The Smiley Smile Message Board

Okay, it's pretty well known that Still Crusin' and SIP are pretty weak albums. Well, weak is an understatement, they're awful. However, as an avid Beach Boys fan I always have wished for those two albums to be in my digital collection. What are the odds that Capitol will digitally release these albums?  They could release those two albums and do an official release of Adult/Child. They could handle it like they did for SMiLE and maybe call it "The Adult/Child Sessions". Anyway, I just feel there is a lot of music that deserve to be made avaliable for us BB fans, to listen to digitally.

I would not call Still Cruisin' awful by any stretch of the imagination. Of the new material 3 are gems and 3 are ok. Even the dreaded SIP has some fairly good stuff scattered throughout, a twofer release of the 2 albums with remastered sound (something Still Crusin' desperately needs) would be great.

Capitol did digitally release Still Cruisin'. Summer in Paradise would have to be licensed to them and I don't think that's ever going to happen.

Why would Capitol want to waste their time and resources with such dreadful, inferior material that those two duds have to offer? "Who's gonna listen to that sh*t?"  ::) I believe Capitol wants to SELL product, not store it in a warehouse.

Still Cruisin' is a nice album. I like all the new songs except maybe for In My Car. Kokomo and Somewhere Near Japan are two of their strongest post-Love You songs.

Still Cruisin' CD can be bought cheaply on ebay.  SIP can be picked up now and again for a good price.  I would love to have that one on vinyl!

It was released on vinyl in South Korea.

Maybe once the copyright faces expiration in 2043.  ;D

Prepare for the six-disc Summer in Paradise sessions. The first four discs will consist of the band and Melcher trying to figure out how the beta version of Pro-Tools works.

 :lol

Summer in Paradise is the only BB album I don't have on vinyl, so I'd love to see it rereleased on vinyl, preferably using the UK version, rather than the original US version, but I'll happily take either version on vinyl. And yeah, it does have some very good songs on it, in addition to some absolute clunkers, the worst being the remake of Surfin' and the highly embarrassing Summer of Love.

Anybody know the story of how many labels declined to release Summer in Paradise before it was decided to release it in the US under the Brother Entertainment label, distributed by Navarre, although it was released by EMI in the UK? And who made the wise decision to shorten some of the tracks on the UK version, as well as substitute the superior AC Mix of Forever, as well as an alternate version of Under the Boardwalk? Was that EMI, or did someone at BRI make that decision?  Also of interest is the fact that the UK version was released 9 months after the US version.

Yip, and it's extremely rare and expensive hence the reason I'd prefer a vinyl re-issue rather than cd to complete my vinyl collection.  The artwork was also cool and would look great as a gatefold vinyl cover, with bigger poster included!  I have both cd versions.

Was South Korea simply a market which catered to obsolete legacy formats, where people were still purchasing vinyl in a non-hipster way at that time, because technology was simply behind the times?

I just wonder if South Korea happen to be a place where other obscure albums were uniquely sold on vinyl at the time, or if it was somehow a unique circumstance for this particular album.

gotta say SNJ is a fav of the late catalogue and I was disappointed that it hasn't made it to a major comp set.   I think it's up there with anything from the late 70's on: lyrics, vocals, music........And yes I am aware of the John Phillips/drug connection.     I gotta think those lyrics resonated with the band members themselves......I think that shows thru in the delivery of the song.     give me chills.........

I think that Still Cruisin`, like the rest of the group`s catalogue, deserves to be released with bonus tracks at some point (but I`m not holding my breath). It could be quite an interesting colection if they were able to include the likes of:

Kokomo (Spanish version)
Make it Big (Movie mix)
Somewhere Near Japan (Single edit)
Rock and Roll to the Rescue
Lady Liberty
Happy Endings
Livin` Doll etc.

Alternatively, I`ve said before that if they were looking to release an alternative to the Best of comps then a Beach Boys at the Movies CD could contain enough hits to appeal to the general fans and enough obscurities to suck in the hardcore.

 Yes, I'd like to fix STILL CRUISIN' by dropping the three oldies and adding some things along these lines, including "California Dreamin" and "The Spirit of Rock & Roll". It wouldn't be a bad album.

Don't forget "Problem Child"!  "Nyah nyeh na-nyah nyah!"

I legitimately like Somewhere Near Japan, Make It Big, Still Surfin' and Lahaina Aloha. And I wouldn't say Slow Summer Dancin', Strange Things Happen, Summer In Paradise, Forever, Still Crusin', Island Girl, In My Car or Kokomo are terrible.

Wipe Out is a guilty pleasure of mine too.

They are NOT awful...

I have them both in digital format...in fact I have both the US & UK versions of SIP in digital format.

I always thought the label was doing a disservice to the newer songs by including three classic tracks from the 60s.  I think that's why Still Cruisin has a bad reputation.  If they had included more tracks from that era, you'd essentially have had a late 80s version of 20/20.  

Mike made a few interesting comments about "Still Cruisin'" in his infamous 1992 Goldmine interview:


But the problem with a major is that just as recently as the Still Cruisin' album, the same week that we went to radio with a song called "Somewhere Near Japan," which was getting really good airplay, Capitol Records went to CHR radio stations with eight singles. That was just one label in the same week. They'd also just done a deal with Duran Duran. They had paid a lot of money for Duran Duran, whereas we did an album of half new and half older songs. The theme of that album was to have been songs that have been in movies. It was basically a repackage.

But then in got watered down with politics, meaning Brian's Dr. Landy forcing a song called "In My Car," which was never in a movie, and a song by Jardine, which ultimately ended up on the album, called "Island Girl," which was never in a movie either. So to me the concept was a little bit diluted there politically.

So what happened in this instance was I was not happy that the album was half repackage and half politics. What happens when you do things politically just to accommodate the fact that if you're in a group and you divide it by five members, and you got two songs each, it may be a nice thing to do but everybody has their own point of view that isn't taken into consideration objectively.

On the one hand, he agrees with many fans that the album was diluted a bit. But he feels it was diluted by the "non movie" songs, like Brian's and Al's songs. But then, at the same time, he seems to trumpet "Somewhere Near Japan" a bit, even though it was also one of the "non movie" songs (perhaps not coincidentally, one *he* co-wrote).

He doesn't seem to include himself in any of the criticism, but it is interesting that he did note that the album came across as sort of half-baked and a bit schizophrenic. It was indeed about "half repackage" and "half politics." It just sounds like he may have been more into a firm decision to go with "repackage", essentially a "Beach Boys Greatest Movie Songs", more than "politics" even if the "politics" at least resulted in more *new* music.

As for "Summer in Paradise", I would imagine BRI could quietly stick that thing on iTunes (etc.). Some pretty low-key, indie stuff ends up on iTunes these days ("Santa's Goin' to Kokomo"). They would probably sell several hundred digital copies of the album at least, with zero overhead. Free money. Uncle Jessie is on it too. Kind of surprised they haven't done that.

The UK version isn't particular better than the US. "Strange Things Happen" was chopped down quite a bit on the UK version. True, the end does just ramble on and on like it needs a shorter fade-out. But if the "UK version" were released, we'd be missing little things like that.

Ideally, some label would just license the rights to "Still Cruisin'" and "Summer in Paradise" and put the thing out on CD, with the UK "alternate" tracks. Again, free money. They wouldn't even have to do a bunch of sonic magic on it. "SIP" sounds like crapola due to the way it was recorded, extremely harsh, tinny, early digital (the '85 album sounds like a warm analog meadow in comparison).

Yes, South Korea had a lot of exclusive vinyl releases in the 1990s because it still sold there.  I have a couple of South Korean releases because that is the only market in which some albums were released on vinyl.

Regarding Adult/Child, I could see that being a part of a Love You Deluxe Edition album, along with several other songs of the period (Sherry She Needs Me, You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin', Lazy Lizzie  >:D, etc) and better sounding Love You demos.

Thing is, hit or flop, popular or not popular, I can't imagine Capitol reissuing Still Cruisin', simply because it's half-compilation. Also, I'm wondering if there might be some licensing issues with, say, "Wipe Out."

What would be better would be to release something else that includes the new Beach Boys songs (for 1989, that is), "Rock and Roll To The Rescue," "Chasin' The Sky" (assuming they can get clearance for that one), "Crocodile Rock" (ditto), "Howdy From Maui," etc. And I would argue to KEEP "Wouldn't It Be Nice" because it's a version you can't get anywhere else.

Capitol already did reissue Still Cruisin' as a download. The version of Wouldn't It Be Nice is also the same one on Made in USA.

While any sort of physical release of anything is less likely these days, I could think of many items that are more far-fetched than a "Still Cruisin'" reissue. I'm not saying it would happen (especially at this late stage), but whatever its composition, it was a relative "hit" album (didn't it go gold?), and has the band's best-known post-60's hit (which is probably why it sold so well in the first place).

Capitol/Universal has shown no interest in "cleaning up" the band's back catalog and ridding it of the other myriad of cheapo compilations, so I can't see them not doing this one *because* it's kind of a compilation. If anything, it might not be *enough* of a hits compilation to warrant release.

As someone else mentioned, they put it out out (though almost surely not a new remaster) on iTunes ages ago. They've essentially just never bothered to keep it in print on CD.

They could obviously get far more creative and fan-friendly with reissuing it, dropping the oldies and adding some rare non-album songs, pairing it with SIP, etc.

What is different about that version of WIBN? Agree with the rest of your statement.

Different lead vocal from Brian.

Wasn't this presumably due to a mistake in pulling the wrong master? As in, this was probably not an intentional creative choice?

I think it was a case where the original master was lost for a time. Apparently a safety copy was found in New York.

Okay, they are not awful. I have to admit I LOVE the song "Somewhere Near Japan" and… Okay… I'll say it… "Summer In Paradise"…
Anyway, doesn't Capitol have the rights to SIP? They released a live version on MIC.
I don't see why they don't put those albums on iTunes and the various streaming services.

Brother owns the rights to the album.

I guess that explains why Summer in Paradise was the only Beach Boys album cover that wasn't in the program for the 50th Anniversary Tour. 

