Setting the Record Straight, or revisionist history?

[KokoMoses]

There's music and then there's personalities. And while I'd encourage your friend to find and enjoy Mike's better contributions to the Beach Boys, I'd caution him, or anyone, from forgetting the offstage machinations that helped diminish so much of what would come later. The Beach Boys' failure to go on creating the lovely music they made between 1962 and 1973 (with a few rare exceptions) can be traced to a vast catalogue of failures and problems. But Mike's role can't be overlooked, and the choices he made following "BWPS" are a primary example. Yes, there are far too many problems to go around. It's like an Agatha Christie mystery, everyone has a motive and a weapon. And Mike is in the middle of the whole mess.

True to a point..... In 1974 The Beach Boys were in a no win situation. They had two choices, keep on pushing their creative muses ala Holland and wrack up debt and watch their albums/singles stall, or they could embrace the oldies and make tons of money at least and try to be artistic when they could... Brian had his serious problems. And even then, anything he did was criticized for not being Pet Sounds part 2-3-4 and on and on.... I mean, the decline in sales/popularity around 68/69 must have been a nightmare they certainly didn't want to have to live through again. It must have been tough. They deserve a ton of credit for sticking it out.

The oldies are great/amazing/earth shattering stuff, btw. performing those songs in front of frenzied crowds couldn't have been too bad a feeling.

[brianc]

**Pet Sounds part 2-3-4 and on and on.... I mean, the decline in sales/popularity around 68/69 must have been a nightmare they certainly didn't want to have to live through again. It must have been tough. They deserve a ton of credit for sticking it out.**

But the point of expectation is, often, that "Smile" was every bit Pet Sounds Part 2 and then some. So it's more of a lamentation that an out and out criticism. Besides, Brian had less and less to do with BBs albums from "Surf's Up" to the "Endless Summer" package hitting.

I'm glad they stuck it out too, and also collaborated in the social consciousness movement. It's an honest period.

[Surfer Joe]

...

He's too hung up on commerciality.  He says great things about the commercial hits. Whenver I've read an interview about something that wasn't a top ten hit, he always says something like: "WEll of course I like it MUSICALLY. It's great. And I love those kind of lyrics for their ART--but you understand, looking at it from a purely COMMERCIAL point of view, people just don't relate to those kind of lyrics. That's why Good Vibrations was a hit and Heroes and Villains wasn't" Or "Well, it's a great song, great production and harmonies, but it's a waltz and that just doesn't play on the charts."

...

You never see bios about Jimi Hendrix where, I don't know his bassist or someone says,
Yeah, I GUESS that song was okay--MUSICALLY. But it only hit number 25. I guess people just didn't relate to Purple Haze's lyrics. I wanted him to change the title to Summer Daze, you know(sings) 'Summer Daze, in my mind, Beach and girls, you so fine' but he wouldn't listen. Well, I guess the poor chart showing of Purple Haze has proven me right."

This is the one thing about the Beach Boys that I don't relate to.

...

Do you see what I'm driving at? I really think this half-assed attitude of "Oh, I Get Around and Kokomo were great because they were commercial and artistic,while Surf's Up was artistic genius but not commercial--it wasn't a hit with the people" is doing them no favors--not as a great band deserving of respect, or even commercially.

Well thought out, well expressed, and I agree down the line, and also with the parts I didn't quote, but- just for the other side of it: I heard Brian asked once what he remembered about "Guess I'm Dumb" and he said "I remember that it flopped." It was funny coming from him, but imagine if Mike had said it. It's not unusual at all for songwriters to respond to their work based on how they think it was received. "H & V", regardless of its merits, was intended to be a very big hit, and it was a moderate-to-big hit. That may pretty well define its importance- not to us- but to the Beach Boys.

I've heard somewhere along the line Burt Bacharach is not very interested in talking about songs of his that weren't big hits.

I've heard Mike make much worse comments than those under discussion here, but again- to his credit- I think his views have evolved at least a little in the last twenty years.  He sees the commercial and artistic stuff as each having its place, and it's natural that the artistic stuff just hasn't meant as much to him, and he wasn't as personally central to that aspect of things, either.

And for the record, I think "GV" and "H & V" had two of the very best sets of lyrics in the Wilson canon- the "Heroes" lyrics are a mind-blower- but I think if the lyrics of "Good Vibrations" had a lot to do with carrying it to the top, they were not the verse lyrics that came from Tony and then Mike, but the chorus lyrics that came mainly from Brian. In other words, it was the title and the idea and "Good, good, gooood, good vibrations....", not so much the colorful clothes or the perfume in the air- though those are great impressionistic images.

