Brian in Documentary about Mellotron

[Daniel S.]

Here is the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCabuis6t2w

anyone seen this yet? It's playing at a theater near where I live on Saturday. I'm going to check it out. In the trailer Brian plays California Girls with a Mellotron. Does anyone know if a Mellotron was used on California Girls? Was that not an organ?

[Don't Back Down]

Looks like a cool documentary. I always thought there was an "odd"/"mystical" sound in the backing track to California Girls in the left channel during the chorus. It sounds similar to strings, but not real strings. So maybe a Mellotron is on the record? I'm sure our experts here can shine light on the subject. 

[Chris Brown]

Sounds really cool, you're lucky to have a chance to see it!  I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is a Mellotron on "California Girls," the instrumentation in the chorus is so dense that it would be easy to miss/mistake for an organ.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Here is the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCabuis6t2w

anyone seen this yet? It's playing at a theater near where I live on Saturday. I'm going to check it out. In the trailer Brian plays California Girls with a Mellotron. Does anyone know if a Mellotron was used on California Girls? Was that not an organ?

Very misleading piece of film. The BB never used a Mellotron on any of their recordings, and I'm not convinced that any of the Chamberlin stuff they recorded was ever released. As the intro shows, a Mellotron was just a transplanted Chamberlin anyway, so why use one when the other is, literally, in your back yard ? The inference that Brian used a Mellotron on "CG" is on a par with the appalling editing that makes Macca attend the first night of Smile

[harveyw]

As has been mentioned before, there's a Chamberlin on Country Air. But yes, that's a very misleading clip. Looks like a great film though.

[Sam_BFC]

McCartney did attend one of the SMiLE shows though right?

[Andrew G. Doe]

McCartney did attend one of the SMiLE shows though right?

Yes. The fourth night.

[Val]

..along with Sir George Martin.

We were sitting a few stalls in front of them in the RFH.

What a night...

[PongHit]

I don't think the 'creative' editing in the doc really bothers me.

[mikeyj]

I don't think the 'creative' editing in the doc really bothers me.

Agreed. I really don't care - the fact is that Paul went to one of the shows. The only thing that would have annoyed me is if Paul hadn't even attended any of the shows and they still showed him in the crowd.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I don't think the 'creative' editing in the doc really bothers me.

Suppose a BB documentary was edited to imply that Mike Love was largely responsible for "Good Vibrations": would that bother you ?

Leaf was revising history for no better reason than cheap dramatic impact. I thought better of him than that... although, I freely grant, compared with the disproportionate amount of screen time afforded the vile smugness that was Loren Darro, it was no big thing

[mikeyj]

I don't think the 'creative' editing in the doc really bothers me.

Suppose a BB documentary was edited to imply that Mike Love was largely responsible for "Good Vibrations": would that bother you ?

Well that's a little different - I mean a better example would be to say "imagine a documentary that implied Good Vibrations was recorded on a different day" (note: I know that GV was recorded over many sessions but I'm just giving an example!) or something like that. And it would be the same - while I'd RATHER it be accurate I realise that it's not all that important in the big scheme of things. I still enjoy the SMiLE Live DVD. In my opinion it's just not worth worrying about.

[Mr. Cohen]

The 'mystical' sound: that is the magical reverb and echo of the L.A. Studios.

[James Hughes-Clarke]

..along with Sir George Martin.

We were sitting a few stalls in front of them in the RFH.

What a night...

Me too.  Hope we didn't spoil their view!   

[JaredLekites]

I don't think the 'creative' editing in the doc really bothers me.

Suppose a BB documentary was edited to imply that Mike Love was largely responsible for "Good Vibrations": would that bother you ?

Leaf was revising history for no better reason than cheap dramatic impact. I thought better of him than that... although, I freely grant, compared with the disproportionate amount of screen time afforded the vile smugness that was Loren Darro, it was no big thing

I think it was more convenient for the film's sake. It would be silly to show the footage of Paul chronologically. It would kill the impact of the climax (Brian and the band completing "Good Vibrations"). Imagine going from that to 3 days later backstage with Paul McCartney. Not the best edit in the world.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I don't think the 'creative' editing in the doc really bothers me.

