Don't F**k With the Formula

[filledeplage]

When these quotes were taken, it was just post Carl being arrested and released to negotiate being able to do the UK tour and report to the federal court on the draft evasion charges.  So, it appears they (the band) were out of the country, except Brian.  TIKH isn't a bad song but it is not a BB song.  They were both a re-tread cover. And they used two non-BB songs, for both sides of the single.  

Someone went to some effort to cull through the existing catalog, find two songs without BB authorship, to divert the profit stream to the original authors, who were maybe still in "the fold" (Capitol) and release them without prior discussion and proper notice to the band, or representative.

It further supports the malfeasance on the part of Capitol. They apparently took advantage of the "totality of the circumstances." They were apparently taken by surprise.

So, they shouldn't have had a phone call or a letter, with notice of the release?  They got no choice or notice about what was to be used in tandem with a UK tour? Clearly, from their quotes, they would have objected.


Brian said, "the A-side should be an interesting study in contrasts" between the Beach Boys in 1965 and 1967.  They were a different band.  And had been performing Pet Sounds, after four cuts had been released, WIBN, GOK, SJB and Caroline No. (Brian Solo.)

So, I'm looking at the band as being stripped of power, at least for this "instant" purpose, outside of what they wrested as creative control, for the future with Brother.  Their hands appear to have been tied.  

You don't get any disagreement from me that Capitol treated their clients poorly during this time. I do find the claims about them punishing the band by releasing a song that would go to #4 in the charts to be somewhat unconvincing. I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the topic in the thread, but as I've said, I'm dim.  

Dim? - not a chance! No flies on you! If they are, they're paying rent! 

From all outward appearances, and the direct quotes from the band, the split from Capitol had everything to do with creative control and rejection of their (Brian's material.) And it isn't as simple as it looks, since Murry had apparent control of the Sea of Tunes catalog. (We know how that went.)

Yes, in my view, it has all the indicia of retaliation for the Brother incorporation. They no longer control Brian (and the other members) but without confidence in Brian, they would have not made that decision to split.  From these events, it's my impression that it was Capitol who undermined Brian.  It would have been the "path of least resistance" to stay in the fold. They must have had faith in themselves and each other to make a go of it with Brother. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Pet Sounds - Mike took an exception to the drug inspired lyrics to one songs and wrote a much better set. Band initially was taken aback with how different the new music sounded but soon got on board with the project.

Asher claims that the band was calling the songs "stupid," Al says he wasn't thrilled by it at first, and also claims Mike was confused by it. Brian says the band didn't like it and thought it was too much of a departure. This doesn't seem quite as minor as you are making it out to be.

Good Vibrations - Mike worried it was 'too out there' on first listen.

On first listen only? What is your evidence of that?

Smile - Mike worried Van's lyrics were too abstract for their fans; sang them anyway.

Again, how many songs from the Smile era are missing a lead vocal? They are thus:

Do You Like Worms
Child is Father of the Man
Cabin Essence
I'm in Great Shape
Barnyard
Surf's Up

It is true, the Beach Boys sang some of the vocals and ultimately sang very few lyrics from Smile. Five of those songs are on the album's track listing, making up nearly half the album.

Redwood - Brian was giving away two of their best songs from the period just when the group had suffered a flop album. Even Redwood members admit they would have objected if the roles had be reversed.

So the band is on record hassling Brian about Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations, and Smile - what would ultimate be the creative highpoint of the band - and then they get mad because he is "giving away two of their best songs"? If I had been Brian I would say, "You clearly don't know what a 'best' song was if it fell out of the sky into your lap and rather than having to sit through your criticisms of my music again only for you to have a change of heart later, I might just save myself the trouble and work with people who respect me enough to trust my instincts."

Friends - Many years later Bruce goes on record as saying he didn't like the album as a whole. No reports have ever leaked that this caused conflict during it's recording.

That's true. But we do have Marilyn's quote on record that the band "slowly tore him down" and I would imagine that Brian having to face criticism over his work yet again would contributed to negative feelings over all.