[Sheriff John Stone]

One thing I would like to see in "setting the record straight" is the actual RECORD. By that I mean the minutes to the Beach Boys' meetings in the 1974-1980 period, along with each members' votes. Oh, I know they probably don't exist anymore, if they ever did, but I think many Beach Boys' fans who are anti-Mike Love, or who BLAME him for "going back to the oldies" would be surprised. I'm sure there would be rationalizing that "the guys didn't care", "were too stoned to think clearly", "didn't even bother to attend", or "let Mike have his way" to avoid conflict and/or to "keep group harmony". I think ALL of the guys were in it - at that time - to make as much money as they could. And I think their votes would reflect that. Maybe Dennis, Carl, and possibly Brian's hearts weren't into the oldies as much as Mike and Al, but to NOT CARE enough to push for another direction - the artistic direction - is not a good excuse. To me anyway. Now, if somebody would show me (factually) how the votes went, and it shows that Dennis, Carl, and Brian fought for their art (within the Beach Boys context; Dennis did put his money where his mouth is with POB), then I would be the first one to lay the blame/responsibility where it rightfully lays. But, so far, all I ever read/heard were war stories and conjecture.

[Mark A. Moore]

Very interesting topic . . .

I'm a good many years into my Jan Berry research. Aside from a few articles, and leaking a few things here and there, my stuff isn't out yet . . . and I've already been accused of trying to demonize Dean Torrence. Dean jumped on my case early on, and then (as an example) some fan who goes to Dean's shows tried to pull the 'ol "I'm a lawyer" chestnut on me, trying to stick up for Dean . . . Sad and laughable at the same time.

But I'm very lucky to have tons of hard-core documentation . . . to augment the memories of those "who were there." And I have to admit, it's a terrible relief. One thing the Beach Boys saga has confirmed for me is that my Jan Berry biography will be footnoted to the "n'th" degree . . . in academic style. All sources front and center.

Folks, after 40-some years, having "been there" is not a lock on what happened. Such insight is crucial, but it has to be vetted against other memories and documentation.

For me, it's not about tearing people down, but using documentation and interviews to get closer to the heart of matters . . . juxtaposed against "memories only" and personal spin from years later. Especially since Jan (the company-signed arranger and producer) had no official voice after 1966. Dean could tell the story at will, without fear of being challenged, because Jan was brain damaged. (Then there's the matter of Dean's 1970s cover versions of Jan & Dean classics getting mistaken for the original recordings).

But I would also say that any negatives against Dean can be matched with plenty of positives as well (and I'lll cover both angles). There's more than one side to any story.

Same goes for Jan Berry. In fact, my biography will expose Jan to far more scrutiny than it will Dean.

M.

[Magic Transistor Radio]

Why does Mike try to make out as if he has never done drugs? In a 1976 interview, Mike was admitting that "we were stoned out of their gord!"

Now he makes it out that starting with Smile, Brian, Dennis and Carl started using drugs, while he Al and Bruce stayed clean.

My understanding is that they all (except maybe Bruce) experimented with drugs in the late 60s. Brian was the first to become an addict in the early 70s. Dennis was an alcohaulic on and off in the 70s before getting hooked on cocaine around 1977. Carl was addicted to something in 77,78 then quickly cleaned up his act.

If there was any truth to Mike claiming that he has been hated by writers because he was a sqare that did drugs, then it would seem to reason that he would have been liked by that crowd from 66-68.

[brianc]

Our reality is flawed, and every philosopher that ever tried to write about our ability to see the problems in life and change them has come to that conclusion. So, you know, what are you gonna do? Memories become coloured through the years, but still, I find it hard to write off what ones man's eyes have seen, ears have heard and where his feet have traveled.

Cross-referencing documentation and all of that stuff is important. But as a journalist, a lot of times you have to go with your gut. As far as the '80s, '90s and '00s, Mike Love has admitted to being much more hands-on when it comes to the track selections of the hits packages. He has called the album filler (i.e. non-hit singles) and b-sides to be of interest only to the devout fan. He has criticized many of Brian's solo efforts as being arty (which I think they are not quite enough, for the most part). He has led a band called the Beach Boys long past its original incarnation, so as to be unrecognizable, except for the 40+ hit singles that his original group spawned. His continued decisions reflect a devotion to that singular mindset. And there is enough evidence, via his chosen lawsuits alone, to indicate that he is staunch in his stance about what is their "important" material, and what his role has been in it.

