The Smiley Smile Message Board

Need your help people. As is well known, Brian cracked up on a plane from LA to Houston on 12/23/64, played the gig that night then flew home, being replaced by Glen for the Dallas gig on the 26th.

However, two recent discoveries have cast some doubt on this long-held supposition. One, The tireless Ian Rusten uncovered a cancelled show in Little Rock AK on the 20th, while the equally redoubtable Jim Murphy found a ticket stub (note, a stub) for a 12/22 Dallas show. Now, there certainly was a Dallas show on 12/26 - Glen's first - so unless they played two shows at the same venue within five days, and the ticket was certainly used, the locical assumption is that it was honored for the rearranged date. Put this together with the cancelled gig on the 20th and it's looking possible that the Tulsa show on the 19th wasn't originally a one-off but the first of a short tour of the southwest. Thus:

19 - Assembly Center Arena, Tulsa, OK
20 - Little Rock Auditorium, Little Rock AR* [cancelled]
22 - Memorial Auditorium, Dallas TX* [postponed to the 26th ?]
23 - Music Hall, Houston TX
26 - Memorial Auditorium, Dallas TX

So, just shooting the breeze... were those shows cancelled because Brian was showing signs of strain ? Was the flight from Tulsa to Houston, not from LA ?  Did the band indeed fly back to LA from Tulsa, then on to Houston ? And does it really matter ?  ;D

I obviously don't know what exactly transpired, but yes, it does matter, because it's BB history, and I love this kind of research! Thanks to Mr. Rustin, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Doe.

So I'm wondering, do we know for sure that BW actually appeared at the 12/23 show, or that it took place? For these various appearances, what specifically do the newspaper ads/reviews and radio station surveys (if available) indicate? And congrats to Jim Murphy for somehow coming across a ticket stub to a 12/22 show in Dallas!

And yes, this does look like a short tour of the southwest, which makes a whole lot more sense than a one-off in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Yes, we do... or rather, Ian does, and if he says it happened, it happened. I've not said this publicly before, but it's rare that a week goes by without at least one email from him bearing the latest fruits of his ongoing research. That some of these missives are swiftly - indeed, at times almost instantly - followed by another saying, in essence, "forget that, it never happened" tells you just what a sterling researcher he is, not afraid to admit he's got it wrong. Like all the very best historians, he's in it for the accuracy, not the ego massage. It's Ian who makes the 10452 concert listings the single best repository of such data. Accept no inferior imitations.

To answer your question more exactly, a few months later Brian related the incident to Earl Leaf.

Also, an amended timeline:

19 - Assembly Center Arena, Tulsa, OK
20 - Little Rock Auditorium, Little Rock AR* [cancelled]
22 - Memorial Auditorium, Dallas TX* [postponed to the 26th ?]
23 - Music Hall, Houston TX
25 - Memphis TN [cancelled]
26 - Memorial Auditorium, Dallas TX

Wish I could help. My guess is it was cancelled because of that reason. Would these dates cross with the story Brian told about being in the hotel room telling the guys he won't be able to tour anymore.

Not sure how helpful but there is a concert eye witness, Ron Foster:

http://www.houstonpress.com/music/shored-up-6564082

I've always know that as him telling them during the January 1965 Today ! sessions.


Thanks.

FWIIW, I believe I also have a ticket for that 22nd Dallas show which I think I got on eBay. I remember it as a whole ticket, not a stub, but my memory might be playing tricks (I'll try and find it).

Ok so to be 100% accurate the situation is this: the December 19 1964 Tulsa show was confirmed by an advertisement I found in the Tulsa newspaper that day.  However Tulsa papers did not review or write about rock shows in those days and I can't 100% say it took place ( meaning it could have been canceled but no notice of cancellation can be found in the newspaper). Recently I discovered an ad for the little rock show on December 20. The newspaper doesn't say it was canceled but when advertising a show in little rock on February 4 1965 the paper states that tickets for a canceled show will be honored. So putting two and two together: little rock show on December 20 canceled and tickets honored at show on February 4. Now Keith badmans book listed two nights in Houston and a show in Dallas with dates of December 23, 24 and 26. As you all know his book is riddled with errors of date and venue. So when I did my book I went and researched every date he listed for accuracy.  Unfortunately for us all the Houston and Dallas newspapers (and I checked both major papers in each city) ignored the shows. They didn't advertise them or review them. Now we have lots of people who confirm the Houston show took place and the Dallas papers have some passing mentions in late December of the recent Dallas show without dating it. So the two shows are confirmed as taking place but where badman got those dates is a mystery. I have advertisements and some reviews or photos for every show after that-beginning with Omaha on December 27 1964. So what is an absolute fact is that the bbs were in Omaha with glen Campbell on December 27. If you get my drift here-other than badmans dating the two Texas dates could be December 21 and 22. So a radical but perhaps logical rethink would be to throw out badmans unconfirmable dates and say bbs fly to Tulsa on December 19.  Brian is not happy and little rock show on December 20 is canceled. Tulsa to Houston flight is break down. December 21 Brian gets it together and plays Houston gig. December 22 Brian goes home and glen joins bbs for December 22 Dallas show. The band goes home for Christmas and than flys to Omaha with glen for second leg of the tour on December 27. This makes sense to me. I've always questioned the band staying on the road over Christmas. They never did it again.

So... what of the 12/26 Dallas show ? Another Badmanism ? From my brief interaction with him, I got the distinct impression that he simply accepted what his researchers handed him and put it in the book.

Roger that. Badman listed the Dallas date and as I knew the bbs tour continued with glen on December 27 I accepted it as gospel. But the more I think about it the more my rethink makes much more logical sense. Especially when the only thing causing us to reject the Dallas ticket stub is badmans dating

For instance I have an article from a December 20 1964 Denton TX paper mentioning that some local kids have won tickets to the BBs Dallas show. It doesn't say when the show is-but there is no reason the show couldn't be December 22-especially when we have the ticket.

So, Ian, is there no actual evidence of the Houston show occurring on the 23rd? If I'm following along properly, you seem to be suggesting that it was on the 21st, which would support a revised timeline for Brian's incident--is that right? This scenario certainly makes more logical sense...but wasn't there also something about Brian being wigged out when leaving LA because Marilyn was supposedly "making eyes" at Mike? Or is that simply "urban legend"?

I always wondered about that, too. Where or from whom did the Marilyn "making eyes" at Mike story originate? I mean, Brian and Marilyn just got married two weeks previously!

As far as Brian having "a breakdown" on the plane, I saw an interview with Marilyn where she questioned that description.

But, this is The Beach Boys, and I believe there are stories (from Brian?) of Dennis sleeping with all of the guys' wives. And, of course, there is the story of Brian having an affair with his sister-in-law - while he was still married to Marilyn.

Right as far as I can ascertain there is nothing tying Houston to December 23 other than Keith badman. Again I'm not precious about this-if badmans date is proven right than hallelujah! I'd love if someone pops up on the net someday with a ticket, poster or photo from that night but I'm not holding my breath. By the way if you look at badmans book he has them playing two nights in Houston. I just seriously doubt that. He had the second night being glens first show. But in all the interviews I've seen glen says his first show was Dallas. So there seem to be some errors there. And with all due respect to Keith badman I've spent a lot more time than I think he did poring through Texas papers from December 64 and I can't find a thing to support his specific  dates.

In terms of the specific Houston article that was posted in this thread you'll notice it has a glaring error. Bbs weren't in Australia in November 64 . They were there in January 1964

By the way a date change doesn't invalidate that story. So about to board the plane to Tulsa that incident happened. Brian in a weird mood. Two days later on next plane he wigs out.