Breakaway - Many years later Al goes on the record in saying it's underproduced. It's not but I think the final edit is flawed, the tag on the Hawthorne version is far superior.

You say that these these were said "Many years later" but what are the odds that the performers made their feelings known at the time? I mean, given the track record?

Ol' Man River - the band work on this for days before telling Brian they're going in circles and it's time to quit it. With a bit of editing, the version on the Friends/20/20 twofer was perfectly releasable.

They could have made the same claim about Good Vibrations a few weeks in. I'm not saying Ol' Man River was the next Good Vibrations but, sometimes recording is a process. The reaction against these recordings is total nonsense in my opinion.

Cotten Fields - Brian's version appears on 20/20. Al thought he could do better - turns out he could.

Yeah, he could. This doesn't contradict the fact that this is yet another example of Brian's music facing opposition.

'Till I Die - Mike thinks lyrics are too bleak, changes a few lines. Original version is the one that gets put out anyway.

To use Bruce's exact words, one band member "didn't understand it and put it down, and Brian just decided not to show it to us for a few months. He just put it away. I mean, he was absolutely crushed. This other person just didn't like it.” This isn't quite the same as how you have decided to characterize it, is it? In Bruce's version (someone who was there), Brian was so "crushed" by the reaction to the song that he put it away for "months" --> that you have altered this (and I gave this exact quotation elsewhere in the thread) to Mike changed a few lines he thought were bleak but Brian put out his version anyway, is really radically revising what actually happened historically, according to someone who was in a position to know. And given that you have revised the history here, I urge you to reconsider the ways that you have treated all of the above examples too which you characterize as simply mild and trivial criticism. Because you do that here, while failing to acknowledge that, in fact, the reaction was more severe that you characterize it and the consequences of the reaction were seemingly devastating. And when you consider that this was Brian's major contribution to Surf's Up, it's all the more damning.

15 Big Ones - Can't blame Dennis for realising they'd put out a turkey.

This doesn't contradict the fact that this is yet another example of Brian's music facing opposition.

[CenturyDeprived]

Again - you seem to miss the point. It's not about who "should" apologize, and it has nothing to do with some reciprocal apology from Brian (who by the way, has gone out of his way to speak of regret for being a bad parent - not that this is comparable to what we are talking about, but he gets public "brownie points" for being honest and reflective like that). I knew that someone was going to bring up apologies from others, but it's irrelevant to the point...

The only point I'm making is that Mike, specifically, would have an improved reputation (if only slightly, but still perceptible) if he had done so, regardless of what other people have or haven't apologized for. Do you doubt this?

Yeah I doubt it 'cos
(a) they'd just find some other beef to rag on Mike for.
(b) To apologize would only be seen as a sign of admission in the eyes of those who have made up their mind about Mike anyway.

That is a fear that, while I could understand you (or Mike) thinking that, IMO is totally off base. When has a celebrity talking from their heart and sincerely expressing regret for inadvertently hurting others ever resulted in a worsened reputation? Public opinion does not work like that. It's an irrational fear. People generally like to forgive and like to feel that others take responsibility for their actions.

Do you think Brian talking about being regretful for being a bad parent, or Al talking about underappreciating Denny did anything *negative* to those guys' reputations? Seriously. Don't you think those were healing, "big person", reputation-improving things to say?

[CenturyDeprived]

Pet Sounds - Mike took an exception to the drug inspired lyrics to one songs and wrote a much better set. Band initially was taken aback with how different the new music sounded but soon got on board with the project.

Asher claims that the band was calling the songs "stupid," Al says he wasn't thrilled by it at first, and also claims Mike was confused by it. Brian says the band didn't like it and thought it was too much of a departure. This doesn't seem quite as minor as you are making it out to be.

Good Vibrations - Mike worried it was 'too out there' on first listen.

On first listen only? What is your evidence of that?

Smile - Mike worried Van's lyrics were too abstract for their fans; sang them anyway.