Unfortunately, Mike Love, like many Baby Boomers, missed punk-rock entirely. Michael McDonald/yacht rock is where a lot of those people were, and the Mike-led Beach Boys were campaigning for Reagan administration elections as punk moved into new wave, hardcore and college rock. The facts are the facts, and believe me, all the fun Mike Love lyrics from the early years... all of the select cuts from the psych years that he wrote... and all of his cool hippy songs from the early to mid-'70s (which I love)... none of that can do away with what he started throwing out to the public once the punk era came in. For a guy his age... and many, many other popular '60s rock acts... it would have been too much of a stretch, artistically, to try and do something as spiteful and aggressive as punk. Dick Dale managed to do just that during the early '80s second wave of surf music, which was an extension of punk. But he was just a little act... never even broke out of California in the '60s. The Beach Boys were in a bit of an artistic corner, once the times changed a second time. They weathered that storm the first time, because Brian Wilson was so with it, and Dennis, Carl and Jack Rieley all got on board later with great songwriting. So they fit in after things went from garage-band to psychedelia.

Anyway, I think it's a tribute to Brian that he could regain some of that density during the alternative era, and do work as good as the Wilson/Paley sessions. But it didn't come out, and that aesthetic sense and freedom did not last.

[Dancing Bear]

Unfortunately, Mike Love, like many Baby Boomers, missed punk-rock entirely.

Thank god. Can you imagine his stage outfit? 

Punk is bullshit. Sure, some great albums, some good, some bad. But whoever 'believed in punk' as late in the game as in the late seventies...

a) was an idiot
b) was just another marchant selling 'rebellion', just like Mike and Brian sold 'California' in 1965 or 1976.

[brianc]

Oh, brother.

You sound like one of those guys who would rather the scene be small and uninfluential forever. I happen to think that egos can be put aside at times, and circles can be powerful, sharing, influential and wildly popular.

"Punk," whatever the terms means to you... in my book... has evolved. It did quite a lot in the late '70s and all throughout the '80s. The outfits don't matter as much as the intent and scope. A guy like William S. Burroughs never had a hard time relating to  things as they changed, because his mind was always open, and there are other people who could see depth no matter what the times or age-bracket was dictating.

[Amy B.]

Part of what came out of punk was the "we don't care about hits- we just want to make music" mentality. One of my favorite bands, R.E.M., was founded on that, and they didn't have big hits until years after their first record came out.
Even now, they do want their stuff to sell, but more because they want people to hear it, and not so much to make money. They never bought into the rock star/Rolls Royce/mansion thing and continue to defend the merits of records that flopped.

The Beach Boys, on the other hand, were pre-punk, and for them the music was very much about hits. And that includes Brian, except Brian also cared about artistic integrity, probably because during his peak he was too manic and perfectionistic not to care. Same with the Beatles. They wanted to make great, creative music, but they also cared about hits. I don't think we can criticize that generation for caring about hits, since that's the world they are from.

However... just because something wasn't a hit doesn't mean it wasn't good. Brian saying "I remember that Guess I'm Dumb flopped" seems like a reflection of his disappointment at the lack of response to his hard work as much as it is a reflection of his wanting hits. After all, Brian continued to make artistic music after that and clearly wasn't only out to appeal to the bottom line. Mike, on the other hand, focuses on a commercial hook more than on whether something is artistically good (witness his continued bragging about Kokomo). Does Mike think Kokoma is a _better_ song than Heroes and Villains, since it went to number one? That's an interesting question. Then again, Brian has also said he liked Kokomo, presumably because it was a hit.

Nothing is black and white.

[Amy B.]

By the way, someone should ask each of the Beach Boys the following question:

What do you think is better: A hit song that's not very original or a song that flops but is artistically original?

I wonder what each of them would say.

[the captain]

^ I think they'd ask whether it was a song they were releasing or not! It's easy to love an artistic flop that isn't on your own dime. And if it were theirs, I think they'd fall in line with the commercial success. Nothing wrong with that, either, as long as a person is honest about it.