I would tend to doubt it, but I’m curious if there’s any chance that Brian has essentially asked or dictated that the SIP album be sort of “decommissioned.” It would seem to be unlikely to be a coincidence that it was left out of recent album collages and whatnot, although that could just be the art director folks (or whoever puts the stuff together) recognizing on their own that SIP is sort of an anomaly in the BB catalog.

While Brian did appear in a few things in that timeframe (the Baywatch episode at least), my recollection is that Brian still has *never* commented on the album or any of its songs.   

I do not buy the idea that Brian never listened to POB (despite him claiming such, likely out of not wanting to deal with an emotionally rough spot)... but if there is a BB album I can believe he's never sat and listened to all the tracks, it would be SIP.

I wonder if any unreleased SIP outtakes exist?

I remember reading on one of Brian's recent Q&A's that his favorite song off of POB was You and I

He mentioned You and I as his favorite song on the Reddit Q&A from late March/early April:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20145.25.html

I guess he wasn't against new music then, he just didn't think it should be mixed in on that repackage album.
It does show the band was democratic in these matters and Mike wasn't in control of the album or the band.

Spotify had Still Cruisin' for about a month back in 2013, then it disappeared and has been gone since.  I've got a cassette of this album (it was actually my first BB album), so I'm dying for a digital release.

Okay then. However, why was he against Brian and Al getting their non-movie songs on the album ("In My Car" and "Island Girl" respectively), but just fine with touting his co-written non-movie song? Sounds like non-movie songs were just fine for Still Cruisin' as long as one of the writers listed was one "M. Love."

Capitol probably insisted as it was the current single.

Because Brian and Al got to?

Also it was a Bruce song, for "politics".

That is truly odd. I wonder why that happened (both the album going on Spotify, and it leaving just as quickly). Does anyone know if it sounded just like a digital CD rip of the album, or if it sounded in any way remastered?

But how come he didn't mention that his song was guilty of the same things as theirs? Why did "In My Car" and "Island Girl" feel the wrath of Dr. Love, but "Somewhere Near Japan" was alright?

That little Mike interview blurb is more than anything else simply interesting because it gives insight into the politics involved in putting that album together. Beyond that, I don't see a need to "explain" or "defend" the fact that what he says is *clearly* inconsistent. Nothing more, nothing less. No big deal. But instead of trying to "reason out" or parse what he says into somehow making sense, how about just acknowledging that his comments lack internal consistency in terms of logic?

He touts one song, and then moves on to attacking the politics involved in allowing "non-movie" songs onto the album, likely simply forgetting that he had just moments earlier touted another "non-movie" song. Yes, one can make *both* points, but one will also have ZERO credibility in making them. An alcoholic can also tell someone else they're drinking too much, and it can be good information they're imparting. It doesn't mean we can't point out the irony and inconsistency.

As with many people in life, it's about using a piece of information out of convenience as evidence for or against something else. Don't like that politics bogged down your "vision" for another album compilation? Then of course it will be Brian and Al's songs being cited. Don't like that Capitol didn't support the album properly? Then use a song *you* co-wrote and inply it *would have* been a hit, even if you're ignoring that that song was only on the album because of the politics you decried in the same interview.

Again, just admit his comment is inconsistent rather than trying to explain away everything with laughable parsed interpretations. The interview doesn't need defending. The silly defense only makes Mike look more guilty than he is (like I said, this interview is no big deal, far from inflammatory), and makes his defenders look more desperate and myopic.

There is *no other group* of obvious "defenders" of any person or faction of this group that go to this length to never admit "their guy" is wrong (and lumping him in with the entire group and saying "they were all to blame" about something doesn't count). Even hardcore Brian apologists will usually admit when some Brian interview doesn't make a lick of sense, or when Al says one of those random "Wtf?" things in an interview. Fans who think Dennis was the "coolest" BB will admit to his mistakes. But with Mike, the defenses eventually just start sounding like Jeremy the Boob from Yellow Submarine.

Whatever "digital" versions are or have been out there, I would highly doubt they're anything other than taken from the CD master.

If that's true, then it also implies Mike *really doesn't like* democracy within the band.........

As I've pointed out before, I honestly think that there are people who have almost made some kind of pact (maybe literally, though probably not actually) that since Mike has unfairly been publicly judged for a number of things he is not necessarily guilty of, and because he is not respected for lots of great things he has brought to the table, that it is somehow necessary to never admit things that are actually very hypocritical or just outright poor behavior/treatment of others, are in fact such. That some "big picture" goals of Mike gaining more respect for what he deserves respect for history's sake for will somehow be compromised. I cannot conceive of any other motivation other than actual secret payroll status.

I can't really explain the thinking behind the interview since Somewhere Near Japan was more Bruce than Michael anyway. Or maybe Michael just didn't like In My Car and Island Girl. In My Car would have been a GREAT Brian single but on Still Cruisin' it sticks out, even with the added Carl and Al vocals.

I think In My Car is RAD and underrated... it's got a bunch of those Brian-esque chord changes, where it doesn't do what you think it will do next, yet what it does do works way better than you could have expected. I also don't mind the production; I like it better than most of the 80s production style on BW88. I never have understood the In My Car haters. The home video of Brian playing the song on a keyboard at his (?) home during the Landy era also shows off the very Brian melodies which might be obscured by the eventual studio version's production.

It's the last great Beach Boys car song, though the song Still Crusin' IMO is somewhat ok.

I think it would have been better on a Brian album as opposed to Still Cruisin'. That's not a knock on the song; it just sticks WAY out on Still Cruisin'. The song Still Cruisin' is basically Getcha Back 2.0, so I have a soft spot for it.

I don't think it sounded any better or worse (or different, for that matter) than the cassette version from my childhood.  I never had the CD.  I love Still Cruisin' because it was given to me as a birthday present one year.  That same day I spent camped with some friends on the shores of a reservoir in Utah.  For three days it was us, a small cove, and Still Cruisin' blasting from my Walkman's portable speakers.  Ah, those days.  I'd love to know why Spotify yanked it.

"In My Car" is interesting in that it gives a glimpse of what it would have sounded like had Carl and Al sang on Brian's '88 solo album I guess.

Totally. Carl and Al elevated the song, that's for sure.

I also love Make it Big. I don't care how cheesy it is. Carl sells it, and he truly makes me believe I can make it big if I want to. Could that song be considered the most overtly inspiring BB track? Where it directly is trying to specifically inspire the listener?

Brian's "Believe in Yourself" comes to mind.

Good one, forgot about it.

“But how come he didn't mention that his song was guilty of the same things as theirs? Why did "In My Car" and "Island Girl" feel the wrath of Dr. Love, but "Somewhere Near Japan" was alright?”

“I was not happy” is wrath? No.  Explaining how a themed repackage broke its theme and came to be a mixed album, which is what he is explaining.

“If that's true, then it also implies Mike *really doesn't like* democracy within the band.........”

Not at all. I love democracy but don’t always like the politics or what the politics determines I will go along with because I support democracy.  

That doesn't answer the first sentence in sweetdudejim's question.

It does.

Cam, let's go ahead and make a long list of times that Mike has said something self-deprecating in an interview, without deflecting onto others, and I'll go ahead and turn on the TV, because there's a special on CNN where Kirk Cameron will be announcing he's embracing atheism.   ::)

Be my guest.

Here's my list:
_______
_______
_______

where's yours?

It doesn't have anything to do with the quote so I won't be making one.

CP I'm getting to the end of participating in these deals with you, the answers I give are never the ones you want or something and you keep getting sort of insulting. Sorry. I can have my opinion and you can have yours.

In My Car sounded much better when Brian sang it on the Endless Summer tv series. The album version just has the drum way to freaking loud!

edit: (I must stop polluting the board with conjecture.)

That'll be me then.  ;D. Never ceases to amaze (and amuse) me that otherwise sensible posters can unexpectedly spout fluent bollocks.  :lol

I guess all of the checks are still in the mail. Thanks Mike and Obama, right?  ::)

So this morning I've been working on my new novel-manuscript about the history
of fast food in Thailand. I've been googling all sorts of names and phrases...and when I
googled "fluent bollocks" I was sent to this site.  Excellent!

No argument there. Such was the late 1980s. The songs from Brian's first album performed live at the time also sounded better in concert.

My payroll comment was admittedly facetious, but the "big picture" mindset I think is not far off from some people's way of thinking, even if it's possibly subconscious. Particularly those who won't a budge an inch from an extreme point of view, or who will only chime in regarding the defense of one particular individual. An opposition to that extremism in fact is the only real thing that keeps certain conversations going on this board. And AGD - Just because there admittedly ARE a hoard of people who very unfortunately say awful things on Youtube and Facebook comment sections and the like (which I honestly shake my head at when reading, too), doesn't mean that equally inaccurate, illogical, and frankly in some cases, laughable extremism isn't being spouted by a select few online on the other side of the BB "political" spectrum. Let's not deny that that in fact exists and is an actual occurrence. And that kind of extremist talk doesn't right any wrongs, so to speak.

YouTube comments, message boards, Facebook groups.... truly, shitweasels & fuckwits abound.  : :o

I remember a while back I criticized some f*ggots who compared Michael to Hitler. Imagine my surprise when it didn't go over well because, well, who in his right mind would compare a rock frontman to a murderous dictator (but that's another THREAD)? Those of us who are currently being pigeonholed into the "pro-Michael" camp (we're not necessarily pro-Michael and anti-everyone else, by the way) aren't trying to excuse everything the man does.

Some people, however, appear to be trying to do *just* that. Not pointing my finger at you, but do you really think such a mindset doesn't exist among a select few? The Hitler analogy is miles beyond despicable and repugnant, but I think reading comments like that has warped some people's sense of logic in the other direction. Do you discount that from being a possibility?  If one side is going to have extremists who are illogically (to say the least) making a nazi comparison, why is it so hard for some people to see that there is a flipside to that in the form of another line of extreme ill logic?