Suppose a BB documentary was edited to imply that Mike Love was largely responsible for "Good Vibrations": would that bother you ?

Leaf was revising history for no better reason than cheap dramatic impact. I thought better of him than that... although, I freely grant, compared with the disproportionate amount of screen time afforded the vile smugness that was Loren Darro, it was no big thing

I think it was more convenient for the film's sake. It would be silly to show the footage of Paul chronologically. It would kill the impact of the climax (Brian and the band completing "Good Vibrations"). Imagine going from that to 3 days later backstage with Paul McCartney. Not the best edit in the world.

So... honesty has no place then ? And you condone that ?

[JaredLekites]

I don't think the 'creative' editing in the doc really bothers me.

Suppose a BB documentary was edited to imply that Mike Love was largely responsible for "Good Vibrations": would that bother you ?

Leaf was revising history for no better reason than cheap dramatic impact. I thought better of him than that... although, I freely grant, compared with the disproportionate amount of screen time afforded the vile smugness that was Loren Darro, it was no big thing

I think it was more convenient for the film's sake. It would be silly to show the footage of Paul chronologically. It would kill the impact of the climax (Brian and the band completing "Good Vibrations"). Imagine going from that to 3 days later backstage with Paul McCartney. Not the best edit in the world.

So... honesty has no place then ? And you condone that ?

With all due respect, that's just putting words in my mouth Andrew. I simply meant that David probably wanted the film to end with the standing ovation and, editorially speaking, it was much easier to put the footage of Paul before that. Lots of documentary film makers create little "cheats" to further develop the story they want to tell. I don't see it as being dishonest; it was a creative decision. 

You and a whole lot of other people know that Paul and Sir George were there on the 4th night. A little tidbit like that should ruin the entire film for you.

[Wirestone]

For better or worse, Leaf chose the drama of the moment and the shape of the film over chronological accuracy. Documentary filmmakers often smudge ethical boundaries (http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/resources/publications/honest_truths_documentary_filmmakers_on_ethical_challenges_in_their_work/), and it's accepted in the field as a kind of necessary evil.

As a print journalist, I find this dubious. But Leaf's movie was ultimately marketed as musical entertainment, not investigative journalism.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I don't see it as being dishonest; it was a creative decision.  .

So, if I made a 'creative decision' in the next update of the ComGuide (if there is one) to credit all the Wilson/Love songs to just Love, that's acceptable in your view ?

You know me, you know my thing is to see history of The Beach Boys is documented as accurately as possible. That's why I've railed against Mike's mostly unfair credits as awarded in the 1994 lawsuit, just as, when someone slams Mike for the 'nuclear bomb' diss of "H&V" in 1967, I point out that it was Brian's idea and he was directing the cuz.

However, if accuracy, honesty and the correction of errors no longer has a place in the history of The Beach Boys, then fine. Just so long as I know.

[metal flake paint]

I don't see it as being dishonest; it was a creative decision.  .

So, if I made a 'creative decision' in the next update of the ComGuide (if there is one) to credit all the Wilson/Love songs to just Love, that's acceptable in your view ?

You know me, you know my thing is to see history of The Beach Boys is documented as accurately as possible. That's why I've railed against Mike's mostly unfair credits as awarded in the 1994 lawsuit, just as, when someone slams Mike for the 'nuclear bomb' diss of "H&V" in 1967, I point out that it was Brian's idea and he was directing the cuz.

However, if accuracy, honesty and the correction of errors no longer has a place in the history of The Beach Boys, then fine. Just so long as I know.

I just wanted to say thanks Andrew for continually seeking the truth about The Beach Boys.

Could you please elaborate as to why you railed against the mostly unfair credits awarded to Mike?

[Andrew G. Doe]

I don't see it as being dishonest; it was a creative decision.  .

So, if I made a 'creative decision' in the next update of the ComGuide (if there is one) to credit all the Wilson/Love songs to just Love, that's acceptable in your view ?