Again, how many songs from the Smile era are missing a lead vocal? They are thus:

Do You Like Worms
Child is Father of the Man
Cabin Essence
I'm in Great Shape
Barnyard
Surf's Up

It is true, the Beach Boys sang some of the vocals and ultimately sang very few lyrics from Smile. Five of those songs are on the album's track listing, making up nearly half the album.

Redwood - Brian was giving away two of their best songs from the period just when the group had suffered a flop album. Even Redwood members admit they would have objected if the roles had be reversed.

So the band is on record hassling Brian about Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations, and Smile - what would ultimate be the creative highpoint of the band - and then they get mad because he is "giving away two of their best songs"? If I had been Brian I would say, "You clearly don't know what a 'best' song was if it fell out of the sky into your lap and rather than having to sit through your criticisms of my music again only for you to have a change of heart later, I might just save myself the trouble and work with people who respect me enough to trust my instincts."

Friends - Many years later Bruce goes on record as saying he didn't like the album as a whole. No reports have ever leaked that this caused conflict during it's recording.

That's true. But we do have Marilyn's quote on record that the band "slowly tore him down" and I would imagine that Brian having to face criticism over his work yet again would contributed to negative feelings over all.

Breakaway - Many years later Al goes on the record in saying it's underproduced. It's not but I think the final edit is flawed, the tag on the Hawthorne version is far superior.

You say that these these were said "Many years later" but what are the odds that the performers made their feelings known at the time? I mean, given the track record?

Ol' Man River - the band work on this for days before telling Brian they're going in circles and it's time to quit it. With a bit of editing, the version on the Friends/20/20 twofer was perfectly releasable.

They could have made the same claim about Good Vibrations a few weeks in. I'm not saying Ol' Man River was the next Good Vibrations but, sometimes recording is a process. The reaction against these recordings is total nonsense in my opinion.

Cotten Fields - Brian's version appears on 20/20. Al thought he could do better - turns out he could.

Yeah, he could. This doesn't contradict the fact that this is yet another example of Brian's music facing opposition.

'Till I Die - Mike thinks lyrics are too bleak, changes a few lines. Original version is the one that gets put out anyway.

To use Bruce's exact words, one band member "didn't understand it and put it down, and Brian just decided not to show it to us for a few months. He just put it away. I mean, he was absolutely crushed. This other person just didn't like it.” This isn't quite the same as how you have decided to characterize it, is it? In Bruce's version (someone who was there), Brian was so "crushed" by the reaction to the song that he put it away for "months" --> that you have altered this (and I gave this exact quotation elsewhere in the thread) to Mike changed a few lines he thought were bleak but Brian put out his version anyway, is really radically revising what actually happened historically, according to someone who was in a position to know. And given that you have revised the history here, I urge you to reconsider the ways that you have treated all of the above examples too which you characterize as simply mild and trivial criticism. Because you do that here, while failing to acknowledge that, in fact, the reaction was more severe that you characterize it and the consequences of the reaction were seemingly devastating. And when you consider that this was Brian's major contribution to Surf's Up, it's all the more damning.

15 Big Ones - Can't blame Dennis for realising they'd put out a turkey.

This doesn't contradict the fact that this is yet another example of Brian's music facing opposition.

I can only imagine if Til I Die had not been released due to Brian feeling crushed about the resistance. If it had become another WIBNTLA, a stunning track too good to be unreleased, yet unreleased nonetheless. That almost happened.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Dim? - not a chance!

Well, if there's anything you've said that I seriously disagree with, it's this!  

Yes, in my view, it has all the indicia of retaliation for the Brother incorporation.  

I don't discount it as a possibility but again, if they were punishing The Beach Boys, why release a single that was more than likely going to do quite well in the charts? The fact that it wasn't a Brian composition shouldn't have been a huge issue - the band themselves had been happy to issue Sloop John B. the year before and Do You Wanna Dance the year before that. And the album Brian was in the midst of shelving had two covers recorded during the session (You are My Sunshine and I Wanna Be Around - actually three if you count Old Master Painter). I think if Capitol really wanted the band to combust they would have released nothing at all and let the band continue to flounder, having only released one song (albeit an amazing super mega-hit song) in a whole year, with no new product in sight. The fact that they released anything was a sign that they wanted to keep the name out there while there was no new music. That they chose Then I Kissed Her demonstrated just how seriously square the music "business" was at the time (and yet knowledgeable enough to know it would be a hit), but not necessarily that they were purposefully malicious.