I guess I'm replying to the "does it matter?" comment.  To me the primary issue was that Brian was under horrendous pressure to produce that massive amount of product while also touring.  Anyone would crack under that kind of pressure. 

The details blur over the years, and as far as I'm concerned, they don't matter at all.  The fact that this thread somehow devolved into sh*tty little gossip items we've all heard many times before tells me that getting caught up in silly details is a waste of time and an opportunity for the same old nasty, gossipy crap that appears here that couldn't possibly matter at this point.

well-I agree and disagree-I don't think the gossip matters but I do think that accuracy is always welcome.  If a date can be pinned down and the story placed in proper context that is good.  If the date was December 21 not 23 I agree that the world won't stop spinning to applaud-but it doesn't mean that it should't be changed.  Personally I think it adds to the story.  For example-in Keith Badman's book he was not able to pinpoint a lot of shows before the deadline doom-but in my book (with Jon) I was able to document many of the ones he missed.  Looking at Keith's book-you can't help but say-"Gosh Brian wasn't under that much pressure" but when you see mine-with all the additional shows-you might say "gosh, those guys must have been exhausted." Context matters-but gossip doesn't.  Indeed when I wrote my book I left out a lot of salacious stories that musicians, promoters and confidantes shared-I just didn't want to go there.  But Brian's breakdown affected the band in a big way-so it has to be told.

That reminds me of the time I was on the web and saw a timeline with summer 1962 the BBs play their first 40 City U.S. Tour.  Well I think that an inaccuracy like that should be corrected.  It was just typical laziness-one person wrote it in a book and 600 lazy writers copy that fact-till it is  gospel. It's a small matter-but it all adds up to making the story accurate.

I get it that this is important to some people who spend their lives researching this minutiae, for the people who actually lived it, I think, not so much.

I can remember debunking the 1962 US Midwest Tour while researching the David Marks book, which came out in 2007 ( think I initially nailed down the correct tour timeline in about 2005)...making it the first BB's book to point out that there was no BB's Midwest tour until spring 1963. I'd always been suspicious of that '62 tour claim, even when Brian endorsed the occurrence of a '62 tour in his 1991 book, and of course Badman copied and pasted that info in his book too. But WTF ...common sense...there was no way they were doing 40 dates on the road before they'd even had a top-ten hit or played many local gigs. Of course Dave's family's diaries, logs, and his own recollections finally put that mistake to bed. Only took 45 years to get the info right in one of their books.

I don't see any gossip on here.  Ian and people like him documenting this stuff helps separate fact from fiction.

Dennis said on the American Band DVD, he remembers Brian crying one morning in Houston, Texas FWIW.

How much fact or fiction will be in Brian or Mike's new books?  I'm glad we have folk like Ian, AGD and Jon to check these things out or else we might still think Brian didn't leave bed for three and a half years!

Please see Sheriff John Stone's comments above.  What else would you call that aside from gossip?  I wasn't calling the minutiae gossip, simply noting that it can often obscure the truths in life, rather than reveal them, and open the door for such gossipy comments in an environment like this one.

I don't think you can blame the sheriff for that. All of this stuff was discussed in nick Kent and Steven gaines and the bbs themselves over shared in the famous pieces for rolling stone in 1971 and 1976

You said the thread had devolved into sh***y little gossip items, but it hadn't.

If one looks hard enough for agendas they will find them. I just took SJS's comments to mean there have been many mistruths told over the years it is good to have them debunked.  Many of those mistruths have been promulgated by the group members themselves over the years because it suited them at the time.

Debbie's right!

Fascinating that Mike Love states he has no recollection of Brian having a breakdown on the plane:

Five minutes into the flight to Houston, Wilson started crying and making shrieking noises. He screamed into a pillow, spun out of his seat and sobbed on the cabin floor. Beach Boys Carl Wilson and Al Jardine tried to comfort him, but couldn't. "We were really scared for him," says Jardine. "[We were] concerned for him because he was so upset. He obviously had a breakdown. None of us had ever witnessed something like that." (Curiously, Love doesn't recall the incident. "I don't know if it was because I wasn't there or some other reason," he says. " might have been in another part of the plane. I think his brothers were closer to that than I was at the time.")

And then dj Ron Foster says Brian performed in Houston, while Al Jardine says he didn't:

Foster witnessed the concert, which he says Wilson played and performed in, from backstage and says it seemed like "just a regular Beach Boys concert." It was hard to hear the band over all the screaming teenagers, anyway. Yet Beach Boy Jardine is of the minority that says Wilson did not perform. "He just stayed in his room and went home."

are you surprised that three people recall an incident differently or don't recall it all?? Very common!!!  My friends have forgotten many nights that I recall with crystal clarity and I've forgotten a few that they always bring up. And I'm not as old as the BBs.  1964 was now 52 years ago!!

Yet, I think it's safe to say that the fundamental take-aways from these events are pretty clear for most people, unless they were inconsequential.  We all know what we felt and some key things about what we said and didn't say that changed the course of events in our lives...and we remember the context of it all.

Frankly, in the most intense events in my life, I don't think I ever jotted down the date, time and location.

I certainly agree with Debbie that this borders on invasiveness if we aren't careful about it. But the source for the Marilyn-Mike thing was an article in which Brian was quoted about it, so it might be a bit harsh to judge us when we merely are sifting through what's been said in the public domain to determine if Ian's theory about a revised date makes sense.

All the evidence from available accounts indicates that Brian was being besieged by emotional turmoil in this time frame, and what's truly significant is that he found a way to remedy a good bit of that--he entered into one of his most productive periods once he was able to stay off the road. We are fortunate to have the music that stemmed from the aftereffects of the December 1964 event.

Well by the way if you are interested we've made many updates to the gigs and sessions part of bellagio hosted by esq. if you have my book, I've found many new shows that I didn't know about when the book was written and rectified a few errors. We've  also added info uncovered by Jim Murphy and others. And we continue to update session info when Craig reveals something new. If you have my book just open it to 1962 and than look at bellagio 1962 to see the additions. You can do it year by year. If you just have badmans book you'll find hundreds of additions and corrections. I'd like to start a blog to show a lot of my sources but so far haven't got it together

Yes, and how does that have anything to do with this topic, besides turning it into an attack on the Wilson's as usual, in this thread?  I can very easily blame SJS - he brought it up for no real reason in a thread that has been so highly touted as the righteous area of historians.  And thanks for ignoring my more prominent point - burying the truth in minutiae.  AGD asked the question, and I answered, observing how this thread went, as usual.

And you people still quote Nick Kent.  Amazing.  I met Nick Kent.  Have any of you?  He was lying on the floor in a semi-conscious state of some Hollywood type and we were "sort of" introduced by my friend Michele Myer.  Michele was among the people who were involved with housing, feeding and transporting this guy around BB land because they were impressed with NME, in spite of his obvious condition.  He screwed them all over in what he wrote later in his "Dark Side" crap.  He got to meet the BBs.  Most of you are fans of Marilyn Wilson Rutherford.  I know she wanted to sue over his first article and all the misrepresentations.  I don't know if that happened or not.

In an ironic twist, the BBs held a press conference a few years later and he was one of the reporters invited.  He was held up at Heathrow for about 24 hours because he was on the national methadon program.  For some reason, some ill-informed person in the BBs offices sent him to Brian's house with his NME creds to interview Brian.  His photographer was there and got a shot of Brian and I together.  I was described as an idiot named "Diane." I understand, in his book later, he explained that away as my being too stupid to know my own name, in essence. 