It's always easy for non-artists to criticize artists for commercial interests. And it's also amusing, as if we go to work for the artistic merit of sitting in a cubicle...

[brianc]

Whatever punk-rock's merits were, the part about it that I enjoy the most is the notion that rock-star status is relegated to a place it had been during the garage-band years. There are egos there, and all due credit to those altruistic individuals who made music without want for financial return, but that doesn't impress me nearly as much as the honesty, desperation, collaboration and overall feeling that the scene is bigger than the individual.

It's not just a punk sound, either. I feel that artists like Tom Waits, Lou Reed, Frank Zappa and Dennis Wilson had a lot of the traits I love most in artists, even if they weren't out and out "punk," genre-wise.

Conversely, after the Wilson/Paley sessions failed to materialize an album, Brian still had his project with Van Dyke Parks from 1995, and there was so much buzz about "Smile" and "Pet Sounds," and the indie/alternative tribute albums. During the mid '90s, Brian Wilson was on everyone's tongue in the indie world. When they finally did the "Smile" tour and album, it was something that could have connected and been translated to a 35-minute set for, say, Coachella. However, something always seemed slightly off in the presentation... feeling a bit processed and staged. Like the great elephant in the room, that Brian is being coached to act a certain way... it always feel a little sad and dishonest. I know Brian does his best. I don't want to sound like I'm putting him down. Maybe just the influencers around him, sometimes. He's a big name. Anyway, there was never that raw artistry in the 2004 presentation, like there was when Brian was filmed for "Inside Pop." I'm still glad it was put out in some form... and Brian went for it. But maybe it's that vulnerability to needing commercial validation that still kind of pervades Brian's circle. The expectation for him is high.

The point about that generation was well thought-out. Appreciate you taking the time to put it down for us to read.

[brianc]

I do think the Woondermints and Brian's group go a long way towards making the experience of watching Brian more enjoyable. His stage fright and uneasiness being in the spotlight are really noticeable, and we all pull for him. The effort is phenominal.

But that desire for him to do something valid artistically seems to be more and more elusive as the years go by, which is why the Paley/Wilson sessions are so good, in my mind. I'm sure some of it was forced, but for the most part, it does NOT feel like it. Those songs have an honesty to them. And the melodies and productions are stellar.

[the captain]

Whatever punk-rock's merits were, the part about it that I enjoy the most ... the honesty, desperation, collaboration and overall feeling that the scene is bigger than the individual.

It's not just a punk sound, either. I feel that artists like Tom Waits, Lou Reed, Frank Zappa and Dennis Wilson had a lot of the traits I love most in artists, even if they weren't out and out "punk," genre-wise.

I think you're as far off on Zappa as you can be. I think that he felt he was bigger than any scene, or that he was the scene. For that matter, any honesty in his music was probably by mistake, as he was ever the cynic and smartass. Desperation? In "Trouble Every Day," maybe, and while trying to balance the books after putting on symphony shows or touring a large band. Collaboration? He never admits to any, although there was obviously some.

I wonder if you're just listing people you like and compartmentalizing them in some aesthetic you imagine to be there.

[brianc]

True that Zappa was a bit of an island, and you might be right about me seeing what I want to in him. I was only thinking of the continued utilization of great talent by Zappa, as well as his incredible stance during the whole PMRC hearings. Plus his spirit of individualism, far outside the confines of comerciality. But, in some respects, he built his own niche market on that, wheras the Beach Boys did not.

Just sort of thinking out loud here, as it goes. So forgive the improv, if it goes slightly off. Great topic, and conversation from all, though.

[the captain]

I wonder if you take it too far to hint that individualism is punk. It was a part of punk, sure. But it was before, around and after punk, too. It seems analogous to saying guitars are rock 'n' roll, and then saying some modern jazz guitarist is rock 'n' roll because of it.

From a musical perspective--which, when we're at heart discussing music--Zappa was pretty far removed from anything punk. Any time he used the punk idiom, it was for comedy (generally at the expense of punk).

But if we're talking about strong personalities, individualists and brilliant artists, yes, Zappa is those. Er, was those.

[brianc]

Well, of course I'm using it that way. I'm not even saying Zappa was punk. Not remotely. I put Dennis Wilson in the same list. I was saying that during the punk era, some remained valid artistically, some did not.

There's a tape I have of a radio interview with Rodney Bingeheimer, where Dean Torrence is asked about Blondie and the Ramones, and not only does he not know much about them, but he goes on to cut them down.