[Debbie KL]

Thank God Brian was/is a visionary. What amazes me that after Good Vibrations, the masses didn't fall in line or didn't hear the genius that we few have over the many years. On the other hand, Mike being a realist did pave the way for having The Beach Boys for as many years as we have. As it turned out, at least as a live act, it is what prevailed not just within the band, but with the general music fans, as well.

A question for Debbie if you wouldn't mind answering. What is your take on why the Beach Boys did not maintain their popularity after Good Vibrations? With Brian being that visionary, with his music still dominating the albums Smiley Smile through Sunflower, why do you think people didn't catch on to Brian's new music from 1967-1970? Thanks!

So, I just finished my writing deadline and saw this from last evening - then read the entire remaining thread (at least at the time I started writing this).  I'll reply even though you said later, that Brian's friends are outsiders and don't know the family dynamic.  Obviously, not being a Wilson/Love, I'm clear I've never had that experience.  Then again, you might want to consider that Brian might be more willing to express his frustrations about his family/business to friends, so it adds another perspective - not the full picture, just another perspective.

I'm just speaking from my own observations 1969 to about 1982.  I could be totally wrong, but here goes.  I saw Brian go into creative mode when moved by something.  It could be joyous to nostalgic to sad, or just someone else's great song.  Beyond that creative mode is the completion mode of any project, and what I think needed to be maintained for Brian to want to complete something was a sense of joy and freedom (along with that vision Steve Desper talked about).  I think Brian's fan base responded to that powerful sense of self Brian had at those times.  If you walked into a room with Brian at the piano then, you could "feel the power."  I know that sounds weird, but it's true.  

Frankly, I saw that becoming a bigger and bigger struggle over those years.  At first there was still joy and fun and when he was at the piano, the man was in command wherever he was.  That Brian was mixed with a man I'd have to describe as brokenhearted.  Obviously, there were a lot of reasons for that and I certainly don't know them all, nor would I share them if I did without his permission.  Was he ground down by the responsibilities of producing hit after hit?  Who wouldn't be?  Did his family comprehend that at all, and if they did, know what to do about it?  Did they have a clue how to relieve that kind of pressure?  They'd have to answer that.  Was there any safe place to go where he didn't feel that pressure?

I do draw the parallels between the Beatles and the Beach Boys at that time.  The Beatles relieved the pressure by blowing apart and getting individual forms of expression.  Brian's band was also family, so that probably didn't feel like an option for him.  I have to wonder why everyone else in the band seemed to be allowed to have their solo records and projects with other artists at that time, aside from Brian.  This isn't a swipe at them, but that is a curiosity to me.  It seems to be the natural evolution of a band in most cases.  There's a good chance Brian felt his only option was to implode.

I would add to that, I never got a sense that he hated or resented his family, but he did seem to have a horrible distaste for the ugliness that takes place in making his art into a business.  He worked hard to maintain a "separate" (to use his term) place for himself and certain people around him.   I think he needed that.  The more distasteful things got for him, the bigger that "separate" place had to be.  Managing that "land of innocence" he needed to create that musical love he wants to share with his audience (that he often speaks about) while dealing with the realities of an ugly business was bound to get all out of whack for him, particularly considering the acknowledged illness.

Those are my thoughts about what happened to Brian and fans in the simplest terms I can use.  The pressure he experienced - and a world  and individual fans changing at warp speed - didn't allow for the joy/sense of freedom to be maintained long enough for Brian to complete a project/his vision (described by Mr. Desper).  They may or may not be valid, but you asked.  Finally, nobody maintains that level of fandom throughout there lives.  There is an ebb and flow and this is a completely different world today.