I'm glad you guys have picked your sources so impeccably in your research.

I didn't quote him but I don't damn him either-he wrote very well and interviewed a lot of people in the BBs inner circle to produce his now legendary three part story of the Last Beach Movie.  Now, I didn't discuss any gossip in my posts-just facts.  I don't think that I have ever attacked the Wilsons in any of my posts. I love all the Wilsons.  I tend to stick to the facts or try to find them.  But I don't think Nick Kent was a liar or inaccurate either.  Read his piece again and tell me what is a lie in it.   But I don't think the Sheriffs post came from Nick Kent anyways-probably Steven Gaines instead.

Maybe something else not necessarily helpful:

“I filled in for Brian for a few dates in Dallas and Houston... “Mike [Love] and Carl [Wilson] called me on a Wednesday and said, ‘Glen, can you be here tomorrow? You gotta play bass and do Brian’s part.’ I said, ‘Sure.’ I had been doing their sessions, so I could easily fill in.
“The only problem was, I didn’t know all the words to the songs. They’d be singing “Pasadena,” and I’d be singing something else,” Campbell adds. “I didn’t know what I was saying. But the screams were so loud from the girls, you’d walk onstage and you couldn’t hear a thing anyway.”
Glen Campbell
The Beach Boys: The Definitive Diary of America’s Greatest Band on Stage and in the Studio
http://theboot.com/glen-campbell-beach-boys/

December 23rd 1964 was on a Wednesday.

You guys, just keep on at it.  Some of us were there at various times.  You might want to ask actual eye-witnesses instead of a guy who offended everyone in LA around the BBs and others, and was on a UK methadon program at the time.

I didn't ask Nick Kent anything.  But I did read his stuff.  I asked eyewitnesses about lots of things and they remember what they remember and don't recall what they don't recall.  I remember that Glen interview in Badman's book.  Now in almost every other interview he did-including a few I have from the late 60s, he says his first show was Dallas.  So I don't know what to think.  Like I said-it's unlikely to be solved unless someone finds more info (like a ticket for the Houston show-which could turn up anytime on eBay).   I asked the BBs friend and roadie Ron Swallow and he asked Marilyn Wilson and they don't recall the details (though Ron does recall that he flew back to California with Brian and returned to Texas when Glen flew down there) and no one seems to have kept a journal-so for now I can't state anything about the exact dates of Houston and Dallas (except that they were both between December 21 and 26 1964).

If this place disgusts you so much, why are you even here?

 And while we're at it, why don't you leave us a list of writers who you deem are acceptable, and not acceptable. I mean seriously-'Have you ever met Nick Kent'? No, most probably haven't, because we weren't 'actual eye-witnesses' (which I imagine you were referring to yourself, of course). So how would we know who's a good interviewer or not?

I wonder if the Music Hall has an archive of records somewhere? Library, University, State Historical Society, etc.?

I've read this thread with great interest because, after spending eight years writing Becoming the Beach Boys, 1961-1963, I imagine I am one of those who believes historical accuracy matters. In fact, it was the maddening lack of a cohesive narrative of their early history that prompted me to begin researching and writing the book. My Dad used to say, "If something was worth doing, it was worth doing right." History is like that. Now, grant it, this level of attention to detail in the pursuit of accuracy, may not be for everyone. It doesn't have to be. I've had friends and family, after reading my book, tell me, "Good Gawd, did I have to know about matrix and delta numbers, and dead wax?" Probably not. But they do play a role in the story.

But the main reason I have followed this thread is because I enjoy Ian's and Andrew's research and analytical discussion of new information. Although my book ended in 1963, my interest does not. The scope of their research is so vast, essentially the band's entire ongoing career, and I enjoy reading about their discovery of new facts shedding light on old myths. Especially the pivotal moment in the band's career being discussed presently. There is a real value in setting the record straight while these events are only fifty odd years in the past. And, long after the band, and those who documented their history, have danced off this Earth, the books will be all that is left for future generations to study as they enjoy the incredible musical catalog of the band we had the honor and privilege to see and hear in our lifetimes.

The guys themselves have said so many things over the years that invite gossipy speculation. So, if someone is intrigued by one of these juicy tidbits, so be it. Personally, I have no interest in their private lives. My life intersected with the Beach Boys through their music, which has brought me an inordinate amount of joy and happiness. I look at it like this -- They have their lives and I have mine. I wish them all the best, of course, and lives of happiness and fulfillment. Certainly they deserve that in exchange for all they have given the world. And whether they make new music or release archival material, I know and care so much about their history, and their body of work, that I will always enjoy hearing each new release.  

To borrow one of Dennis's song titles, the Beach Boys music has been my constant companion. And, for me, that's enough.  

I'm pretty sure everyone on this board has a problem with someone else on the board. If that caused people to leave, it would be empty.
She didn't say the place disgusts her. She said she doesn't like some of the material in some posts.

And, of course, you're all selling your books - some of you selling them based on questionable research due to questionable sources.  

I'm selling nothing and have taken no money in any of this.

It's actually highly amusing from my perspective.

What is it, exactly that you people want?

When I made a similar note (specifically regarding which people obsessed over using real names), I was called a patronizing twaddler. Badge of honor, I guess. But anyway...


Obviously there is no "you people," and so nothing that the nonexistent "we" want. Some people want to obsess over the historical facts, maybe in an effort toward scholarly research, maybe just over geekdom. Some people want to chat casually with other people who share appreciation of a band they love. Some people want to get into musical details: arrangements, engineering, production. Some people want to talk about memorabilia and collections. Some want to reiterate their particularly obsessive focus against the very existence of "myke luv." Some want to hear from and communicate with people such as yourself, who had some role in the band's history. There are as many things "we people" want as there are "we people."

Yes, Emily thanks - I actually ignored this, but I probably should have replied.  

I didn't leave because I care about the truth, and try to speak it - yes, as an eye-witness in a number of instances.  

What's your point, exactly, Verlander?  Are you Nick Kent, if he's even still alive?  I don't know you, as far as I know - although since you're under a fake name I have no idea.

I think I made my point.  People here are spouting things as fact because they read it somewhere.  If it's re-written, you'll repeat that as fact.

I'm sorry it pi**es you off that you weren't there, but you weren't.  

I speak up when it's too egregious.  It isn't a pleasant task, but it's necessary.  

Well, considering the way in which Brian's breakdown on the plane is described, I find it surprising that Mike stated that he has no recollection of it. Even if he was in another area of the plane, you'd think the other guys would have made a big deal about it when he returned. Such an occurrence, assuming it's described accurately, is not a run-of-the-mill event that you would assume would likely be forgotten.

As far as the dj and Al having different recollections as to whether or not Brian played the Houston concert, yeah, that's not all that surprising, but I still find the discrepancy fascinating in that it adds to the confusion of establishing an accurate historical timeline.

Well, speaking for myself, I'm here to discuss my favorite band in a calm and respectful manner. The music of Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys has brought me unparalleled joy, and an accurate recounting of their history, which includes info such as concert dates, set lists, release dates of singles and albums, etc, is especially interesting to me.

The sentiments expressed in Jim Murphy's post below sum up my feelings perfectly.

And you consider this thread "respectful."  Fine.  I don't, as the "historians" have been trying to cover for the gossips quoting Nick Kent.  I don't mind being the "bad guy" here.  It's pretty funny, in an ironic way. 

Of course, it's about the music, in the end.  Have I ever argued that point?