You know me, you know my thing is to see history of The Beach Boys is documented as accurately as possible. That's why I've railed against Mike's mostly unfair credits as awarded in the 1994 lawsuit, just as, when someone slams Mike for the 'nuclear bomb' diss of "H&V" in 1967, I point out that it was Brian's idea and he was directing the cuz.

However, if accuracy, honesty and the correction of errors no longer has a place in the history of The Beach Boys, then fine. Just so long as I know.

I just wanted to say thanks Andrew for continually seeking the truth about The Beach Boys.

Could you please elaborate as to why you railed against the mostly unfair credits awarded to Mike?

Sure - because while some are probably justified, it just strikes me as odd that, after saying almost nothing for thirty-odd years, Mike suddenly has a brain spasm and recalls he co-wrote 79 songs with Brian (that's right, I said 79, because that's the number Mike stated in an interview from June 1993 printed in Mojo in 1995, thus: "MIKE LOVE: Listen, I didn't really want to sue Brian at all because I knew he was sick and I've been very understanding because of that. The facts are that I wrote words to 79 songs for which I didn't receive a credit let alone royalties."). That the number was reduced to 35 for the court case is something I find instructive, as is the fact that the vast majority of those songs was either a Top 40 hit or what we recognise as a classic and thus a compilation staple. I'm by nature a cynical so-and-so, but that was just astonishing.

[Andrew G. Doe]

You know me, you know my thing is to see history of The Beach Boys is documented as accurately as possible.

That comes across as very pompous, as if it's a one-man crusade. Of course it's not, and many of my fellow travellers hang out here - you know who they are. Good people one and all.

[metal flake paint]

I don't see it as being dishonest; it was a creative decision.  .

So, if I made a 'creative decision' in the next update of the ComGuide (if there is one) to credit all the Wilson/Love songs to just Love, that's acceptable in your view ?

You know me, you know my thing is to see history of The Beach Boys is documented as accurately as possible. That's why I've railed against Mike's mostly unfair credits as awarded in the 1994 lawsuit, just as, when someone slams Mike for the 'nuclear bomb' diss of "H&V" in 1967, I point out that it was Brian's idea and he was directing the cuz.

However, if accuracy, honesty and the correction of errors no longer has a place in the history of The Beach Boys, then fine. Just so long as I know.

I just wanted to say thanks Andrew for continually seeking the truth about The Beach Boys.

Could you please elaborate as to why you railed against the mostly unfair credits awarded to Mike?

Sure - because while some are probably justified, it just strikes me as odd that, after saying almost nothing for thirty-odd years, Mike suddenly has a brain spasm and recalls he co-wrote 79 songs with Brian (that's right, I said 79, because that's the number Mike stated in an interview from June 1993 printed in Mojo in 1995, thus: "MIKE LOVE: Listen, I didn't really want to sue Brian at all because I knew he was sick and I've been very understanding because of that. The facts are that I wrote words to 79 songs for which I didn't receive a credit let alone royalties."). That the number was reduced to 35 for the court case is something I find instructive, as is the fact that the vast majority of those songs was either a Top 40 hit or what we recognise as a classic and thus a compilation staple. I'm by nature a cynical so-and-so, but that was just astonishing.

Thanks Andrew.

[Steve Mayo]

i always found it odd mike had his "brain spasm" right after brian got the $10,000,000. i found that timing very odd indeed.

[JaredLekites]

I don't see it as being dishonest; it was a creative decision.  .

So, if I made a 'creative decision' in the next update of the ComGuide (if there is one) to credit all the Wilson/Love songs to just Love, that's acceptable in your view ?

You know me, you know my thing is to see history of The Beach Boys is documented as accurately as possible. That's why I've railed against Mike's mostly unfair credits as awarded in the 1994 lawsuit, just as, when someone slams Mike for the 'nuclear bomb' diss of "H&V" in 1967, I point out that it was Brian's idea and he was directing the cuz.

However, if accuracy, honesty and the correction of errors no longer has a place in the history of The Beach Boys, then fine. Just so long as I know.

I can definitely see where you are coming from, Andrew. However, I find the analogy you used just a bit to the extreme. Again, I say that with all due respect for all the work you have done regarding the Beach Boys history of past and present.

I'll shut up now.