I don't see it as a mindset or even a secret Illuminati pact; it's just a few people who seem to have similar ideas. I don't think there is an active plot to discredit Brian for the benefit of Michael.

No argument - of course there are extreme factions on both sides of any given divide.

Mike's statement does make no sense unless either SNP was included at Capitol's insistence or it was due to be featured in a movie. The question I find myself asking is if Mike didn't want non soundtrack included songs featured, what would Still Crusin' have consisted of? There's the title track, Kokomo and Make it Big with 3 oldies - would the rest of the album been padded out with more old songs that had been featured in movies?

We'd have an album with Chasin' the Sky and It's a Beautiful Day most likely...and Capitol probably never would have bothered to try and license the former. Or, on the contrary, the album would be delayed until 1990 and PROBLEM CHILD would be added to it.  :o

Now THAT would have sucked.

I'm not sure where the idea for "an active plot to discredit Brian" came from; I certainly never implied such. My question to you: Are you of the opinion that extreme, off-the-chart/illogical, and at times absurd Mike defense never occurs by some people on this very messageboard? We know and both can agree that the opposite occurs to ridiculous extremes, but it's time to concede that this too is an actual "thing" that happens by some individuals as well.

I wouldn't argue that extreme Michael defense occurs. "Extreme" would mean people defending some of the allegations made against him in the Gaines book, like the alleged wife-beating (which I doubt very much ever happened).

This board discovers practically everyday that what we thought we knew about the Boys is wrong to some degree or other. Do we really think that isn't true for Mike as well?

I have in fact learned that many negative things I thought about Mike were inaccurate, exaggerated, or outright wrong, as a result of this board. I would like to think you would think this is a very good thing. That doesn't mean that this extreme defensive mindset also can't be taken too far as to have an unintentional, reverse effect as well.

I don't think that the small group of people who defend Mike's actions to the far corners of the Earth have any kind of intended desire to turn people off to Mike, and to cause those whose views towards him have been positively modified to feel the opposite, but in fact, the extreme defense angle absolutely has a (presumably unintentional) reverse effect on others at a certain point.

I guess I missed all of your accusing and complaining about and must-be-answered hypothetical "gotchas" of those in "extreme defense" of the other Boys.

If there's anyone on this board who is defending actions by the other Boys to anywhere near the degree to the degree that you defend actions by Mike, I'd sure like to know who they are. Name em. Because I surely haven't seen that. They probably exist on the blueboard, but I'll freely admit that that's one end of the extreme spectrum, which can go to as laughable extremes as you yourself do. In fact, people do deeply and brutally pick apart the personal actions of ALL the bandmates; if someone called out certain behaviors of Brian or Denny as being highly questionable and/or indefensible, I for one would happily admit that sh*tty behavior (such as parenting) is in fact sh*tty, and I'll call it such. I'll also add that they were often high as f*ck, abused as kids, AND in Brian's case took the additional step of publicly stating regret and embarrassment over past parenting actions. But conversely, Shawn still doesn't publicly exist. That makes THE difference in the eyes of many people. That's just the tip of the iceberg why Brian's actions don't get picked apart to the same degree as Mike's.

It's sort of like, we can agree that Mike got screwed over regarding song credits by Murry and Brian. So we agree on that, right? We can say that Mike developed a complex about that, which is tragic, and has likely effected him emotionally for years. Agreed, right? But when it comes to saying (even if we can empathize for the underlying reasons), "yeah... that behavior he's doing regularly... that seems pretty sh*tty", you just cannot bring yourself to admit such, whereas as evidenced above, I am (and most logical people on this board are) capable of stating such for Brian/Denny. So there goes your argument out the window.

You can, of course, either directly answer (or not answer/avoid/find ways around directly answering) any hypothetical posed to you; it's your right, it's a free country. But if one has a point in a conversation, I do not for the life of me know why answering a hypothetical raised by someone with an opposing viewpoint is suddenly "out of bounds" to be avoided. When people suddenly refuse to answer something on the bounds that it's irrelevant, it certainly implies there's something to hide, Swiss cheese holes in the defensive person's logic, so to speak.  

And again, since you didn't address what I said in my last post, I'll state again to you that the extreme defense angle absolutely has a reverse effect on others (even those with an open mind about Mike) at a certain point. I don't know what your thoughts would be on that, other than to yet again deflect blame onto those persons, instead of looking at your own argumentative tactics a bit. Just a bit.

Concerning "In My Car" (Wilson, Landy, Morgan), I consider ti a prime example of Brian Wilson turned into a musical zombie by Dr. Eugene E. Landy. But the number one example of zombie like crap during that period of BW's life is Landy's ill conceived idea for "Smart Girls". More than any other BW song during the Landy era, Smart Girls exemplifies the toxic effect Landy had on Brian Wilson's creative endeavors. "In My Car", while not nearly as cringeworthy as "Smart Girls", is yet another example of Eugene E. Landy spewing his own personal brand of garbage all over Brian Wilson's musical undertakings.

Totally 100% agreed about Smart Girls.

But what about IMC seems so specifically stinking of a Landy touch? If you hate the production or lyrics, I can understand that - but Landy had nothing to do with the awesome chord changes (especially in the choruses/bridge).

Also... since Mike spoke of the song being "forced" upon the band by Dr. Landy... I wonder if the lyric in In My Car "still crusin' after all these years" was there all along? Or if it was put into the song at a later point? I would think that, especially with that lyric specifically, the song would be in keeping with the title theme, even if it's a non-soundtrack tune.

CP, so you can't think of anyone else doing this so-called "extreme defense" for any other Boys? Fascinating.

And I don't have to answer your hypothetical questions but, if I don't, I must have "something to hide" with "Swiss cheese holes" in my "logic"? Super fascinating.

Have you ever considered just giving your opinion without all of the personalized insinuation or the hypothetical demands?

"Do you think your extreme defense angle absolutely has a reverse effect on others at a certain point? I don't know what your thoughts would be on that, other than to yet again deflect blame onto those persons, instead of looking at your own argumentative tactics a bit. Just a bit."

Back at ya.

Don't know who this "CP" is, but if you're referring to CenturyDeprived, and you're asking about the "extreme defense" thing, show us other members who do indeed do what you're saying?

I also have to question why some middle-aged guy who lives in Nowheresville, USA is so incredibly obsessed with standing up for Mike Love, someone he's likely never met, and likely has next to nothing in common with.

It's odd. Rather than getting upset at global warming or taxes or the death penalty or what-have-you, instead we have a one-man crusade to show how Al Jardine put "hatchets" in the back of Mike, Brian and Carl's family. And of course the crusade to show that Mike didn't put an end to C50, even though he's been the biggest complainer about it since it ended. Odd.

Cam - as evidenced by my ability to easily say that Brian has exhibited some undeniably sh*tty parenting behaviors, and I say that honestly...  how does that show me as having any kind of extreme defense angle? You have the inability to say something similar about Mike, except to say you don't like Wrinkles (thus avoiding dealing with any substantive topic). And it's remarkable that instead of addressing my italicized sentence, you found a way to avoid answering that question too.

Is it ridiculous, utterly crazy of me to think that when a hypothetical question I pose is avoided, that it means the recipient perhaps, just maybe knows there's some truth in what I'm getting at, but doesn't want to admit it? And is it possible for you to actually answer this question without your answer simply being another question?

Yes, CD, CenturyDeprived. My apologies.

It is CD's claim. He won't post a list until he can think of any.

IF any of that were true, you know what would be even odder: rather than getting upset at global warming or taxes or the death penalty or what-have-you that someone was so extremely obsessed with it, even to the point of feeling entitled to name calling and personal attack.

So have you taken anyone to task with all of the personal insinuation and hypothetical questions for their extreme defense in these cases ?

You are welcome to your opinion, I don't agree with your premise. That is my answer.

Weak sauce, Mr. Mott.

You probably will not answer this question too, but I will ask you one more thing. In the world, in all of humankind, beyond message boards and the interwebs, do you think there are people (not necessarily yourself) who have ever avoided answering a question, or answered a question with another question,  *for the primary reason* of avoiding dealing with what they know is the truth?

Beyond the bounds of this conversation, does that *ever* happen between humans?  

I have answered your questions like this all the time, but you're right I'm going to stop.

Its' you're right two do so if you feel its' necessary.

Interesting, he *claims* he answered all the questions, but still never had the stones to either admit that either the "Macarena" is four times better than "Kokomo" due to it selling four times the copies or that his equation that "sales equals quality" when it comes to what is labeled as "pop music."

Yeah, mainly the lyrics and the production as well.  I just see Landy driving (no pun intended) the creation IMC, with BW being involved because Landy told him to.  For me it comes across as a very unimaginative, uninspired composition and performance.  The energy level seems contrived and fake to me.

Despite all of the horrific behind the scenes going ons, I prefer Brian's stuff with Landy to what he's putting out these days with Otto Chune.

Weird. I respectfully must completely disagree. There are a good number of Brian solo tunes which I feel that way about to varying degrees, but IMC just kinda rules the school for me. I think there are some neat production touches on that specific recording which aren't found on most of Brian's other songs from that era, and the songwriting is top notch for Brian at the time, IMO - kind of like Being With the One You Love, another highly underrated song from its era. I also buy into IMC's energy and blast the song when driving sometimes. I just don't go out of my way to think about Landy or the circumstances surrounding its creation, and just rock out to the melodies. They are top notch Brian melodies too.

Due to production reasons, vocal reasons, or songwriting reasons?

Or maybe just an exciting preview of this summer's spectacular Landy arguments.

I wonder with the upcoming film, and Landy posthumously returning to the "spotlight", if any news outlet or publication will attempt to score an interview with Alexandra Morgan, Landy's son or assistants, or any of those folk. If any insiders like them will come out of the woodwork to defend Landy in some way, since he will surely get slaughtered. Will be interesting to see how that plays out...

All three really. I love Brian Wilson 88 and despite being inferior, find Sweet Insanity to be a natural progression to it. I really like In My Car too. I like the way the synths drove his songs back in that period.