And yet many of you still attack the source of the music, for some bizarre reason.  That's what so puzzles me.  What do you want, exactly?  The man is still touring, sharing the love and the happiness, as he's described it publicly.  Yet, here we are. 

Seriously, what is it you're after?

Deb, DLTBGYD. You were there. No one else here was. Finis.  :hat

Thank you, OSD.  It seems to really pi** a lot of people off.  Oh well.

Nobody in this thread criticised a Wilson.  We know what you think about SJS and that's your prerogative but I don't think you should be criticising people for writing books.  I'm sure the guys who right the books have interviewed a lot of people who were there.  They don't all say the same thing. Therefore, readers try to draw their own conclusions.  If Brian and Mike want to write good autobiographies I hope they have good fact checkers in place!  How many times over the years have Beach Boys changed stories?  They are only human and sometimes may tell half truths and embellish other things here and there. Human nature.

Debbie, do you really believe guys like Ian, Jim or Jon don't love Brian?  He's the main reason we are here on this board now.  Not everyone is on Mike Love's payroll, just as I'm sure not everyone is on Brian's.

Shame this thread has now been derailed.

damn people!! how the f*** did this thread end up in the shitter??? jesusfhchrist this is getting old.................

Derailing a thread?  I think that started with the ugly gossip garbage - as usual about the Wilsons.  I certainly didn't start that.  My point was that it was off-topic and utterly stupid.

Criticizing people for writing books?  I criticized a particularly pathetic writer that someone brought up here (not me) as a source for those books.  I think that's perfectly fair.  As for these authors' love for Brian, I wouldn't know, nor was I questioning it.  Interviews are all good.  Actually living it is another thing entirely.

Debbie wasn't the one taking a needless potshot at someone who probably regrets his past sins and someone else who is not alive to defend himself.

For better or worse, the 1975 NME tryptich was the single galvanising element of my BB fandom. I read it and wanted to know more, hear this music, and when I did, it was beyond wonderful. Over forty years on, I still love it as no other. Even Steinman doesn't come close. However, even at the time of the 1980 article, I could see his treatment of Debbie was disgusting, and when I later discovered he'd shamelessly appropriated parts of the Vosse Fusion article as his own in TLBM I was more than discomfited. Made me wonder how many other of his pieces were similarly... "borrowed".

When I wrote "And does it matter anyway ?" I was being facetious: of course it matters to me, and others. I happen to think that the music of The Beach Boys, individually and collectively, and the context thereof, is so important that it demands to be documented as accurately as possible. I've done my bit, others are carrying that torch much further than I ever could, but it's always been an uphill struggle, since the earliest days. Fans have given countless explanations as to why the band are held in such relatively low esteem (and yes, they've rarely helped themselves: it wasn't only James Watt who shot himself in the foot...), but to my mind the overriding cause of this lack of respect is simply this: the existence of The Beatles.

Researching The Beach Boys is a generally thankless task as not only the press of the time, such as it was, but also the principals, tend to be either contradictory or flat out misleading. Sometimes there's concrete proof, or it's patently obvious (viz, the summer 1962 tour: when you sit down and think about it, you swiftly realise that at the time the band couldn't have managed a fourteen date tour of southern Califoirnia, much less a 40-date tour of the Midwest), more often you're having to sift the data and evolve the best - or, frankly, least unlikely - scenario. This 1964 thing is a prime example: it's emerging that the likeliest answer is that the dates, but not the tour venues, are wrong. Thank you, Keith Badman. Thank you so much.  ;D

Derailed ? Not really, more shunted into a siding. When it starts slipping into the Brian-vs-Mike mire, then it's derailed.

Debbie, we are lucky to have you here! You were there, and you get it!

It would be nice to read a thread that doesn't end up being like a tabloid. I've been reading it and learning (as usual) and been rather pleased that some people have stuck to Andrew's original intentions despite the, no doubt intentional, baiting by one of the five or six board members who don't seem to be able to leave anything alone. Even Cam's behaved  :) I'm not criticising you, Debbie. I'm well acquainted with the Kent article and its inaccuracies - in fact Andrew was one of the first I read to highlight this. He was one of those writers who wanted to be a star in the Lester Bangs/Hunter S Thompson mode but he wasn't prepared to let the facts get in the way of his star's ascendancy. Oddly enough, though, he was a fan of the band, especially Brian - the real one, not just the one he wrote about.

Sure seemed like you were having a dig at more than Nick Kent.  Oh well...maybe not.

I understand you have every right to be angry at Nick Kent but not others.  And not the "you people" on the board.

The majority are here because we love the Beach Boys, not to slag off band members or other posters.

FWIW my December 22 1964 ticket is a stub, so much for the ol' gray cells.  

Hopefully not the same as Jim's.

(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj293/mottsigns/75853b8a-7d74-4867-995a-04f13720863c.jpg) (http://s275.photobucket.com/user/mottsigns/media/75853b8a-7d74-4867-995a-04f13720863c.jpg.html)

Thanks for posting this Cam.

Ian, Jim, et al, since this was an American Productions concert, shouldn't Fred Vail be able to confirm this string of dates?  Or does he no longer have his log books from that time period?

Lee

Thanks for posting the ticket stub, Cam.  The ticket stub attributed to me is just something I came across on eBay, noticed the date, thought Hmm?, and shared it with Ian and Andrew. It is a different stub than yours -- it is for Section D, Row A, Seat 1 -- and not nearly as nice as yours as it is torn in a less desirable manner -- "--ACH BOYS" and the "American" is missing before "Productions." 

Good catch, Lee, on the "American Productions" and excellent idea about contacting Fred, one of the nicest, most generous guys in Beach Boys world. Would you like to contact Fred, Ian? If you cannot right now, let me know and I'd be happy to call him.  We are also both huge Marty Robbins fans, so I always enjoy talking with Fred.     

I interviewed Ron swallow who was with the band on that tour and Fred vail, who was not. Fred booked some shows for the bbs but was not in charge by that time of a lot of that. I asked him about info like that and he didn't seem to have any paperwork. A lot of the bbs shows at this time were booked by William Morris, who claimed to me that they discarded those records years ago

Around this period Fred started working for another company and than was hired by the bbs again in 1969

Nonetheless I will email fred

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BEACH-BOYS-DEC-22-1964-DALLAS-TEXAS-TICKET-STUB-VG-CREASE-SCARCE-CLEAN-/141948569530?hash=item210ccb47ba:g:lYYAAOSwbwlXAWSZ

Thanks for posting that ticket stub, Cam.

Man, it's nice to have this thread back on track. Hope it stays that way.

Where did this Memphis date come from??

I lived in Memphis at the time. There was NO Memphis Beach Boys concert being advertised there. If there had been, I would have had tickets and been going to that show! (Were they doing private gigs then?)

However, there was a BB show being advertised in Jackson, MS for either Dec. 24 or 25. I tuned in to a Jackson radio station that was sponsoring the show when the guys were supposed to be in town, hoping to hear an interview. Instead, they said the show had been cancelled because Brian had been hospitalized and even gave an address to send him get-well cards.

In case you're wondering, I was too way too young to road trip to Jackson at the time. Local shows were doable, since the parents would drop us off at the show and pick us up afterward.

Is this new information, Ian and Andrew? I've never heard it.
Thanks Emdeeh.

Yes-Jackson, MS-I knew of that.  Don't know why the site says Memphis but we will fix that.

More interesting info. Thanks, mdh!

(PS - Did you send Brian a get-well card?)

Maybe this has already been proposed, I kind of lost track of the thread there for a bit, but if the 22nd Dallas show was postponed wouldn't a ticket holder present his 22nd ticket to be cancelled (torn) at the 26th show?  Never had personal experience with this sort of situation, anyone else?

