New "Inside the Music of BW" book

[brother john]

This book is about the songs; how they were structured, what sort of musical devices he was building upon, etc. It is most definitely not meant to be any sort of social history of the guys. The author makes it clear what sources he relied on for the 'historical' parts and even acknowledges the controversial nature of those sources. As we've seen, no BB book has all the facts correct because, at this late date, there aren't any 'facts', just memories (and AFM contracts don't count), so, aside from a few date related issues, what exactly is the problem with this book?( Sorry about that incredibly long run-on sentence!) I don't feel like I was mislead, or even confused, by this book. I t certainly seems better that Priore's latest smile cash-in. One last thing...the potential argument that someone new to the BB might be slightly mislead by this book is far outweighed by the one stating that nobody new to the BB would even know what the hell was being discussed in it. So there.

Thankyou! 

[Mark A. Moore]

at this late date, there aren't any 'facts', just memories.

It seems odd to me that this would be true for a band like the Beach Boys. There's bound to be a significant paper trail somewhere.

I have tons of hard-core documentation on Jan Berry's life and career (going well beyond AFM sheets) . . . and I'm truly blessed in that sense. It makes a world of difference, believe me.

Peoples' memories alone will always steer you off course . . . whether said people were "there" or not . . . whether you're researching something that happened 40 years ago . . . or even four weeks ago. "He said, she said" . . . by itself won't cut it.

People who were "there" are often decidedly wrong when you put their memories to the test, against documentation that was generated during the time period in question.

You need something to cross reference the memories against . . . (and not just other recollections).

M.

[bellagio]

It seems like Jan was probably a little more aware of his legacy than the BB. Plus, after the accident, which was less than a decade after everything started for him, he was likely even more concerned with having a say in his history thru documentation. The amount of lawyers, managers, etc. must have grown exponentially for the BB as the years wore on, and all of their documentation is probably scattered far and wide. Jan was J&D, but, aside from the early years, who were the BB? They certainly didn't keep everything in a trunk at their folks' house like I imagine Jan did.

[Mark A. Moore]

Yeah . . . Jan's records run the gamut, covering the periods both before the accident and after. All of his original business contracts, etc., are extant. And a whole lot more.

Here's the thing . . . people who make a lot of money tend to keep good records . . . even if it's done by an accountant.

Moreover, after the accident, Jan's father, Bill Berry, did a remarkable job of archiving things, and taking notes.

M.

[Andrew G. Doe]

at this late date, there aren't any 'facts', just memories.

Peoples' memories alone will always steer you off course . . . whether said people were "there" or not . . . whether you're researching something that happened 40 years ago . . . or even four weeks ago. "He said, she said" . . . by itself won't cut it.

People who were "there" are often decidedly wrong when you put their memories to the test, against documentation that was generated during the time period in question.

You need something to cross reference the memories against . . . (and not just other recollections).

M.

Valid point (are you listening, Carol Kaye ?), but to take a recent case in point, David recalled there being a 2nd drummer on "Surfin' USA", and on this here very MB he was tracked down and named. Plus, as I've discovered to my cost, even contemporary documentation can be spurious. These people weren't thinking of future generations of researchers: they were either having fun, or doing the day job.

[Mark A. Moore]

at this late date, there aren't any 'facts', just memories.

Peoples' memories alone will always steer you off course . . . whether said people were "there" or not . . . whether you're researching something that happened 40 years ago . . . or even four weeks ago. "He said, she said" . . . by itself won't cut it.

People who were "there" are often decidedly wrong when you put their memories to the test, against documentation that was generated during the time period in question.

You need something to cross reference the memories against . . . (and not just other recollections).

M.

Valid point (are you listening, Carol Kaye ?), but to take a recent case in point, David recalled there being a 2nd drummer on "Surfin' USA", and on this here very MB he was tracked down and named. Plus, as I've discovered to my cost, even contemporary documentation can be spurious. These people weren't thinking of future generations of researchers: they were either having fun, or doing the day job.

Yeah, that can happen . . . but I've found that contemporary documentation is generally far more reliable than peoples' memories. Particularly when it comes to business related matters (as with Jan Berry and Screen Gems) . . . and another huge boon is legal correspondence (of all types) and court records. These kinds of things generate a paper trail a mile long.

You have to cross reference the memories against the documentary evidence (and vice versa). People often do remember things correctly. But it can get muky, especially with people who have changed their stories (even in print) numerous times over the years.

M.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Multiple sources, a high degree of skepticism and a keen analytical mind.

Damn, I wish I had any of those.