

The writer of that article never stated that Mike Love was in editorial control of the film (or had any control over it), nor did he state that Marshall or Love engineered this to be propaganda (unless I missed something in the article), so I don’t know why that’s even being argued here and elsewhere. While Mike didn’t have any editorial control, he is still in control of his own mouth (unless we want to blame Frank Marshall for that, too). It being “propaganda” doesn’t mean it has to be “engineered” by the makers of the film - much like how an interviewer of a newspaper isn’t engineering propaganda by publishing Mike’s 2014 words “Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs”, the interviewer/editor is just unwittingly spreading Mike’s bullsh*t propaganda. Propaganda is just bias/misleading information that promotes a certain point of view…which apparently, according to many people (including Al Jardine), this film is full of.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree that there are MANY people and factors that are to blame for this film being a dud. But that fact doesn’t conflict with the Decider writer’s point that this film supposedly supports/is Mike Love’s narrative/propaganda. The fact that Al Jardine (who, in case we forgot, is an actual member of the band ‘The Beach Boys’) and many others have said the same thing makes it a hard point to argue with.

While I agree that a film (or any other work) can unintentionally serve as "propaganda", there has to be *intent* on somebody's part to invoke the term "propaganda."

The Decider article, in my opinion, is implying that either the makers of the film, and/or Mike Love had intent to push an agenda. I don't believe Disney or Frank Marshall were competent or put enough effort into this film to have that intent. Their only agenda was laziness and simplicity, and as I've said many times, that simplistic approach to the story absolutely does align at times with Mike's views/agenda. Mike Love certainly has his point of view, an "agenda", and certainly has a vested interest in pushing that in interviews.

So I'm okay with characterizing the doc as a case where the directors/filmmakers' laziness/lack of skill, etc. *allowed* some of Mike's agenda to be aired. And, from there, I think their laziness and lack of craft did most of the work, mostly due to what they *didn't* include.

I don't believe that Decider article makes that type of nuanced point, though. The article is really just sort of telling us what the end result is, and doesn't seem really that interested in trying to figure out *how* this film came out the way it does. I would argue that by inserting the mic-drop line "To put it bluntly, this is Mike Love propaganda", a lot of readers will come away with the impression that Mike Love pushed that agenda *in the making* of the documentary (even though, in fairness, the article doesn't assert or describe a scenario where Mike Love is actually involved in the making of it or the editorial process), and/or that the filmmakers were trying to push a Mike Love agenda.

The writer of the article chose to use the term "propaganda", and that has a pretty good amount of heft to it. I don't even think it's necessarily a term that can't be used in this case, but I think it requires a good amount of context that the article didn't provide.

I guess one of the things I feel after reading an article like this is that I'm not interested in praising an article simply because it's overarching point (the doc is bad) is one I agree with, when the reasons they provide are pretty different from mine (and in *some* cases not accurate in my opinion).

There are other bits in the article I don't agree with more just from a rhetorical point of view. For instance, I wouldn't call this doc a "rosy recounting" of the band's history as the article does; it does still get into drugs/Murry/Manson/lawsuits, disagreements over artistic direction).

There are other bits in the article that are important to point out, but incomplete. For instance, I think it *absolutely* is important to not take the ancient point of view, often put forth by Mike over the years, that Brian did drugs because he decided to be a druggie, and that that drug use is what caused all of his problems. The article does point out Brian tapped into drugs to medicate anxiety and mental illness (the article says schizophrenia, which I don't think is the correct ultimate diagnosis, but the point is important and gets across nonetheless). But the article contends Brian dropped acid "only" as a respite from anxiety and mental illness, and I'm not really sure that's the case. I think he also had an interest in it the way, as Al put it in 1998, many writers/artists did at the time.

I understand the frustration with a doc or Mike Love or anybody pushing the bogus narrative that Brian just wanted to be drug-addled, and that caused all of his (and the group's!) problems. But there's no need to overstate the case in the other direction. For years now I've lamented over and over Mike's penchant for just bringing up the Wilson brothers' drug and alcohol abuse with no empathy or understanding, especially after they've all either died or stopped using drugs. BUT, in a *good* documentary (or book, or whatever), I think there's absolutely room to discuss those things, *including* how they impacted the other band members. Because it wasn't easy I'm sure to be in a band where Brian was sometimes toasted and not able to properly communicate, and certainly it was hard at times to deal with Dennis' drinking, etc. That *is* part of the story as well.

The Decider article serves the purpose of warning people that the documentary has serious issues. It feels like an article where it's kind of "right for some of the wrong (or incomplete) reasons." I guess I just feel like my point of view/outlook/taste would lean towards either backing off the heavy, blunt "propaganda" accusation if they're only going to write a very short article like that, or do a deeper dive and give things more context about the source of said "propaganda."