Apologies if already discussed.

Another thought. I don't know if the venues keep any records for historical reasons, but would it be worth contacting them?

Yes that is true but we just don't know if the show was played December 22 or 26.

Well, that would depend on who used Nick Kent's writings as fact and who didn't. Some in books, some elsewhere.  I am not prepared, nor do I intend to investigate the issue.

I doubt that Nick Kent's fantasy writings would effect Jim Murphy, since that wasn't his period - I actually bought his book and plan to read it when I get a minute.  I seriously doubt I'm talking about Stebbins either, as he had better sources - some mutual friends of ours. Stebbins and I got along quite well in our brief encounters celebrating Dennis's life and he gave me a signed copy of his Dennis book.  I harbor no ill will there.  Stephen Gaines struck me as a meticulous writer in a realm that offered big $$$, but required the "dirt."  An odd combination, but he had some ethics.  I liked him, too.

Clearly we aren't talking about David Leaf's book, as it was before all of this stuff and quoted often.  This was another person who conducted extensive interviews with people who were there at the time, and was careful about his sources.

I'm afraid I've probably missed some writer who was mentioned, but that isn't implying guilt by my omission.  I'm just too busy to go back and see who was mentioned in this thread.

My criticism was for people who tout that slimy stuff promoted by Kent as reality.  I know many were seduced by the "dark side" garbage of his fantasies.  I guess I should give the man credit for that.  If only he'd admitted that it was fiction, not journalism.  Sadly, I see the Nick Kent mentality here on a relatively frequent basis.  I do not know it's source(s).  I'm just sick of it.

Yes, I sent it through the fan club and got back a photo of the band.

Apologies if this was previously discussed, but I had thought the Dec. 26 date was set in stone, but apparently not, so where did the Dec. 26 date come from?

That's pretty cool.  ;D Do you still have it?

As far as I can recall Keith Badman's book was the first time I saw December 26 for Dallas...but I am willing to be corrected. 

Actually I am looking at brad Elliot's article "do you remember: a chronology of the beach boys 1964-65" and he lists the December 26 Dallas show. I think that article preceded badmans book. Not sure of brads source.

Thanks for this information Margaret!  I grew up in Jackson, Mississippi, but I would have only been two years old at the time.  But as I became a Beach Boys fan I heard stories of a cancelled Beach Boys concert in Jackson in the '60s, however the reason I was given for the cancellation was the racial instability in Mississippi at that time, and the fact that the venue insisted on a segregated audience.  I'll have to chat with some of my friends that were in the radio business to see if they have any more information about the cancelled show in Jackson.

Lee

Another thread that has to suffer from a SJS "king hit". Re-named the "coward punch" in Australia. He comes in and throws one dog shot and runs.... Not just any dog-shot but one that cannot be defended.

The thread seems to be back on track, comments like this will only derail it again.

props to andrew and ian this is helluva thread !

Props to this fascinating thread (at least the relevant parts).

Ian, Andrew and Jim take their research very seriously and have a great deal of respect from hardcore fans because they've earned it.

I see your point, I questioned myself prior to posting. I proceeded purely in support of others.

ONE big question, between the pic attached and the item on ebay - WHY is there such a disparity on the ticket price, $2 to $5.50 ??? That is a serious difference in price even for those times (ie 175% increase) - Sorry but something doesn't fit !!

The other guy was in Row A Seat 1 on the main floor and my guy was in the cheap seats in the balcony apparently.

Yeah, first row main floor for $5.50 versus $2.00 for balcony doesn't raise any alarms for me.  Think $140 for an orchestra seat versus $50 for a balcony seat today -- same ratio.

BTW I have a ticket for the 12/19 Tulsa show.  Section C, Row G, ticket price $3.50.

Lee

I agree concerning the ticket price ratios. Today's concerts are far more elaborate productions than those of 1964, but I find it interesting to note that adjusted for inflation those $5.50 to $2.00 tickets of 52 years ago translate to $42.25 and $15.35 in today's dollars, prices which you'd never see these days for an act as popular as the BB's were in December 1964.

In those days I guess there was no surcharge for the meet & greet with photo opportunity and signed tote bag thrown in! An extra 65c?

Oh I think there was quite a bit of "meeting and greeting" going on back in the day, if you get my meaning.  ;)

I wouldn't mind a "meet and greet" with any of the boys back in the 60's.  8)

I don't know if this would be considered "derailing," but since we're talking about the "event"....

Don't recall if I mentioned this before, but...part of me wonders if maybe Brian *faked* his breakdown. Why do I wonder? Well...

We know Brian didn't like touring. His place was the studio. And it was eye-opening to read The Lost Beach Boy and learn that Brian really hardly toured in 1963. Why? because he had to stay behind and compose and produce. And he was a busy guy in the studio in '63, producing not only stuff for the Beach Boys but side projects as well, including the Honeys, Bob & Sheri, etc. Meanwhile the touring band consists of Dennis, Mike, Carl, David, and Al.

So Dave quits. Brian freaks. Why? Because that means he'll be called upon to go back on the road, which he didn't like. He tells Murry and the rest of the band that he needs to stay back and write and produce. They ignore Brian's concerns and he ends up joining them.

Is it not unthinkable that for a long time he tried to convince the rest of the group that he needs to be off the road, to no avail, so he fakes a nervous breakdown to scare the rest of the guys into finally agreeing to let him stay home?

Mind you this hypothesis kind of goes against my strong belief that, as proven in 1972 during the Holland fiasco, Brian does NOT do anything he truly does not want to do. (But then again, this is 1964 I'm talking here. 1972 Brian and 1964 Brian = in many ways completely different Brians.)

But still...I gotta wonder. (Remember, I said *********wonder********. I'm not saying he ***did*** fake it; just entertaining the possibility.)

Or maybe the situation just got too much for him and he did indeed have a breakdown!  ;D

Of course it's a possibility, but given that the situation was obviously actually stressful; and that we know he's "scared" of a lot of things - rather nervous; and we know he has a diagnosed schizoid-affective disorder, I don't see any reason to doubt he had a panic attack.

Also consider two people who knew him best were present and genuinely concerned. Dennis and Carl.

My brain cells may not be what they used to be, but didn't Lorren Daro state that Brian did exactly that?  I tried to read through some of that Daro thread, but I couldn't find the post where he said that.  It may have been removed, or it may be in that thread somewhere, or I may be mis-remembering altogether.  FWIW.  Which may not be much.   :)

Here's the quote, from a supposedly Daro comment on this blog http://www.collapseboard.com/music-blogs-3/wallace-wylie/brian-wilson-tired-of-music-critics-putting-him-in-a-box/ (http://www.collapseboard.com/music-blogs-3/wallace-wylie/brian-wilson-tired-of-music-critics-putting-him-in-a-box/)

I am a Houstonian myself and interested in this subject. Here are some excerpts from a book I have called Boys from Houston by Vicki Welch Ayo that talks about the actual show itself where they played with Strawberry Alarm Clock and Buffalo Springfield

(http://i67.tinypic.com/2lcqmpl.jpg)

(http://i63.tinypic.com/f445td.jpg)

.

Ah, thank you for the link. I was just going buy the guy's recollection who wrote the letter. Now that I think about it I don't even think Strawberry Alarm Clock were around that early. So this was before they started touring with the Maharishi?

Right...The BBs played many shows in Texas.  First Houston show was apparently in 1963 with David Marks.  They played there again in May and December 1964.  Visited almost every year after that (though not in 1970 or 1972).  April 68 tour was with Buffalo Springfield.  That was followed by May 1968 tour with Maharishi-canceled after only a few dates.