I'm down with numerous elements of all of the aforementioned Brian eras, but they all have their strengths and weaknesses, to be sure. The 80s synths are rad though. Better driving synthy production on IMC when compared to BW88 or Sweet Insanity, IMO. Sweet Insanity while highly flawed, is still underrated IMO. After reading reviews, I expected an album that was unlistenable, and much of it is far from that. Then again, I will also defend MIU, and to a lesser degree, SIP, in that they both have their moments.

I think it would literally cause a conniption for certain people to admit any flaw in their premise. Or maybe this is equivelant to what would happen if a mother puts headphones (with an endless 9-month-long loop of "wheeeen") on her tummy on an infant in utero.  ;D

Alexandra Morgan has no desire to get involved in any legal or online controversy on Brian Wilson, so i don't see her or any Landy associates having anything to say to the press.

One more thing just occurred to me, Cam. It's a touch ironic that the man whose actions you so fervently defend was the guy who you'll say had every right to demand answers and explanations for lyrics in 1966, who directed those questions towards a lyricist who felt it absurd to be forced to answer anything... while you think it's perfectly ok to try and shut down a convo, and have gone out of your way to say that you don't have to answer certain questions posed to you.

It strikes me that you and Cam are very similar. Different sides of the same coin.

It`s a shame that he and filledeplage are already married as you would have been made for each other.  ;)

Nice try Frankie Teardrop. ::)

Summer In Paradise needs to be re-released, if only for the sole purpose of having Andrew do the liner notes.  ;D

My fan club not only pre-answers for me and won't take my answer but have pre-arranged all of my forced weddings. I'm sure they can make room for CD as my third "wife". I hope my checks from Mike finally come in, forced weddings don't pay for themselves you know.

We are both stubborn SOBs (not an insult; I'm throwing myself in with that label too), and of course fans of this band. The big difference being that one is making futile moves to try to rewrite history, and one isn't.

Two accusations in two sentences. Awesome.

No question that the pendulum has occasionally been swung a tad too far by those who take a balanced view and don't regard Mike as being Satan Incarnate... but equally, no reasonable poster here could say that any defence of ML has been as rabid and infantile as the invective regularly spouted by posters here and on other social media.

I don't see people comparing Brian to Hitler...just sayin'.

Also, this:


Excellent question, but let's modify it a little:

"I also have to question why some middle-aged guy who lives in Nowheresville, USA is so incredibly obsessed with vilifying Mike Love, someone he's likely never met, and likely has next to nothing in common with."

Equally excellent question, no ?

I don't envy the verbal abuse you'll receive for that remark. Brianistas don't like having their views challenged.

I'm like Jesus...I love them all.

Verbal abuse ? Pah - I could eat Alphabetti Spaghetti and sh*t better invective.  ;D

Oldsurferdude just popped a pimple for your sins. Amen.

Agreed. There is a rabid and infantile edge to the writings of a chunk of anti-Mike people on social media, getting well into absurd territory. And believe me - I have defended a number of things related to Mike over the years to people in conversations in person. I'm quite honestly doing my part as a fan for trying to quash one-sided thinking.

But the term absurd (a different type of absurd, obviously) can be also applied to the writings of a small chunk of people on the other side of the team. The pendulum for some has swung quite a bit more than a tad too far, don't you think? We know (and agree) that anti-Mike extremism exists. If you wouldn't quantify some Mike defenders' writings on this board as over-the-top extremism of its own kind (writings can be extremist without Hitler references), I'd like to know what exactly would constitute pro-Mike extremism.

Well, what do you consider pro-Michael extremism? Give us something to go by.

I have no interest in vilifying Mike Love though Andrew. And I think you'd know this. My beef is with a poster on here who is incapable of admitting the man has ever done wrong. I personally find Mike extremely interesting and I'm super excited for his book. And his solo album, if it happens. Though I'm extremely doubtful.

I mean, if there's a poster around here saying that because "Song A" (let's say "Kokomo") sold more than "Song B" (let's say "This Whole World), that makes it a better song, I'm gonna challenge said poster on that assertion. And when said poster doesn't have the guts to hold his equation to it's logical conclusion (like, for instance the "Macarena" with four million sold, is four times the song "Kokomo" is, with one million sold), it seems like he's either just bullshitting us all, or likes to twist things to always glorify Doctor Love. So really, the fact that any of this is even about Mike Love is wrong. It's to stop these people on this board from peddling bullshit. I mean, it's obvious that you've come to see things more from Mike's perspective lately due to access, but you still wouldn't make asinine statements that would say 15 Big Ones is better than Sunflower simply because it sold more copies. You wouldn't say stuff like TWGMTR and "Summer's Gone" is Brian Wilson and Joe Thomas *pretending* to be The Beach Boys, while defending Summer In Paradise.

And somebody will jump in and say, but...but...but..."OldSurferDude is mean to Mike!" And to that I'd say, why yes he is. But he almost comes off as cartoonish in his Doctor Love insults. Whereas Cameron Mott is actually trying to rewrite history with Mike Love as the John Lennon to Brian's Paul McCartney (or vice versa). And instead of having that sh*t peddled I think we'd be much better served without absolute crap being peddled like that.

An inability to conceive to say a bad thing about him except that he wrote Wrinkles, or something similarly lightweight/ innocuous. 

This, times several hundred thousand.

I feel like the anti-BW act here is the testing ground for Mike Love's history rewrite. Which will be released in the form of the Mike Love autobiography.

As someone who admittedly defends Michael more than most, I'm not crazy enough to deny that he's made more mistakes than that. More notable and far-reaching mistakes at that.

You don't mess with the Doctor of Love.

Brian Wilson will make him sing falsetto.

That was back in the days when band members used to kick each other in the balls, though.

Which is why you have my respect, good sir.

Until Bruce started pistol-whipping in 68

It was historical, surf dawg. You don't even know.

Thanks, but I guess I just don't see the rabid pro-Michael bias you claim exists on here. Cam may go to some extremes but that's Cam; I've been talking to him on here for years. He has his reasons that only he knows. :lol

Bruce lives it every damn day!

Hey, if you're gonna be historical you gotta learn from the master.

Yeah, you are merely "real" ;)

Well, Cam`s position is always to consider Mike in a positive light and obviously he is wrong a fair amount of the time. Your position, when you are posting your frequent speculations about the band, is always to paint Mike in a negative light. Different sides of the same coin.

Now all of us, myself included, post nonsense at times and I certainly don`t agree with everything that I have posted over the years. But when you post your suppositions the one thing that they have in common is always to see Mike in the worst possible light:-

-   Mike is paying people on this board to post.
-   Mike forced Al to say “One final time” during the C50 so that he might use it for legal reasons later.
-   Mike was the sole cause of VDP not being involved with the release of The Smile Sessions.
-   Mike included a reference to Helter Skelter on LBWL (even though he didn`t write it) as a dig at Dennis.
-   Mike should have given complete control of The Beach Boys name to Brian and his management in 2012 and have been willing to go out under his own        name.
-   NPP took so long to complete because Mike hurt Brian`s feelings.
-   Mike wanted to issue Santa Goes to Kokomo under The Beach Boys name.
-   Mike using videos of Carl and Dennis is exploitation.
-   Mike is emotionally ill.

Now, let`s face it, if even half these things were posted about certain other band members we would have cries of “agenda” or “fight back” across the board.

I am real, but Bruce is real historical and sh*t. Like I said, you don't even know, surf dizzawg.

Bruce killed a man in Iowa in 1995 for sleeping during Kokomo.

I'll at least state that my opinions are hypotheses, and not necessarily outright truths, and I'm happy to be proven wrong, as I have been about matters relating to Mike and other band members in the past (and I've happily admitted to such). I hope you don't doubt that, because it's absolutely the truth. I also have a good deal of empathy for the man, whether I've made that clear enough or not.

And if Cam, for example, as you say, is obviously wrong a fair amount of the time, I sure don't see people who typically defend Mike on this board (and who should know better) chiming in and letting him know that he is wrong. 

Can't. Stop. Laughing.  :lol

When Bruce claps it reverberates throughout the entire universe. Even Chuck Norris can't beat that.

His keyboard contains keys to launch missiles at the nearest faraway place.

Bruce Johnston facts need to become a thing here. :lol

Start the thread!

I give reasons, you give reasons, you think I'm full of sh*t, I think you're full of sh*t. Why not just leave it there, agree to disagree. Why not just say our piece without all the personalized accusations, insinuations, name calling, even libel? Unless that is OK on this board.

I would tell you but my checks from Mike might stop if they ever start.

I never meant to let things get to name calling, and if I ever went too far in that, I am sorry.

Can't let the Love train come to a stop, dude. :)

I didn't mean it specifically to you but I accept your apology.

Absolutely, I agree that you have admitted to being proven wrong on numerous occasions... But your response is inevitably to start another thread which posts another hypothesis which assumes Mike to be the villain.   ;D

Cam is not going to change his mind so why would people bother to chime in? His posts are normally polite to other board members, are pretty innocuous and are easy to ignore. Plus, you show me any fansite where there isn`t a person who thinks the sun shines out of a singer`s behind. It`s normal.

Somebody misunderstanding fandom so much that they believe this can only happen if they are being paid isn`t.  ;)

I don't know, man.  The payroll thing may be absurd in this instance, although I wouldn't discount it from being an actual circumstance which happens with a small handful of some entertainers/celebs/musicians... would you? And separately from that discussion, I would be willing to bet money that at least one, if not more of those line items of mine which you posted above have *some*, at least partial truth in them.  I think you would be hesitant to bet any significant amount of money that they are all entirely outright false! Of course, we would need both a time machine and an invisibility cloak in order to prove anything.

Personally, I can not listen to these albums.  More power to anyone who can.

Even if that were true, then I`m sure that at least one in every nine posts that Cam makes "have *some*, at least partial truth in them". Doesn`t say much though does it...

That would be qualitative rather than quantitative. For me, and purely for me, pro- or anti-OTT extremisim, for any given subject, constitutes ignoring historical fact, an inability to see any other viewpoint other than your own and becoming belligerent when challenged on those two points. Actually, that's pretty much a perfect description of a religious zealot.  ;D

Keep in mind, to some folks the definition of "extreme" is anything that flies in the face of their preconceived notions.

