The Beach Boys: The Definitive Diary of America's Greatest Band on Stage and in

[matt-zeus]

What a bad man

[MBE]

The book does have it's problems but it really helps with certain dates, and getting the feel of a year. I think his best stuff is on the Holland era.

[Bicyclerider]

I know I made an error (it was a typo I think) on the SMile primer on a date for a Worms session, and that error made it through to Badman's book - I've since corrected the primer.

[Third Coast]

Yeah that I know.  The space on the contracts where you're supposed to write them has been whited out in my copy.

Congratulations, sir - you are the very first person I've come across with one of the 'amended' copies ! I would suspect that yours is far, far rarer than any copy with the SS numbers included.

The copies with the whited-out SS numbers and marked "first edition" are the only ones I've seen in the stores for about the last two years.

[Mark A. Moore]

Keith (or his researchers)

Good Christ . . . who is stupid enough to use outside "researchers" for pop music history?? !!

That's the domain of college PhDs in the academic ranks (regardless of subject) . . . and even then the stuff gets vetted. Not that mistakes don't happen . . . they do . . . but it's a more robust process. In the Badman case, I strongly suspect there was no editorial oversight, from a publishing standpoint.

I say, if you don't have time to do it all yourself . . . in lieu of a heavy-weight publisher with resources . . . then don't sign on to the project. You're only setting yourself up for a fall. Self-publishing and niche publishing can be good options . . . but only if you have the raw data (personally at hand) to back up your statements, theories, and opinions.

I mean, certainly you'd want to use previous research if it's valid, and cite secondary sources (that's how it works) . . . but you have to double check your material. And if you don't have any true primary sources to check your facts against . . . then you can get into serious trouble.

I'm not of the mindset that . . . just because something may be "out there" (i.e., available) . . . it's any good. Any book that's rife with factual errors is garbage . . . no matter how big a fan or collector you are.

Name-checking insiders and other researchers is never enough.

My copy of the Badman book includes the Social Security numbers.

M.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Yeah that I know.  The space on the contracts where you're supposed to write them has been whited out in my copy.

Congratulations, sir - you are the very first person I've come across with one of the 'amended' copies ! I would suspect that yours is far, far rarer than any copy with the SS numbers included.

The copies with the whited-out SS numbers and marked "first edition" are the only ones I've seen in the stores for about the last two years.

I'll grant that two bookstores in northern Delaware may not be a representative sampling, but I've never seen a 'whited' copy there.

[Steve Mayo]

got mine from amazon last fall and it has no SS numbers listed....

[LostArt]

I got mine for Christmas and it includes the SS numbers.  I think it was purchased through Amazon.

[Wilsonista]

The new sitcom "Knights of Prosperity" (where Joe Blows try and rob celebrities) would have a field day with the Badman fiasco, if it was known outside of BB fandom that is.

[hart325]

I have an SSN whited out copy that was published in 2004.

My biggest problem with this book are the little things.  It's really annoying how almost all the names of the college towns where the band played are wrong.  Michigan State is in East Lansing and there is no such town called Notre Dame, Indiana and those are the two I can think of off the top of my head.  I know he isn't from the U.S but you would think someone down the line would have caught stuff like that.  Also one thing that bothers me is there is no real index, this book is a good reference but I wanted to look up something I thought I had read in it the other day and I had to search all through the thing.

So aside from those a little annoying errors overall it is a pretty cool book.  Nothing else like it exists in the BB catalog of books and it was an easy read and a good reference material, also there are good pictures. Thus, I would recommend it.

[Lady]

A fantastic book!

If you want to know what the BB were up to at any given point in time, you can just open this book and you’ll know.  Aside from the relatively few inaccuracies that are consistently pointed out, I think this book should more aptly be called an encyclopedia for all the correct information it does in fact contain.

This book lays the foundation of information for BB super fans to build upon.  One of the BB books you definitely must own.

[Ian]

Without getting into a whole conversation-let me just say this...three years ago I bought the book and thought it was fantastic. Being a historian, I began checking old papers just for fun-I soon discovered to my chagrin that the book was literally riddled with inaccurate data-from wrong dates of shows, to wrong venues, to shows listed as 1966 that were 1965, etc....I became friends with AGD-an esteemed poster at all the BB boards and together we created a section at his website called tours/sessions (http://www.btinternet.com/~bellagio/gigs.html)...For each year-compare the dates to Badman's book and you'll see all the problems....for every change and I do mean every change-I possess either the original concert ad or a review. We also added hundreds of shows not listed by him.....So, it is a really nicely designed book with tons of cool stuff in it....but when it comes to dates and exact accuracy....not really.   I couldn't do what I did without his book as a starting point...but I am less and less impressed by his research methods everyday.