I think it's hard to imagine the magnitude of what Brian, and his family were dealing with then. Frankly, nobody "got it" about what Brian needed including me.  With that in mind, it's a natural, organic process to have to re-create oneself several times during a lifetime, and when that person is an artist, it's massive and if they're a celebrity, it's public.  So hopefully everyone understands this isn't about blame.  It's about accepting what happened and getting some joy out of the artistic "resurrection story" that is Brian Wilson today.  It's a mighty powerful thing.  No wonder we all nit-pick the details to death...it helps avoid being overwhelmed.


 

[Stephen W. Desper]

Maybe not apologize, but you think someone could at least admit to the fact that the band's consistent and relentless opposition to Brian's projects from 1966 onward not only put them on the wrong side of history but also probably contributed to Brian's drifting away from music in general and was more than likely bad for their commercial success and reputation.

How often were they against Brian's music? They were all solidly behind Wild Honey, all behind Friends, they were very unified for the making of Sunflower. They (esp Carl) worked their asses off to complete Brian's half completed songs for C&TP and Holland. Al tried several times to resurrect Sail Plane Song.

I realize this is a long thread but I suggest you look back because I have provided direct quotations from band members to contradict at least one of those claims. We have first hand accounts of at least one band member being opposed, not liking, and/or putting down the following:

Pet Sounds
Good Vibrations
Smile lyrics
Brian working with Redwood
the Friends album
Breakaway
Ol' Man River
Cotton Fields
Til I Die
15 Big Ones

Pet Sounds - Mike took an exception to the drug inspired lyrics to one songs and wrote a much better set. Band initially was taken aback with how different the new music sounded but soon got on board with the project.
Good Vibrations - Mike worried it was 'too out there' on first listen.
Smile - Mike worried Van's lyrics were too abstract for their fans; sang them anyway.
Redwood - Brian was giving away two of their best songs from the period just when the group had suffered a flop album. Even Redwood members admit they would have objected if the roles had be reversed.
Friends - Many years later Bruce goes on record as saying he didn't like the album as a whole. No reports have ever leaked that this caused conflict during it's recording.
Breakaway - Many years later Al goes on the record in saying it's underproduced. It's not but I think the final edit is flawed, the tag on the Hawthorne version is far superior.
Ol' Man River - the band work on this for days before telling Brian they're going in circles and it's time to quit it. With a bit of editing, the version on the Friends/20/20 twofer was perfectly releasable.
Cotten Fields - Brian's version appears on 20/20. Al thought he could do better - turns out he could.
'Till I Die - Mike thinks lyrics are too bleak, changes a few lines. Original version is the one that gets put out anyway.
15 Big Ones - Can't blame Dennis for realising they'd put out a turkey.

COMMENT and Correction:

'Till I Die -- The original lyrics were never released. Brian re-wrote the lyrics in the last few weeks of production. Michael, reeling from Brian's insistence that the original lyric, which everyone had known for months, be changed, ereased (by me) and then re-sung by Brian caused some concern by Mike that the new words needed polishing, but Brian held his ground. (More on this song will appear in part two of Recording The Beach Boys)   ~swd

[drbeachboy]

Thank God Brian was/is a visionary. What amazes me that after Good Vibrations, the masses didn't fall in line or didn't hear the genius that we few have over the many years. On the other hand, Mike being a realist did pave the way for having The Beach Boys for as many years as we have. As it turned out, at least as a live act, it is what prevailed not just within the band, but with the general music fans, as well.

A question for Debbie if you wouldn't mind answering. What is your take on why the Beach Boys did not maintain their popularity after Good Vibrations? With Brian being that visionary, with his music still dominating the albums Smiley Smile through Sunflower, why do you think people didn't catch on to Brian's new music from 1967-1970? Thanks!

So, I just finished my writing deadline and saw this from last evening - then read the entire remaining thread (at least at the time I started writing this).  I'll reply even though you said later, that Brian's friends are outsiders and don't know the family dynamic.  Obviously, not being a Wilson/Love, I'm clear I've never had that experience.  Then again, you might want to consider that Brian might be more willing to express his frustrations about his family/business to friends, so it adds another perspective - not the full picture, just another perspective.