A closed mind is a terrible thing.

About 90% of what is said here is opinion in my opinion. Opinion v. opinion, so maybe people shouldn't get too snotty about who thinks who is wrong and right or admits who is wrong or right.  However, my own understanding of the history has changed 100% on many aspects so the idea that it hasn't/doesn't is factually wrong.

"Rewrite history" was the term of the day yesterday.  It seems to me the understanding of history is rewritten all of the time especially BB history.  The best ever threads on this board have rewritten the understanding of history.

Anyways, I'm tired of defending myself against this personal crap (just because I don't agree with someone's opinion) so I'm going to try and ignore it.

If we'd not rewritten BB history, then we'd still "know" that...

The band never actually played on their hits...
David was just a temporary replacement for Alan...
Dennis was a rubbish drummer...
Mike was married 8 times...
Alan left the band to go to dental college...
Brian stayed in bed 1971-76...
Carl's first lead vocal was "Girl Don't Tell Me"...
Murry smacked Brian in the head with a baseball bat in Little League...

Yup, gotta love them "facts".  :-D

You can't rewrite history if it goes against one's preconceived notions, dontchasee.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

So the guy actually survived? ;)

He killed them with silky smooth electric piano styling.

Yes, there have indeed been many things regarding this band that were previously widely regarded a certain way that were fortunately later proven wrong.

That doesn't negate the fact that there are people (and one person in particular) who are going way too far and claiming absurd things which are an attempt to rewrite history in a grossly inaccurate way.  There is such a thing as bad and hare-brained history-rewriting attempts regarding this band, especially on the pro-Mike side.  That's a "thing"; it happens, as sure as the sky is blue.   Regardless of "political" affiliation or motive, learned BB fans should be bugged enough to point that stuff out, across the political spectrum.

It's so incredibly frustrating that while some people on the pro-Mike side are essentially willing to vaguely admit that there are some undeniably illogical and at times absurd pro-Mike ideas spouted on this board, the actual pointing out of that is seeminly *always* left to people like myself, guitarfool, heyjude, etc. It sucks, because it just furthers the divide, and makes it more about one side vs another side.

As I have pointed out before, I have defended Mike on numerous occasions, and have outright told people in person that they have the wrong idea about many things about him, whenever I hear things that are grossly inaccurate. I will swoop in to say so.  

But it's the history rewrite of events like Mike bullying BW at Wally heider that is most concerning to me. It's like some posters under the guise of being "neutral" historians are doing this.

If you're referring to the Michael rant over the Heroes and Villains track, that was a Brian-directed session.

The thought of any bandmate bullying another bandmate is not a pretty thought to have, nor an easy thing to reconcile. But I will never understand those who think it's impossible to believe that it ever could have happened in this band with Brian on the receiving end. Why is it such an absolutely, ridiculously preposterous notion that it could have happened at some point?  

And why do some posters fervently believe in 100% accuracy that Brian believed that musical ideas were actually, in fact, "inappropriate", while that term could never in a million years conceivably be applied to how he might have been treated at times by others?

I'm sure that I will get no actual direct response to this query from those posters whose actions I speak of, without there somehow answering a question with a question (in other words, a non-answer), or saying that nobody ever has the right to ever consider another person's actions as even slightly veering into bullying territory without medically quantifiable proof of physical harm. Amiright?

Think the incident in question is the one Chuck Negron claims to have witnessed during a Redwood session.

The incident happened, I thought the board came to a consensus...

Well, Michael wasn't the only one involved in the alleged "Redwood incident" according to Chuck Negron. He also names Carl and Al alongside Michael. So all three allegedly reduced Brian to tears.

Yeah, it's agreed they were there with Michael. Such a bad time....

Honestly, given the players involved, I wouldn't be surprised if they reduced Brian to tears. I would take the story into question is Dennis was among them, though. Dennis seemed to be the only one in that band to have Brian's back one hundred percent of the time.

Problem is that, if the track was "Darlin'" as is generally agreed, the sessions were at the home studio, and not Wally Heider's - October 11th, 1967 - as was the "TTGA" session the next day.

Yep and you are one of them.

CD is a level headed guy! ::)

It doesn't matter what song it was, the incident went down with other witnesses beside Chuck Negron.

I think it's the pro-Brian camp of late that's trying desperately to cling to absurd notions. I can't believe there are actually people who think BRI or someone around Michael Love are paying members here to post positive stuff about him. There's retarded conspiracism, and then there's that.

Umm... no, not really. But hey, it's cool if you think that. I'm happy to be proven wrong, and I'm happy to defend Mike on many, many points. But again - this appears to be a deflection from answering my query: why are people such as yourself not jumping in to call out BS on the pro-Mike side of the fence? And a polite request: is it possible to directly answer this question without answering with another question?

Muchas gracias, amigo.

I think plenty of people call bullshit on the pro-Michael side of the fence. In fact, it's in vogue to do that. Always has been.

I already answered it once.

I don`t agree with many of Cam`s posts but they are easy to ignore (and I also ignore certain other posters who post much worse stuff than Cam from an opposite perspective). He very rarely starts threads it seems and having somebody on a fan board saying only positive things about a band member is hardly unusual. If he were posting insults or accusations about other band members (and I know somebody linked to threads from 9 years ago where that happened) then I could understand it being more of a problem.

Now to have somebody on a fan board who does constantly start threads which inevitably are about hypothesizing one of the band members in the worst possible light is not so common imho. The fact that you said yourself that there may be some partial truth in at least one of the things that you said speaks for itself really. You can`t really accuse Cam of rewriting history when you do the same thing on a regular basis.

You and Cam are one and the same. But him writing positive things about a band member is more common imo.

Here's my say in this...

For a long time, Mike was not given his fair due in the band.  There's a difference, though, in giving him his fair due and having the pendulum swing too far in the opposite direction.  That, I fear, is what's beginning to happen here.

CD has admitted to being wrong in the past. Hell, and maybe I'm tripping, but I might have seen him apologize to Cam earlier in the thread, too. So, Nicko, since it was between the two of them at the time, why in the world did you have to throw your two cents in, and started flinging insults his way first, when he hadn't even gone off on you?

Point taken.

I will refrain from posting on this and similar topics for the foreseeable...

And this comes up again. The last time it came up, I posted this and I cannot add to nor improve on anything already posted about the Redwood incident other than to again share this link from the last time:

If I could address these two posts and cite one of the myths specifically to point out something "factual" about this kind of mythology and myth busting.

This one: Brian stayed in bed 1971-76...

Consider how events of 1966-67, specifically the so-called "Smile Era" were portrayed in the ABC TV movie in the early 2000's. Brian, out of control, surrounded by drug addicts, leeches, hangers-on, interlopers, whatever the terms might be. Unless we believe that the people in the airport photo and those working to get Brother up and running were members of this group, and we can name specifically pretty much everyone who was a regular visitor during Smile, the portrayal of 1966-67 in that film is a farce, not based on fact but rather, perhaps, emotion or an impression of it coming from what could be more than one axe to grind.

So that film was, what, 2002? Or thereabouts?

OK. There is proof, accessible proof, that several years after that TV movie aired, after it got debunked pretty much universally on that portrayal among other "facts", this image of that era was still being put forth as fact.

When there is fact, when that fact is attempted to be swayed or changed or even altered in order to make a point, would that be worth calling out? So the attempt to put forth the notion that in 1966-67 as Smile was being worked on, there was a group of hangers-on, leeches, drug dealers, etc surrounding Brian...would such an attempt be given any credibility, any weight at all, if getting to the fact over the mythology were the goal?

I'd say a strong and emphatic "NO", because it has little or no basis in fact. It's an incorrect portrayal, it's an attempt to present an image or form an opinion that was not rooted in the facts.

Now what if within that same source it was also suggested that from the year 1967 onward in that era, Brian spent his time living in bed or in the sandbox while the Beach Boys toured. And beyond that, he was too ill to do anything of note beyond collect the money. So it takes out, effectively erases every album and song from 1967 onward and upward however many years you'd want to go.

In other words, would such a suggestion of spending the days from 1967 onward either in the sandbox or in bed be factual, or would it play into the mythology category and be worthy of - if getting to the truth and the facts is the ultimate goal - almost complete ridicule up to the point of dismissing the suggestions entirely?

The myth highlighted involved staying in bed from 1971-76. An obvious myth, worth busting on every level.

Add to that myth a few additional years prior to 1971, dating it back to 1967 and including not only bed but the sandbox too...and let's talk about the source for where that myth was coming from.

More than that, it's actionable as libellous.

Great posts GF!

It is,  which is why I'd suggest anybody making such claims should tread lightly.

Not specifically checked it out, but that's likely one of those BB factoids that "everyone knows" but, on closer inspection, has no apparent source. Much like the famous "formula" quote. I know of several BB researchers/historians/obsessives/folk with way too much time on their hands who have tried to trace it to the published, contemporary source for the latter, and failed, because there doesn't seem to be one. My best guess on the former - staying in bed for half the seventies - is that someone took a band member's flip response (Mike ? Bruce ? Dennis ?) to being asked where Brian was seriously, and like all good myths it snowballed from there. The reply was, as I recall, "Oh, he's back home in bed."

Anyone have a better explanation (and dear God there has to be one), feel free...

Finally: one can rewite history, accurately, until one is blue in the face, but that doesn't mean it won't be summarily ignored in subsequent projects, or indeed by Joe Q. Public in general. The so-called Loch Ness Monster was comprehensively debunked by an excellent book back in 1983 (The Loch Ness Mystery Solved) yet the myth sustains. Same with Roswell and The Bermuda Triangle.

I hope Brian and Mike and Al (and whoever else may have been able to actually hear) all give their memory of what was going on in the booth that day. What is the source for them taking the tapes, are they in BRI's "vault", and who actually owned those tapes?

Good luck with that...the allegation will probably resurface in a week.