[Aegir]

I will never read this book just because of all the bad things I've heard on this site and others.

[mikeyj]

I will never read this book just because of all the bad things I've heard on this site and others.

I think it's worth having... firstly it has some excellent photos and AFM sheets... but most importantly, I think it's really valuable for those people who don't have every article on the band, every concert review, every album review etc.. that's what I like about the book. It goes through and has quotes and reviews that I don't own elsewhere. I mean honestly, if I read a really cool quote from Carl and Badman says the interview was done in 1974 yet it was really done in 1973, while that is annoying I don't think it matters THAT much... I mean I still got enjoyment out of reading the quote.

I'm not downplaying Ian's research because I (and probably just about everyone who is crazy enough to post on a message board like this) really do appreciate his and AGD's work, and of course C-man's research and just anyone who can uncover what really happened is doing us all a service. But my point is, I just think this book gets a bit of unfair scrutiny.. yes, criticize it for having so many incorrect dates and missed shows etc.. BUT at the same time isn't the most important thing the content? I mean I hear people say "I don't care that Heroes And Villains has so many errors, I like reading it"... well shouldn't it be the same for this book? It is still an enjoyable read, but you just have to keep in mind that there are mistakes (just like EVERY book)

[Ian]

I one hundred percent agree with you-it is worth buying for the content...tons of great info from NME, Disc & music Echo, etc-which would cost quite a bit to collect on your own (and I should know because I have....)-so ignore the date errors and buy it...the most lavish and full Beach Boy book that is likely to be published in the forseeable future...Honestly...it bothers me that they weren't in Fort Wayne when he says that they were...but I don't think many non-fanatics are losing sleep over the errors...

[Andrew G. Doe]

I will never read this book just because of all the bad things I've heard on this site and others.

I think it's worth having... firstly it has some excellent photos and AFM sheets... but most importantly, I think it's really valuable for those people who don't have every article on the band, every concert review, every album review etc.. that's what I like about the book. It goes through and has quotes and reviews that I don't own elsewhere. I mean honestly, if I read a really cool quote from Carl and Badman says the interview was done in 1974 yet it was really done in 1973, while that is annoying I don't think it matters THAT much... I mean I still got enjoyment out of reading the quote.

I'm not downplaying Ian's research because I (and probably just about everyone who is crazy enough to post on a message board like this) really do appreciate his and AGD's work, and of course C-man's research and just anyone who can uncover what really happened is doing us all a service. But my point is, I just think this book gets a bit of unfair scrutiny.. yes, criticize it for having so many incorrect dates and missed shows etc.. BUT at the same time isn't the most important thing the content? I mean I hear people say "I don't care that Heroes And Villains has so many errors, I like reading it"... well shouldn't it be the same for this book? It is still an enjoyable read, but you just have to keep in mind that there are mistakes (just like EVERY book)

My problems with the book are...

1 - the inaccuracies and misreadings of AFM sheets...

2 - the uncredited use of other authors work and research: at a rough estimate about 30% of the text is not Badman's...

3 - the printing of the SS numbers of living persons.

[Paulos]

I got this book last week off ebay for the very reasonable price of £7.50 and I am enjoying reading it in spite off all the errors. What bothers me isn't just the factual errors but the printing errors, eg titles that should be in bold or italic suddenly change to normal text etc, does no-one employ proof readers anymore?

[Paulos]

I have now finished this book and must say that it is a great example of a good idea poorly executed. The errors just become incredibly irritating after a while (I wasn't very far into the book when I made my first post) and the contradictions that occur, sometimes on the same page, are just unacceptable.

Another thing I cannot understand is why all the years up to and including 1976 are very detailed and then he just kind of gives in from 1977 onwards and gives brief overviews, some of which are terrible. I mean for the 1998 entry he doesn't even mention Endless Harmony! I feel like their are a lot of people on this board and the SDV2 board who could have done a far, far better job than Badman.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Another thing I cannot understand is why all the years up to and including 1976 are very detailed and then he just kind of gives in from 1977 onwards and gives brief overviews, some of which are terrible. I mean for the 1998 entry he doesn't even mention Endless Harmony! I feel like their are a lot of people on this board and the SDV2 board who could have done a far, far better job than Badman.

What Badman & his researchers actually did post-1976 was to pull info from my timeline and reprint it almost verbatim, mostly.

And yes, my 1998 page does mention Endless Harmony. 

[Paulos]

Sue them Andrew! I do wish you and John had done this book instead of Badman as then it would be a vital reference for any BB/BW fan, instead it's merely nice to have.