Right...and we all know Darro was full of it to the eyebrows. Furthermore, even if Brian told someone he faked it, all that would mean was that Brian was BS-ing himself.

Brian didn't fake any breakdown on an airplane, and he has suffered from mental problems nearly his whole life. Trying to dispute that is just ignorant.

It will probably be addressed in Brian's book. But I doubt there will be any major revelations

Yes, that was the tour right before the Maharishi tour.

Daro did claim that Brian faked the breakdown to get off the road. Here is what he said:

...but I can make a good guess that Brian was okay for at least three years after taking LSD (only once with me) and staying on marijuana (not from me). The problems started with, a) Terry Sachen giving every drug he could find to Brian. b) At first, pretending to be mentally ill to keep off the road, and then, with food, more drugs, isolation in his bedroom, Marilyn unable to understand him, and agoraphobia. c) And, finally the introduction of Eugene Landy into his life when his supposed mental illness began. A, B, C. Three strikes and you’re out.

While Daro is oversimplifying and telescoping history (as he himself admitted, he was not there after mid-'66 and was working with second or third-hand information), his assertion about what could easily be a case of someone "acting out" in a way that will (temporarily, at least) relieve an escalating level of stress is striking and should not be simply dismissed out of hand. Certainly many individuals, faced with seemingly impossible emotional demands, would utilize such a technique to distance oneself from impending psychological damage. I would suspect that many, if not most of us, have done something like that at some point in our lives.

I don't think the poster was suggesting that Brian did not have emotional issues that had been put into place during childhood that a) may have pushed him to excel and b) created as many wrenching problems as glorious moments as success continued and the stakes just seemed to get higher--all while trying to balance adult life, the ever-shifting ground of pop stardom, freedom from parental intrusion, and the urge for artistic growth.

I wish it weren't so clearly invasive to ask Brian about it. But perhaps he will address it in the book.

Sorry, but there would have been no reason to fake breaking down on a flight in a convoluted attempt to get out of touring. The entire premise reeks of conspiracy nonsense. Brian simply would have DEMANDED that he was going to stay home without PRETENDING to be on overload and ready to crack. He was under immense pressure and it got to him, and on the flight band mates witnessed it.

That paragraph from Darro also uses the term SUPPOSED mental illness. I find that totally idiotic as well. Having a breakdown in flight or mental problems does not mean one is some kind of flat out mental case. Most mental illness is subtle....the kind of thing that would escape most people that are not around the affected person day in and day out. And even then, it can come off as just a kind of mild personality disorder rather than something more serious.

Lastly, not that the film is 100% accurate, but since Brian LOSING IT is kind of a huge main theme in the narrative, and Brian and Melinda and Darian are on record saying they got it right it would be more than a little far fetched to one day learn that we were all duped. Speaking of films, even the crappy TV movie that had Mike's blessing had the airplane scene did it not? I don't think L&M would have included a scene that in reality was just a ploy.

Your ability to grasp nuance seems to be a bit lacking there, Paul. Clearly if Brian felt he had to "fake" (or exaggerate) his condition in order to get relief, it signals that there was much more going on that he did not feel in control of at that time. If Brian had truly been incapacitated by the pressure and had a true "nervous breakdown," he would have been much less able to embark on a period of his greatest artistic growth--which is precisely what occurred when he was able to get off the road.

What makes the most sense was that Brian was "treating the symptoms" of his problems rather than dealing with the root causes, which delayed the day of reckoning, giving him time to further develop the parallel worlds of creativity that had already surfaced as early as late 1963, where the next collision of those worlds would create an even more elevated level of consternation and confrontation about the direction he was taking.

Your point about people who break down not being an out-and-out mental case actually supports the notion that someone would engineer such an episode.

The film doesn't have to take a stand on whether Brian was "faking it" or not. Whatever was behind the incident, it clearly happened, and it changed the dynamics of the group, which is what Brian was after--had he not done that, he might well have become a "mental case" in short order.

Brian didn't LOSE IT in the SMILE period, either, he lost his confidence and the will to keep finding new ways to be the dominant figure in the group. He decided to help make a transition to a more democratic arrangement, where the other members of the band could have more of a role in writing and producing. Having set that in motion, it seems that after the FRIENDS project he suffered a further series of emotional setbacks that led to the famous "reclusive" period. The film focuses more on the auditory hallucination incidents and shows how that dovetailed into SMILE creativity going awry; what it doesn't follow up on is how Brian regrouped to make WILD HONEY and FRIENDS over the next year, something that seems implausible if we want to contend that SMILE produced a true "psychotic break."

While I don't disagree with much of your post, it is certainly the case that people have authentic panic attacks that don't hinder their ability to proceed afterward with their work. That someone did good work after a panic attack is no evidence that the panic attack was 'faked' or 'engineered' or whatever.

When Brian openly states that he faked the airplane incident, I'll believe him. Until then I will stick with the status quo. There is way too much nutty speculation on this board and I just found the AGD ban thread today so I'm at a loss as to figure out the fact from fiction here anymore.

Andrew is banned?

I wonder if Mike thinks that Brian faked the airplane incident, which could be a reason why he claims to not recall it (as a way of not touching that minefield with a ten-foot pole). Come to think of it, I'm not sure I can recall one single incident of Mike actually speaking about Brian having mental/emotional problems.

As Mike seems to *always*, without question (as far as I know) publicly refer to Brian's struggles as *exclusively* drug-based, one might surmise that he either doesn't believe in the existence of mental illness being in part brought on as a result of people/circumstances/DNA (other than drugs), and/or thinks that Brian is putting on all of the time.

I obviously don't know if Mike actually believes these things, but his mindset about Brian is just something that crosses my mind from time to time.

I could also believe the possibility that Brian could have told friends like Daro, after the fact, that the airplane incident was something faked, even if it in actuality wasn't. Not saying that's what happened between Brian and Daro, but I wouldn't think this is an impossible scenario either.

I don't know about you, but one does not fake panic attacks. Brian clearly faced the results of a stressful career/personal life on that plane.

CD: It's kind of old-fashionedy, but there are many people who interpret a lot of mental illness as personal weakness that could be overcome by 'sucking it up'  and 'getting it together'.

Yeah, totally. I know some older people, hardened "macho" types who poo-poo the idea of therapy, and very much believe that line of thinking across the board. It just seems incredibly callous and misguided to me.

Panic attacks are very much a real thing. If you don't believe that there is a serious disconnect between you and reality.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23685.0.html

Yes, I am on this board every day and only found out yesterday!

Many scenarios are possible, which was my original point. There's also the ironic possibility that Brian had it in mind to stage such an incident, and once it started, it actually took over as an organic, bonafide panic attack. Sometimes we outsmart ourselves...

Of course everyone is free to draw their own conclusions. I consider it to be a grey area that may or may not be explained by the most straightforward explanation. It took many formative events for Brian to reach the state of being "psychedelicate" and in the high-pressure world in which he found himself, he's certainly capable of self-protective misdirection. I don't think he has a nasty bone in his body, which makes our dear friend Rocky's story of him slapping Mike around seem awfully dubious, but I do think that he'd try to be sneaky about getting his way if he thought it would avoid the type of confrontation that would go beyond a level of hostility that he felt he could handle emotionally. All of this stems, of course, from the various incarnations of child abuse practiced by good ol' Murry...

AGD banned? Did he get caught writing secret emails to Lorren Daro? (ducking) This board w/o Andrew is like a spaghetti western w/o an anti-hero...