Understood. It was a facetious remark that went too far.

It's a remark that has also been made before on this very forum by supposed "not-conspiracists."

... and stated to be a fact, not merely an opinion.

Didn't Ray basically confirm the "Redwood incident" not to long ago on this board?

Jay, that's what GF linked to in his post on the thread. It went down for sure!

If we're lucky they'll get slapped with a suit. One can only hope.

Yeah, we need more lawsuits. Especially over stuff on a message board.  ::)

The staying in bed and the sandbox stuff from 1967 does indeed have a very specific latter day source that has been available to publicly read online for those interested. And it was entered into a court of law just about a decade ago. That goes beyond flippancy or offhanded remarks to journalists.

Given previous experience you'd think people would exercise a smidge more restraint. :)

I was libeled again yesterday. I guess it's a thing on this board.

That's very true guitarfool! How come people on this board are letting this slip through the cracks. On a legal document approved by Doctor Mike Love, it says, "Between 1967 and 2002, Brian was essentially too ill to do anything but collect his royalties..." which is pretty rich because seems to me that Brian wrote the top 40 hits "Do It Again", "It's OK" and "Good Timin'" in that period and also contributed a whole lot of material to a whole lot of Beach Boys albums. Also interesting that those "Wilson-Love" songs that were written and released  in that time period must have totally skipped Mike's mind. Weird. Either that or he was openly lying in his legal documents. Or maybe he's just so obsessed with lawsuits that he didn't even take the time to make sure this one was even factual before he proceeded with it.

Sure is interesting.


Gosh Cam. You were libeled? On a Beach Boys message board? That's big time stuff. I'd feel nervous even posting on here after that. I mean, your reputation will be damaged. Oh wait. Nobody knows who you are.

Let's ask them directly in this conversation why they're letting this one slip through the cracks, or ignoring it altogether.

Why is this being ignored, why are you posters here ignoring it? It's in the public record, the wording is spelled out clear as day, it's the published (legal document) source for continuing this false mythology as latter-day as 2005, why is it being skipped over?

Proof was asked for, and delivered - anything else?

Did you miss that part about being libeled?

Cam, if you don't mind, could you stop interrupting threads with this libel talk? We're here trying to talk about The Beach Boys and you're just here trying to incite.....something.

It's really unfortunate.

2006 Chuck Negron told me, flat out, quote: "When they saw what was going on, they basically brutalized him. And Mike Love. . . Y'know, Brian's a very fragile, fragile guy and one minute we were doing it and the next minute Brian was crying and saying, 'Look, I'll give you the money to finish the album, you guys are gonna make it, but I can't do it anymore. They won't let me. Y'know, they say I have to do stuff for the family.' It was very childlike the way he talked."

Ray Lawlor asked BRIAN -- not a musician at the session, not a tape-op, not Chuck, not Corey, not Danny -- but BRIAN to tell him what happened at that session -- no prompting of who was there, etc. . . BRIAN WILSON told him that it was Mike who "dictated the terms" of Brian's outside productions to him with Dennis and Carl standing by Mike silently in regretful support. The rules were laid out for him.

They broke a butterfly upon a wheel.

IT HAPPENED.
And just as there was a reason that it happened THEN, there seems to be a reason NOW why it needs to be discredited.

Exactly Howie, Mike Love bullied BW for his songs as usual. Such a vile and twisted man.

Here's a question not being asked; Mike co-wrote Darlin', was he aware that it was being used for a Redwood song to begin with or did he agree to let them use it and then have second thoughts when he realised Wild Honey was lacking a potential hit single?

It is strange, isn't it?

I've brought up "Aren't You Glad" to Mike several times, and he never really has anything to say about it.
I've also never heard him talk about "I'd Love Just Once To See You," or "Here Comes The Night," or "Mama Says," or "A Thing Or Two,' or "She Knows Me Too Well," or "Please Let Me Wonder," or "In The Back Of My Mind," or really anything other than "Do It Again," "Good Vibrations," and the five words to "Wouldn't It Be Nice."

For a guy who SEEMINGLY is all about "I did THAT," there's not a lot he deems discussion worthy from his illustrious catalogue.
That said, I did notice on C50 that Jeff took the liberty of including the final lyrics Mike wrote for the second verse -- which Brian nixed -- during "Vibrations."
(Ever the fan. . . )

Maybe the upcoming book will talk about those breathtaking Wilson/Love teamups.

If you don't use this verse I'm not singing, that's the way to get a co-writing credit. Mr. Love does know how to rain on a parade. You know how it work's , often the most wicked are the wealthiest.  Control the reach of the  justice.

I just don't get why that is. So odd. If any of those songs had been a hit, I think the opposite would surely be true.

Has/had anybody ever asked Mike, Carl, Dennis, or Al about what was going on?

So, you guys think Aren't You Glad, Darlin' and Mama Says outtakes will be bonus tracks on that SIP/Still Cruisin' re-release... ;)

It was fine for them to interrupted threads with lies?

When they stop and publicly apologize in this thread.  

You know, I have to say… I think that part of what drives/motivates a certain chunk of posters to continually debate on this board (and I’d include myself in that discussion) is that it becomes infuriating to think that anyone could be of the opinion that a given BB’s behavior could have never, ever, in a million years veered even slightly into bullying behavior. That a chunk of hard line Kokomaoists think this is such an absolute science fiction-esque impossibility to be equated to dinosaurs still roaming the Earth.

It just seems so hard for some people to say, “yes, perhaps a time or two over the decades, Brian sadly got bullied to some degree by his bandmate(s), however inadvertently that may have been”.  Why is that such a hard statement to find even a kernel of possible truth in?

Or how about this: Can Kokomaoists at least concede that perhaps a time or two, Brian was most likely on the receiving end of behaviors by his bandmate(s) (behaviors that might not necessarily be quantifiable as “bullying” if directed at more emotionally strong people, but due to Brian’s emotionally fragile condition, MAY had an inadvertent effect on Brian, equivalent to bullying?) Can we at least say that?

Or do we continue the charade that such statements are absurd, outright fantasy? C'mon.

I really think that if a few people on the Kokomaoist side of the political “spectrum” could at least concede that could possibly have happened with Brian, even beyond any known/documented and debated incidents that have been discussed to death on this board, that there would be less bickering. It wouldn’t instantly reduce bickering to zero, but it would amount to less bickering. Kind of how someone like myself (who was accused of being on an extremist side of things – an assumption which I wholeheartedly refute) is able to apologize and say that sometimes I may go too far in my postings. People sometimes go too far, including the BBs themselves! What good does some “hard line” attitude have in the end?  It does not further any cause in any perceptible way.  

Are the hard-line Kokomaoist defenders motivated by a deep desire to not WANT to believe that Brian could have ever been bullied? Even just a bit? Is it just too painful/sad an idea to reconcile? Hell, I did not WANT to believe that Phil Spector killed a woman. I would have loved for it to not be true. Obviously that’s an apples and oranges analogy, and I am not remotely equating any BB’s actions to the actions of Spector, but my point is that nobody wants to think that a musician whose work you greatly admire may have done some not-so-nice things to others.

And if anyone wants to still deny that it EVER could possibly have happened (with Brian on the receiving end) at any time during this band’s history… I ask this question to those people: What actions/words WOULD a bandmate have to do/say to another bandmate for you to quantify those actions/words as bullying? Not all bullying is physical, or on the level of Murry or Landy. Where exactly would the hard-line Kokomoaists draw that line, and why?

I think that part of what drives/motivates a certain chunk of posters to continually debate on this board is that they TRULY don't know what really goes on behind the scenes and beyond the interviews.
People who post THOUSANDS of times about something regarding people they've never met, let alone asked them about said topic -- yet seem to have it all figured out.
As a journalist I've never relied on a snitch sideman in ANY band to feed me info. Ever.

I still maintain that this can end on a high note -- with fans far happier and principals far richer -- thanks to proper management.

Proper management and the Beach Boys have never been great bedfellows.

Not yet.

I'm not one such but there's a well documented instance of Brian being bullied to the point of tears to include a song on an album against his express wishes. So no argument there. I'm sure there were many others. Capitol's insistence at including "GV" on Smiley Smile springs to mind.

Do I detect a cautious optimism, Howie ?

I'm going to do something radical here and actually address the topic of this thread.  ::)

Still Cruisin' and SIP should be re-released or paired together as a twofer of whatever and it should've happened a long time ago when people cared about such things. Whether or not people love them or hate them (and I'd argue that hardly anyone cares about them) is irrelevant. They were Beach Boys albums that came out under the name Beach Boys, Carl Wilson sang on them, they were in stores, they existed. They're part of history, and not having albums in the catalog available does a great disservice to the group's legacy regardless of whether or not they were any good. End of story.

Andrew -- that's EXACTLY what it is.

Cautious optimism beats none at all, especially when it comes from someone who, unlike pretty much everyone else here (myself included) actually knows WTF he's posting about.

I await any further developments with cautiously bated breath.

I don't think anyone is ignoring it. I don't see it as the source of the myth as Andrew was asking about. It is an example of what posters have been saying, "history" needs revision so people, including Mike's lawyers, don't perpetuate myths.  Mike's lawyers also perpetuated the myth that Mike's Uncle's name was spelled with an "a", "Murray" instead of "Murry".

While we are insinuating people are ignoring things, is the fact that a board member continues to libel me as a "fellator" being ignored?

Good evening friends and Citizens of KokoDopia.
 
I’ve seen this issue crop up a few times quite recently and I’d like to make this clear - Mike Love is not paying anyone to post on SS.
Mike Love doesn’t have any SS members on his payroll – that is a myth, started because the only logical explanation for some of the complete gobshite that is so often posted by the Vibe Room police is that they are being paid to do so.  This is not the case.