[the captain]

But my point is to categorize an attitude by a musical term, when that attitude existed before and outside of that musical genre, probably isn't the best way to go. I get what you mean, it just feels like playing loose with the language ... which is very punk of you.

(I'd put a smiley there but I'm off emoticons. f*** 'em. So you have to understand my intentions are good.)

[brianc]

**For that matter, any honesty in his music was probably by mistake, as he was ever the cynic and smartass.**

Cynicism can often be one of the most powerful ways of being honest. And from the part of the '70s that I come, my family always enjoyed a good smartass. None more than Randy Newman. I don't see those characteristics as being dishonest.

[brianc]

**But my point is to categorize an attitude by a musical term, when that attitude existed before and outside of that musical genre, probably isn't the best way to go. I get what you mean, it just feels like playing loose with the language ... which is very punk of you. **

Thanks, but I'm not trying to be "punk" in any sense of the word. I'm on the outside looking in, as I was just a kid when punk and new wave were happening. But, of course that attitude existed before punk, which is why I harkened it back to people like William S. Burroughs seeing the same thread from his own times to the times of the punk era. I also mentioned garage-bands of the early '60s not being as "rock-star" based. I'm using "punk era" as a losse term. Like it or not, it had a drastic effect on the record industry. And during that time, there was some "non-punk" artists from the previous generation that remained valid. Others did not, for whatever reason. For the Beach Boys, it was too far of a stretch, obviously.

I was never indicating my desire to see Mike Love have green hair or a spikey waist-belt. That was never my point, but I'm not always the best at making the point clear, and labels are polarizing most of the time, anyway.

[the captain]

**But my point is to categorize an attitude by a musical term, when that attitude existed before and outside of that musical genre, probably isn't the best way to go. I get what you mean, it just feels like playing loose with the language ... which is very punk of you. **

Thanks, but I'm not trying to be "punk" in any sense of the word.

I know, i get what you're saying -- i was joking. (see my parenthetical from that same msg)

[brianc]

No, I knew that.

I felt like your point about Zappa's cynicism was really valid too. It can consume a person. I went through a divorce last year, and I finally got to the point where I had to stop feeling bitter and jaded... stop seeing myself as a victim... too much cynicism isn't healthy.

[Dancing Bear]

Whatever punk-rock's merits were, the part about it that I enjoy the most ... the honesty, desperation, collaboration and overall feeling that the scene is bigger than the individual.

It's not just a punk sound, either. I feel that artists like Tom Waits, Lou Reed, Frank Zappa and Dennis Wilson had a lot of the traits I love most in artists, even if they weren't out and out "punk," genre-wise.

I think you're as far off on Zappa as you can be. I think that he felt he was bigger than any scene, or that he was the scene. For that matter, any honesty in his music was probably by mistake, as he was ever the cynic and smartass. Desperation? In "Trouble Every Day," maybe, and while trying to balance the books after putting on symphony shows or touring a large band. Collaboration? He never admits to any, although there was obviously some.

I wonder if you're just listing people you like and compartmentalizing them in some aesthetic you imagine to be there.

Zappa released "We're Only in It for the Money", almost a whole album parodying and pissing on the flower power scene. I don't know if ten years later he'd be proud to being labeled as 'punk'. He'd probably laugh his ass off.

I don't get this 'Sinatra was punk', 'Brian Wilson was punk', Duke Ellington was punk' rotine. What does it mean, that they had integrity? Individualism? Talent? I'm sure some people think that before 1976 you wouldn't join a band unless you knew 5498 chords, had a major recording contract on the line and a Rod Stewart hairdo. Then..... Punk saved rock'n'roll. Duh. Like the Beatles saved USA from Frankie Avalon and Fabian in 1964.

And what's the problem with Dean Torrence not digging Blondie or the Ramones? Did he also have to wear an uniform, as everyone alse? I thought punk was about individualism.

[the captain]

Did he also have to wear an uniform, as everyone alse? I thought punk was about individualism.

One of my favorite all-time quotes actually plays in very nicely here. It's a Zappa quote from a live 1968 show--I think the Royal Albert Hall. Someone yells something about "take off that uniform," presumably because Zappa was wearing an army jacket, as he did sometimes. The crowd roars, and Zappa calmly says something to the effect of "Don't kid yourself, everyone in here is wearing a uniform." Seems apt to the conversation for a few reasons.