That is correct. Otherwise, I'd never be able to hold a job.

Sorry to take this thread on a tangent, but I too just learned about AGD’s ban (in this thread), and I have to say it’s quite sad.  Since that AGD ban thread is locked, I'll just say here that it almost feels like kicking Mike out of the band. The guy who is imperfect to say the least, but does unquestionably have value to add. I get the reasons, maybe it had to happen, and granted - I'm not privy to PMs that apparently went on which sound like they were inappropriate - but it’s a big bummer regardless to people like myself, who are BB information sponges.

Just before I knew about this ban, about a week and a half ago, I randomly saw a California AGD license plate on a car parked at a mall, and I snapped a photo – I was waiting for the right moment to post it on this board. I guess now’s as good a time as any.

(http://i63.tinypic.com/2j5urm.jpg)

My personal hope is that after a sufficient cooling-off period, the mods and the owner of this board will consider a probationary reinstatement for AGD. Of course that is up to them, but that's my wish. On a scale of 1-10, Andrew's ability to suffer fools was hovering at about 0.4, but the key is to ignore 90% of the aggravating stuff that happens here.

As for "faking it" and doing good work after, this is indeed a murky point. But consider there was no interruption whatsoever in Brian's output after this incident. The problem is that shading the incident around words that kinda sorta cover the description of the episode ("nervous breakdown," "panic attack," "meltdown," "hysterical episode" et al) leaves us all a bit too much wiggle room to argue "definitively" through the type of "geometric logic" that got Humphrey Bogart's character into so much trouble in THE CAINE MUTINY.  Let's await further information/testimony and keep in mind that the obsessive search for "truth" sometimes has an unintended impact, which results in a great researcher being banned from a place where his contributions have been vast.

But if you have the testimony of the guy himself, of his bandmates, of his mother and of his wife, what further testimony will cause you to stop questioning it? True, the terminology isn't clear because 'panic attack' wasn't a defined term at the time. But all descriptions perfectly match a panic attack. Someone says he had a panic attack (using different terms, because that one didn't exist at the time). His family agrees he had a panic attack (using different terms...); what reason is there to doubt he had a panic attack?
In terms of interruptions, most panic attacks do not debilitate the person who experiences them except during the panic attack.
I don't get what this is about.

BW suffered alone in an era before mental health awareness.

It could also be reasoned that Brian's output continued at the same pace because an immediate stressor was removed( the road) and another one soon would be.  (Murry). However the problems resurfaced because other stressors exacerbated the condition.  Treating the symptoms not the cause is a good explanation.

Truth.

Murry
The road
myKe luHv

The trifecta from Hell for Brian.

Well said.

I've always been curios about the day that Brian had his"nervous breakdown". What went on earlier in the day? Did some kind of argument set Brian off? Was it a particularly stressful day?

  Yes, Mike put the voices in Brian's head. He really is an evil genius.  Kind of like Lex Luthor with a bit more hair.

  Sure, personal relationships within the band - including  Mike - contributed to the stress. I've always believed the demand for product played a role. A new single every three or four months; you were only as good as your last hit. Three studio albums in a year. Brian didn't do it alone, but the composition, arrangement, and production of the music was all pretty much on his head. That's pressure.

I agree that the demand for product was probably putting a huge amount of stress on him.

I think the stressors of Mike's creative differences with Brian, coupled with Mike's personality, didn't really become more of a significant issue for Brian until a year+ later. Just looking at Love & Mercy, one can see the deep guilt trips being directed at Brian from Mike, as Brian truly began to creatively flower. Replacing Mike as primary lyricist surely helped Brian find someone who wanted to look for places where new things might be found, but surely didn't help Brian receive less stress/grief from an increasingly jealous bandmate who had to feel threatened and insecure. It was the perfect storm.

I think the pressure on Brian was from Brian; his drive to create, produce, compete, and "scare" the record buyer and record industry.

I think that's true as well.

Definitely, and I bet he put more pressure on  himself than anybody.  Stands to reason...he has always struck me as someone who cares more about others and their feelings than his own, and the thought of letting people down likely was anathema to him.

Apologies for the further tangental posting but I too just found out last night. The banning thread is closed and as I wanted to pass some comment this seems the only marginally acceptable place to make it. Ironic that it's one of those scholarly threads for which Andrew is held in such regard.

I spent the rest of the night and an hour this morning reading the thread about his banning and while I recognise some of the character traits being alluded to there I have to say that I've never received any of the emails/PMs that folk are describing. I don't doubt that such things were received: I'm only surprised to find out about it now because AGD and I shared views and opinions about certain individuals and if he had wanted to slander/libel folk I might have been a receptive naive target for such falsehoods as were hinted at - I should stress that I'm talking about certain Smiley board members here, his "fuckwits, shitweasels and trolls", not members of the band or any band member's family or associates).

I believe the Mods and Chuck when they say this was a considered and necessary step. I believe those who claim to have received the terrible PMs. I'm gutted at the circumstances of his banning.

Even so, the sum total of what AGD's given this board in the past adds up to more than most of us could ever hope to contribute and I share the hope that a probationary return might be contemplated in time, as the board is already lessened by his - and now Lee's - absence.

Very well stated. This thread is a prime example of why, despite his flaws, AGD, with his background knowledge and continuing research, is an essential component of the SS board. Hope he will be given a probationary return and that we'll see Lee Dempsey posting again as well.

My impression is Brian cares about people like we all do but in regards to music he was the guy with the vision and sort of gently and politely ignored people's feelings because he already knew in his head where he was going and he knew they didn't.  Not intentionally insensitive but self driven and ignoring distractions from his vision.  Something like that.

I hope AGD was or is given a chance to face his accusers and give his side, I don't see any suggestion of it in the explanations. A little confused that AGD is accountable for supposed libel that he attributed to third parties and related in private.  Don't know what to say about the supposed bullying; I've been bullyed plenty on message boards but never once by Andrew in 20 some years of knowing him.

AGD and Lee Dempsey are both gone? I also saw a reference that Mujan no longer posts.

Truly sad. The board will surely suffer as a result.

This incident was also at the tail end of a calendar year ruled by The Beatles.  No doubt, Brian wanted to try ahead of the curve.

I imagine that's why they hesitated so.long.to ban him.

Agree 100% about the stressor being removed allowing him to continue. I also agree there was no apparent interruption in output after the plane incident, however there would soon be a huge decline in output. Also, much more time went into albums like Pet Sounds, Smile, the GV single. The time frame and cost of GV is ample evidence of a man going in a direction beyond a perfectionist.

So, the thing Brian wanted out of the way, touring was out of the way and things in the studio didn't exactly become smoother.

Then Brian's life is made "easier" by bringing the studio to him right in his own house, again things didn't exactly become smoother.

Then with each album over the next few years Brian is less and less involved, thankfully the Beach Boys really blossomed and made some fine records.

Then Brian seemingly washes his hands of the whole thing over the next few years until a quack is brought in to save him and get him to do what everyone thinks he loves and wants to do again.

So in '76 a man with a shockingly gruff voice is finally recording again on 15BO and then Love You but it sure as heck does not seem to be the same guy anymore. He wasn't.

Nothing fake or exaggerated is needed. There is/was a clear trajectory that started after the plane incident. Street drugs and a number of other things contributed to Brian's life unfolding as it did but it is my firm belief that the biggest factor was the mental health issue plain and simple.