What Mike Love does have is the resident “board historian”, who has been blatantly making hamfisted attempts to rewrite history with assistance from the irrational Mr. Cruz and the rest of the card carrying Kokomaoists, all of them now screaming “libelous” from the tops of their soapboxes while pining for litigation and trying desperately to change the subject. And let’s be even more clear: no, the resident historian is not getting paid for his rewrite for the Love autobiography. Yet. And he won’t, until the Tahoe Bunker is satisfied that he has successfully convinced enough fools that the only history that counts is The Gospel according To St. Michael the Meditator, which means more and more attempts at blatant history rewrites.

And now, again, he’s back to the Redwood incident at Wally Heider’s studio. Why? It must be an important chapter in the history rewrite for the Love autobiography. Don’t be fooled - again and again they’ll be trying to sell you any shite that they think they can get away with. They’ll tell you that the only versions of this story that matter are those of actual Beach Boys who were present at Wally Heider’s, knowing that Dennis and Carl Wilson are so unfortunately long gone and cannot verify it, and therefore so conveniently gone for the historian’s attempt to modify history.  They will tell you that only Mike Love’s memory can be trusted, that Brian Wilson’s memory is faulty, conveniently ignoring the reality that Wilson says “I can't remember” only whenever he doesn’t want to talk about something. They will tell you the final word is Mr. Love’s. Anyone who is a fan of Brian and has spent even a short time listening to an interview understands that.

So, fellow residents, let me cut directly to the heart of the matter.  The playbook being used in this organized attack on the legacy of Brian Wilson by the Club Kokomo Propaganda Division is the failed November 2005 lawsuit by Love. 
Look for yourselves. It is a public document. It’s online. Research it. Read it. You will find almost verbatim the talking points that they pound into SmileySmile every day.

Howard you do know you're dead right? They shot you live on the air.

Assuming Mike has AGD in his "corner" is also questionable to say the very least...if not actionable.

Wait, wait, wait. So it's "Mike's lawyers" and not Mike who is responsible for the nonsense that's been filed in his own legal documents? Interesting. Sounds like Mike isn't responsible for ANYTHING.

Anyways, I guess I'll wait fellator and see what you say.

Howard Beale really is superman!

I thought he was dead. I saw him get shot on the air!

Well the The Real Beach Boy is immortal from all that TM Magic. ;)

It's the Love thang.

When it's Brian and Al, it's their lawyers' fault, so fair's fair with Mike too, right Howard?

(yawn) I feel like Al waiting for a Moderator....I mean bus.

Well. I'm not Howard, and hopefully his answer will be served fellator. However, if Brian, Al or anybody else lets their lawyers do stupid things under their name you bet that the buck stops with them.

So once again it looks like Cam has deflected criticism to Brian and Al instead of admitting that Mike Love released a legal document slandering his cousin.

Would Brian or Al's (or Carl's) lawyers had a phony planted person attempting to pose/masquerade as a fake spurned customer in order to "prove" some ridiculous legal point in court?  I'm not convinced that answer would be yes, nor do I feel confident in assuming that when this scenario apparently in fact happened during the 2005 BWPS-related CD giveaway lawsuit, that it was merely some lawyer's idea, which wasn't cleared with the client first.  Maybe it was done with the client absolutely, completely in the dark - nobody will know either way - but it's just pretty odd.  

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,19513.msg491491.html#msg491491

Is it just me, or doesn't it seem farfetched that a lawyer would just pull a desperate move that in a 100% rogue manner, completely on their own volition?  Maybe some lawyers do that type of stuff on their own. I'm sure it's happened at *some* point. But I'd tend to doubt it – regardless of who the lawyer’s clients are. We could be talking about a case of a spouse suing another spouse; this is a general hunch, beyond any of the parties being discussed.  If any BB's lawyer did such an action, I would also question how on earth the client was blissfully unaware.

I might add, that if a rogue lawyer did an in fact solely concoct such an unethical, complete out-and-out fabrication like that during the course of a court case, and if such scheming was in fact completely done with the client being 100% unaware, call me crazy, but I might then tend to expect said client to express outrage at the person they hired... to make a statement that they themselves (client) had nothing to do with such unethical behavior, and that it was entirely some rogue scumbag lawyer's idea and doing, once everything came to light (as it apparently did in this case, according to the link above). I'd be surprised if the client just kept quiet about it and just let the whole thing fade away. What say you, Cam?

Hmmph. Very interesting that when interesting questions like these start to be asked, questions that require a bit of nuance, and not just jumping to a certain side, Cam decides to jump ship and disappear from the thread.

Meet the new troll
Same as the old troll  ;D

All three lost because they deserved to lose and all three arguably had terrible attorneys, fair is fair.

It doesn't take much to deduce from your post history that you're entirely biased, regardless of how much you enjoy saying you aren't. Say it definitively for us all - are you or are you not working with Mike Love on Mike Love's book?

I'd love to hear your answer. Of course, I won't get a reply. The Kokomo method is to never answer questions directly. They skirt around the issue, talk about why they're skirting around the issue, then never answer.

Agreed - they all had terrible attorneys. That much we can agree on, without question. Hacks. Yet that wasn't what my post was addressing at all, nor was it the question I posed you. I suppose I could wait for later in the thread for you to reply, but I feel confident in thinking that if I ask you for additional clarification on your feelings regarding the points I raised, the answer will be the patented "we will continue to disagree", or something similar. I'd love to be proved wrong.

I don't think I know of said GV incident (nor did the Search function seem to turn up results); would be curious to known the details.

Why do you people still waste time trying to get cam and pinder to see the light? Its hopeless, they're unabashed Mike apologists.

The incident I was referencing was the inclusion of "Surf's Up" on the album of the same name. According to several sources, he sat on the swing in his garden weeping while Dennis flatly stated "f*** you, we need that song on the album".

Well if that's actually the case, that's pretty damn harsh. I hadn't heard of this before. I'm assuming timeline wise that's before they even tried to finish recording/tinkering with the original tapes?

Setting aside that there's really no point in my responding as if I say "yes" the gleeful cries of "told ya so" will deafen us all, while a "no" would result in shouts of "don't believe you" from the mental midgets in question...

No, I am not working with Mike Love on his autobiography.

Further...

Have I been contacted by his collaborator Jim Hirsch asking sundry questions, did I answer same and will I do so if asked in the future ? Yes, yes, and yes.

Was I also contacted prior to that by the researcher of Brian's collaborator Jason Fine asking me to help them out with a specific query and did I ? Yes, and yes.


No, of course you won't.


Maybe, but at least I post using my own name, because I don't have the metaphorical testicular shortcomings that causes such trolls to spout their bile and invective, or level such accusations cowering behind the safety of a pseudonym.

And then Did Dennis go on to say, "... as long as Wouldn't It Be Nice To Live Again is still the last song!" 

Maybe Brian back said, "F*** you Bro.  If it's going on the album it will the last song.  Like it or lump it!"

Or maybe not.  Still a little ironic that it was Dennis who would be so vociferous when it eventually cost WIBNTLA to be bumped from said album.  Or maybe it's another Beach Boys 'myth'?

"(WIBNT)LA" wasn't on the album because Dennis pitched a hissyfit after he & Carl butted heads over the track sequencing, and pulled it, along with "4th Of July". Hence, allegedly, the inclusion of "SDT" and, er, one of Alan's songs, I think. Corrections welcome.

I imagine it going something like this (In fact I'm sure it DID happen this way)  :lol
Brian is in the studio with Carl, Mike and Dennis

Carl: We would like you to take these tapes and finish the "Surfs up" song. ain't that right Denny?
Dennis: Yeah , we already named the album "Surfs up" and had the covers printed and everything!
Brian:I don't wanna, you can suck my balls!!
Carl: Screw you Brian I'm going to kick you square in the nuts!
Denny: respect my authoritah!!!
Brian: You guys can go to hell!!
Mike:God Dammit, Children, why don't you f*** with the formula just this once??
Brian: (farts on Mikes face)
Mike: (Mike farts back on Brians face)
carl and denny (laughs)
Brian: Don't make fun of me you assholes!!! Screw you guys I'm going home!!

Brian leaves the building and Carl Mike and Denny follows him to a park where he is swinging on a swing with the rest of the kids at the school

Brian: I'll teach those sonsofbitches to f*** with me!! I won't write anymore songs for those douche bags and if I do they will be sad and depressing..that'll teach those fudge packers!!!
(They walk up to him)
Dennis: Come on you HAVE to record "Surfs up" for us, you have no choice!! if you don't Phil Spector will come find you and call you a p*ssy until you cry!!
(A branch breaks and squishes Denny)
Carl: Oh my God they killed Denny!!!!
Mike: You Bastards!!!!!
Brian: serves Denny right for fucking with me!!!
Carl: Now Brian, it's important that you come in the studio to finish "Surfs up"
(Phil Spector walks up to them on the school yard)
Phil: Hey what the f*** is going on here!?
Carl: He won't go in the studio and finish "Surfs Up"
Mike: yeah he's being a total dick!!
Phil: What do I have to do pull this gun out and shoot you?
(Denny get's up barely breathing)
phil pulls out his gun
Phil: Shoot you like this (and shoots Denny)
Carl: Oh My God you just rekilled Denny for a second time although he wasn't really complete dead before!!
Mike: You Bastard again!!!
(Rats carry off Denny)
Phil: Don't be a puss and finish "Surfs up" or I will get the ghost of Murry to haunt your ass!!!
Murry's Ghost shows up
Murry's Ghost: Hoowwwdy Ho!!!!!!!!nooooow whaaaats goinnnng oooonnn!
Phil: Your son won't finish "Surfs up"
Murry's Ghost: WHAT!!!! That's it I'll teach him a lesson, check this out!!
(He pulls out his ghost eye and throws it at Brian and it just goes right through him)
Brian: well Dad you can't beat me anymore because you are a ghost and will just go right through me!!
Murry's Ghost:Holy sh*t!!!! He's right!!! (and vanishes)
 Carl:Okay dude what will it take for you to do "Surfs up"? We'll give you anything!! Denny's dead so now we can't put his songs on the album so it's up to you!!

Brian:Okay I will only do it under one condition!!
Carl and Mike: What's that??
Brian: You go to the misty mountains and find Gollum and steal the ring that is in his possession and bring it back to me!!
Carl:Dude that's like a million miles away from here.
Brian:well then I won't do it...
Mike:Sigh I guess we have no choice!!