You could write a book on this subject alone.  The fact that Mike has been heard saying things like "self-inflicted problems" when referring to Brian hints that he doesn't buy into mental illness in general, even though he himself meditates, which is one type of stress therapy.  He was also quick to point out Brian's obesity during his most troubled times, which I interpret as Mike saying Brian's problems could be identified as simple things like eating disorders and lack of self-control.

Most damning to Mike was the way he was portrayed in Love and Mercy, when Brian was showing signs of extreme paranoia (the swimming pool scene) Mike was lecturing him about how was taking advantage of the group.  I found that part very interesting, as if they wanted to show how clueless the boys were when it came to Brian's troubles.



  

So, in his eyes, what caused his 'episode' while he was fasting? You know, the one he blamed on 'bad Wilson genes'?

I think Brian & Marilyn were unaware (Clueless is a bit harsh) of what exactly was going on, as well.

Yeah, and I can forgive people for being unaware decades earlier, before more information on the subject of mental illness became publicly known. It's when decades later, that the same seemingly aloof attitude to mental illness is still publicly propagated by one guy in particular, that it becomes more than a bit hard to swallow.

Mike probably wants everyone to forget this incident ever happened, lest he himself be thought of by people as being *capable* of having had a breakdown like his cousins. As though this was a sign of "weakness" and is something to be ashamed about.  :-\ Luckily for him, only the hardcore fans even know about this, and I don't imagine this incident will be mentioned in the book.

Self-inflicted Hypoglycemia?

I absolutely agree with you there. After all these years and Brian being properly diagnosed, Mike is way off base in his thinking.

One source I read...darned if I can remember which one...said that Marilyn earlier in the day could tell that Brian wasn't in the best mental shape, so just as a joke and to try to take his mind off whatever was bothering him, she and Mike play-flirted just to try to make Brian laugh or something, and he took it in an unintended way. Apparently part of his breakdown involved screaming "She doesn't love me!" (I know *THAT* line was portrayed in the 1990 made-for-TV movie, but I know I've read it elsewhere as well).

The whole Marilyn-Mike incident was before the earlier Australia trip, allegedly he consequently telegrammed her from the plane and called and proposed upon arrival in Australia.
The "1964 incident" discussed in this thread is the Houston flight panic attack.
Separate incidents but clearly in the months before the panic attack he was suffering from elevated anxiety.

That's not all, I think. Haven't seen bgas since April 28th and Steve Mayo's magazine thread in the media section has gone belly up.

I think people will continue to post if the topic is interesting. I have no interest in continually discussing why people post or don't, etc.  if an interesting topic is brought up I am sure lee and Steve and others will comment occasionally

By the way I recently found a May 1965 article in the little rock gazette in which a reader asked the editor why the bbs didn't appear on December 20 1964. The editor stated that one of the beach boys was too ill to perform. Intriguing but without more info can't say what it adds to the story.  The question is did the bbs play the Tulsa show on December 19? I've never found a cancelation notice and I once searched through the December 1964 Tulsa world looking. If that was canceled than maybe Brian was really not in a mood to go and stalled (forcing cancelation of Tulsa and little rock and postponing the Dallas show scheduled for December 22 to the 26. Finally he was talked into it and boarded flight to Houston. But this scenario is just a hypothesis.  Without more evidence I just can't say what happened between December 19 and 26 1964. The trouble is that we hardly ever hear from eyewitnesses who attended specific bb shows.  If a fan who attended these shows posted it would solve it.

What I mean to say is that the Tulsa, Houston and Dallas newspapers just happened to have basically ignored these shows (other than an advertisement for the Tulsa show) so we can't get any more info unless a person who attended the shows happens to come forward

Bringing up an old topic, but just my opinions:

Brian didn't have a "nervous breakdown" that day in 1964. He had an extreme panic attack, a momentously emotional night. All these things that had been building up inside of him for however long came to the fore. A "nervous breakdown" is much more serious. He had an extremely emotional episode, followed by a revelation, followed by 2 years of the greatest productivity of his life. It was with the collapse of SMiLE that he more than likely suffered a nervous breakdown of sorts. Not some massive nervous breakdown. No one who had that much control over anything as much as Brian had control over his music at that time could possibly be seriously mentally ill. He was seriously mentally ill in the early 70s. It was a big enough breakdown though that it crushed his will, more or less. And to him (or anyone), that is equal to a nervous breakdown in terms of personal pain. My guess (for whatever it's worth) is that he was starting to deteriorate pretty bad by 1972 when he recorded 'Mount Vernon & Fairway'. When his dad died, it probably took over him rapidly.

I say all this with the utmost respect for Brian, and people with mental problems. I only say it because the idea that he had a "nervous breakdown" in 1964 makes no sense realistically. Perhaps a life-changing panic attack, but not a "nervous breakdown". I very much believe (I hate to say it but I do believe it) Brian probably made up the "nervous breakdown" thing because he was aware of the seriousness of his emotional distress (as he would be obviously) and no one else around him cared as much so no one would take it seriously enough if he just said it was a "panic attack". It makes perfect sense, and there's nothing wrong with that. That just makes a lot more sense than the idea that he actually had a nervous breakdown in 1964.

I agree with you.  I view it as a series of smaller setbacks over a long period of time that at the end show a large toll has been taken, with the most damaging one probably being his dad dying.

I don't disagree with you except for the "Brian probably made up the 'nervous breakdown' thing..." I don't imagine 'panic attack' was within his lexicon. It was not a common term and at that time, 'nervous breakdown' was a broadly used term describing a variety of episode types that now have distinct names.

Thank you for telling me, I didn't know that. That changes my "Brian made it up" opinion.

Agreed. I think he was just using the wrong term, or didn't know what term to use. I think  "nervous breakdown" is something where you lose the ambition or goals or whatever it is that you had prior. A panic attack, while terrifying, and while possibly part of a series of panic attacks, is more of an acute episode in reaction to stress or trauma, and it may be a sign or symptom of serious anxiety, but by itself it's probably not life-altering.

I brought this up before on one of the Dennis threads, but I wasn't aware until recently that Dennis had a series of panic attacks as a teenager and young man. Dennis having anxiety doesn't really fit in with his persona as the rebellious Beach Boy, but he, too, was deeply affected by having Murry for a father. I suppose Brian's famous panic attack is discussed more because it was the catalyst for his decision to stay home and therefore part of BBs lore.

This is sort of a sidepoint and not directed towards anyone in this thread or on this board- but I wish that this event was viewed by the average person less as fitting within a narrative of someone who has mental problems having a mental episode, and more as a normal consequence of a young man being burdened with the equivalent of 3 or 4 jobs and eventually not being able to handle the situation they were in. 

Sometimes mental illness is a completely physiological thing.  But I find that often it is some combination of the hand you were dealt and the game in which you are forced to play it.  Not stressing the latter enough bums me out in this instance because I think Brian was actually really tough in this era but that isn't recognized as much outside of circles such as this one.  It is definitely a symptom of how things were in that era regarding mental illness, which makes this such a fascinating story.  But unfortunately it is also a symptom of our continued inability to completely get it right in present times. 

I'm not a mental health expert, but I agree with you that a panic attack is not in and of itself a symptom of mental illness. I myself had a series of panic attacks several years ago when I was working two jobs and under a lot of stress. They are more common than people think, so while the plane incident is discussed in almost romantic terms as some sort of turning point in Brian's mental health, I think it's quite likely that anyone in Brian's position in 1964 would have suffered for it, and a panic attack wouldn't mean that they were on the road to a lifetime of the sort of severe mental illness that Brian developed. That it happened in such a public way probably made it seem worse, but when you have a panic attack, there's no way to hide it.