(will Carl and Mike make it to the misty mountains to get the ring from Gollum?, what happens to Phil Spector? will he ever find a cute blonde actress to marry and live happily ever after? what about Murry's ghost will he ever find a way to punish Brian again? although he's a ghost and can't do anything but walk through walls?)

stay tuned for next weeks episode of "Surf Park"

I thought Mr. Desper has said Brian participated in reworking SU for the album? He both cried and then helped or helped while crying?

Just because Brian eventually (and under circumstances which I've always read was to the band's utter surprise) helped work on the tag, doesn't mean that Brian couldn't have in fact cried and/or had deep reservations/resistance about the song being worked on/released at an earlier point.

He knew how important a song this was, and I'd imagine that if he realized that come hell or high water the song was going to be finished up and released by the Boys, that he'd rather it get done "right" to his specifications, as opposed to the alternative, which could have entailed it turning out differently than he'd wanted it.

  My guess - that's all a guess - is that "Feet" replaced at least one of the Dennis tracks. It had already been bumped from SUNFLOWER.

  Cam, you are by and large OK with me, but somehow this post makes me question your respect for Brian Wilson. That's just how it hit me.

No worry, it's both a request for clarification and a joke.  Some how people who revere Brian get tarred as anti-Brian because they don't believe every Mike myth that comes down the pike.

  Yes, I've been trying to sort it all out. Mike Love is not Satan...

Nor do I, nor do most other people on this forum who are critical or question a number of his actions.

  Sure, I've been questioning Mike Love's actions and/or taste since witnessing his stage garb on the It's OK television special in 1976.

So Dennis reduces Brian to tears insisitng that Surf's Up be included on the album, then ironically watches as Carl chooses to end the album with it over his own song, throws a wobbler and removes both his tunes from the tracklisting and yet according to some posters Dennis was the one who was screwed over by his bandmates? You gotta love the reasoning on this board at times.

Both Brian and Dennis were/are special cases… People with serious emotional problems, and both were/are arguably musical geniuses in their own right. Sometimes people with such massive levels of talent and/or who are so fragile or unstable need and deserve exceptional levels of understanding, and more get out of jail free cards then other people.

That said, anyone reducing each other to tears is pretty messed up. I do not believe that all the Boys' actions necessarily constituted locker room behavior, as has  been insinuated on this board by others.  Sometimes they went too far.

Like Mike in other words.

Bingo! Now we're finally getting somewhere. There is still hope! You're getting closer. Just because Brian and Dennis wrote good songs and were unstable, why should they be entitled to more "get out of jail FREE cards" than other band members who weren't unstable and didn't write as good songs? Eventually, that leads to a lot of problems, for the entitled individuals, for the band, and on message boards.

an interesting proposal Cam:    A little compassion for ML.      dig deep y'all.    You can do it!   after all, ML is one of the Beachboys!

I'm not saying that it's quantifiably "fair"; I also do not think bands should necessarily be thought of as democracies. Some are, and some aren't. Some people, especially true artists making groundbreaking music, may need (and should ideally be granted) more support than others around them get to have. They may also act in questionable ways which people will sometimes, for better or worse, be willing to overlook, because their talent is just so unquestionably off the charts good. People who are though of as hacks are gonna garner less empathy and sympathy for their needs and demands from outsiders. I certainly think it's outrageous to apply that term to anyone in this band.

Does that lead to jealousy and make for an unhealthy and toxic band environment? Perhaps sometimes with some people. Not always. Certainly more often when bandmates are present who may have egos which are not necessarily proportional to their talents. That's a *thing*... That does happen. Let's not pretend it doesn't.

People in bands need to know their place sometimes. I think that was and remains a huge problem in this band, which Jack Rieley probably understood very deeply. Not every band has arguably the greatest composer of the 20th century in it. Maybe it's not fair, but then again, as Denny pointed out (and certainly almost always stood by his words), Brian was the band and everyone else were his disciples. I wonder how that comment went over with the other Boys at the time it was said. I'd wager some agreed and some didn't. And I am well aware of how the wilderness years afterwards made things change in some ways.

Well, we could go the same route, where Mike thinks he deserves special treatment for having cowritten hits mostly early in the band's career. He obviously does feel that way, and to a degree I can empathize and understand that desire. I also think that his thinking and desires in that respect go too far, and are incongruous with reality, and I think that many people share my mindset on that. I have empathy for him for having experienced significant familial dysfunction, but I don't think you can look at people's actions in a band the exact same way in a vacuum from person to person. It's gonna differ based on a number of factors. That goes for everyone in the band. Beyond music and talent, sometimes, some of the people in this band seem to have a history of doing "good person" things that tend to counterbalance the same person's shitty actions, more often than other people do so in the same band. IMHO.

Truthfully I think that Denny got somewhat of the short end of the stick by his bandmates, which possibly cost the world great art. Yes he got (and blew) many chances, but much like Brian, he suffered greatly when people around him didn't believe in him quite enough.

Even modern day Al has essentially admitted such; hindsight is 20/20. There's gotta be a reason Al admitted such, perhaps an attack of conscience? Could Mike, even though he seems to act as though he feels similarly underappreciated about his own plight, ever say something similar about Denny in an interview? If Al can, not sure why Mike can't, unless Mike is still possibly bitter over Denny's final marriage or something. I dunno. I would think Mike's own feelings of having experienced the short end of the stick would have made him more empathetic if another bandmate felt it in some way too.

The problem with the sequencing was because Carl wanted Surf's Up to be the last song and Dennis wanted WIBNTLA.  No Surf's Up probably = no problem and both Dennis' songs would have been on there.  Who here would have preferred that scenario?

Surf's Up or Dennis' two songs? I'd rather have all 3 but if forced to choose, I'd pick Surf's Up in a heartbeat.

I could leave 4th of July off SU any time. If SU the track was to have been omitted in 71 then the band might not have bothered to finish it at the time, just five or six years after it was originally shelved.

Then it would have lain in the can until who knows when… maybe they'd finished it for SiP, with Stamos singing Carl's parts.

I like things the way they turned out.

well if "Surfs Up" wasn't on it I wonder what it would have been called? as it is maybe "The Beach Boys-Student Demonstration Time." or if "4th of july" being added to it then "The Beach Boys-4th of July."

Yeah I'd go for Surf's Up over the 2 of Dennis' songs brilliant though they are.  It would be hard to imagine Surf's Up never being finished.  20 years later it wouldn't be the same.

Funny how we're now discussing this considering the thread title! ;D

What would've happened if Mike did a early 1990s – style cover of Surf's Up (song) on SIP? I do think that could've caused the apocalypse or something.

Apologies for posting on topic but it is a shame looking back that Don`t Fight the Sea was rejected for the Tequila Sunrise movie. That would have improved the Still Cruisin` album no end and if Carl could have completed the song that he was working on (was it Run Don`t Walk?) then you would have almost had enough originals right there without using the oldies...

Is there really no way to purchase this album digitally?  I'm dying to hear these old tracks in decent (non-YouTube quality) in the car, and I might have to install a tape deck to do it. Can somebody please explain to me why something physically out of print must also be completely unavailable online?  Like it costs Capitol anything to sell it to me on iTunes.

Under the radar interest in both of these disasters took a powder within minutes of the original release.  :smokin

 
I think Still Cruisin' isn't bad, but rushed.  They wanted something out to keep the "Kokomo" ball rolling and with "Still Cruisin'" being used in Lethal Weapon 2, they wanted to strike while the iron was hot.  If they wanted to use more recent movie songs, these were also available:

"Happy Endings" from The Telephone (a nice song, but a little slow - maybe they chose not to use it since it didn;t flow with the rest of the songs)

"Don't Worry Baby from Tequila Sunrise (likewise with the Everly Brothers)

I think they just wanted some product out.

I recently purchased a "Still Cruisin" CD-single with "Lady Liberty"  and the 12-inch mix of "Rock 'N' Roll To The Rescue." If you take the seven new Still Cruisin' songs with the 3 new songs from "Made In The USA" you have a pretty decent 10 track album (11 with "Don't Worry..." from Tequila Sunrise).  It's much more listenable than 1985's Beach Boys record, and available on CD.

Maybe the group doesn't think of it as a new album, but as a compilation record with some new songs to entice fans to buy it.   

Agree that Still Cruisin' should be re-released with tracks such as Spirit of Rock and Roll (maybe with a Dylan version bonus track of it too) and Rock and Roll to the Rescue and California Dreaming, Problem Child etc included along with the old hits, but order it so the old hits are last on the format since most people are probably tired of them.  Or heck, just delete the older hits and go with all of the above tracks plus more b-sides, oddities etc.  This thing could really make a nice fill-in compilation for the BB's in the eighties.  Heck, while we're at it stick Getcha Back and Its Gettin' Late on there too.

Also I really liked Still Cruisin' the single, had some great close harmony singing.  It was funny, I remember the vinyl single at the time had Kokomo as the B-side, like they were hoping if you didn't go for Cruisin' maybe you would want Kokomo if you didn't have it.  Funnier still that there were still 45's out at this late date!

FYI - "Kokomo" was also the b-side to "Somewhere Near Japan" in January 1990.

Both albums are part of the band's story for better or worse. Let the fans hear them and support the band in the process.

That is true, although I only saw it on cassette single. Took me years to locate a 45 of "Still Cruisin" - a promo copy, same on both sides.

A friend and neighbour turned up on my doorstep last week with a promo copy (all stickers removed though) of the vinyl Still Cruisin' album, which he was about to turf out if I wasn't interested… he reviews albums for a local paper back in the day. Plugged a gap (one if many) in my collection rather unexpectedly. Have always had the CD but never bothered with the LP at the time… thought vinyl was heading for extinction!

Saw a great documentary on the return of vinyl yesterday. Suddenly I'm hip instead of outdated! ;D

Would make a nice 2fer to complete the set, if bonus tracks were included. Otherwise, for hard core fans only.