I'm just speaking from my own observations 1969 to about 1982.  I could be totally wrong, but here goes.  I saw Brian go into creative mode when moved by something.  It could be joyous to nostalgic to sad, or just someone else's great song.  Beyond that creative mode is the completion mode of any project, and what I think needed to be maintained for Brian to want to complete something was a sense of joy and freedom (along with that vision Steve Desper talked about).  I think Brian's fan base responded to that powerful sense of self Brian had at those times.  If you walked into a room with Brian at the piano then, you could "feel the power."  I know that sounds weird, but it's true.  

Frankly, I saw that becoming a bigger and bigger struggle over those years.  At first there was still joy and fun and when he was at the piano, the man was in command wherever he was.  That Brian was mixed with a man I'd have to describe as brokenhearted.  Obviously, there were a lot of reasons for that and I certainly don't know them all, nor would I share them if I did without his permission.  Was he ground down by the responsibilities of producing hit after hit?  Who wouldn't be?  Did his family comprehend that at all, and if they did, know what to do about it?  Did they have a clue how to relieve that kind of pressure?  They'd have to answer that.  Was there any safe place to go where he didn't feel that pressure?

I do draw the parallels between the Beatles and the Beach Boys at that time.  The Beatles relieved the pressure by blowing apart and getting individual forms of expression.  Brian's band was also family, so that probably didn't feel like an option for him.  I have to wonder why everyone else in the band seemed to be allowed to have their solo records and projects with other artists at that time, aside from Brian.  This isn't a swipe at them, but that is a curiosity to me.  It seems to be the natural evolution of a band in most cases.  There's a good chance Brian felt his only option was to implode.

I would add to that, I never got a sense that he hated or resented his family, but he did seem to have a horrible distaste for the ugliness that takes place in making his art into a business.  He worked hard to maintain a "separate" (to use his term) place for himself and certain people around him.   I think he needed that.  The more distasteful things got for him, the bigger that "separate" place had to be.  Managing that "land of innocence" he needed to create that musical love he wants to share with his audience (that he often speaks about) while dealing with the realities of an ugly business was bound to get all out of whack for him, particularly considering the acknowledged illness.

Those are my thoughts about what happened to Brian and fans in the simplest terms I can use.  The pressure he experienced - and a world  and individual fans changing at warp speed - didn't allow for the joy/sense of freedom to be maintained long enough for Brian to complete a project/his vision (described by Mr. Desper).  They may or may not be valid, but you asked.  Finally, nobody maintains that level of fandom throughout there lives.  There is an ebb and flow and this is a completely different world today.

I think it's hard to imagine the magnitude of what Brian, and his family were dealing with then. Frankly, nobody "got it" about what Brian needed including me.  With that in mind, it's a natural, organic process to have to re-create oneself several times during a lifetime, and when that person is an artist, it's massive and if they're a celebrity, it's public.  So hopefully everyone understands this isn't about blame.  It's about accepting what happened and getting some joy out of the artistic "resurrection story" that is Brian Wilson today.  It's a mighty powerful thing.  No wonder we all nit-pick the details to death...it helps avoid being overwhelmed.


 

Debbie, thank you for your well thought out answer. What you say makes a lot of sense and brings some perspective into what Brian was dealing with, especially music vs the music business. Your last paragraph says it all about how we should look at the history of Brian and of the Beach Boys.

As for outsiders comment. All I can say is that my intent was to show that family bonds are different than how we make friends. Not saying whether it is better or not, but just different. Family treat each other differently than they treat friends. When associates or friends of Brian talk of Brian's relationship with his family & band mates, I am not always sure that they fully understand the relationship the guys had with each other. It wasn't meant as a knock, just something else to think about when trying to understand all that's been written.

[filledeplage]

Dim? - not a chance!

Well, if there's anything you've said that I seriously disagree with, it's this!  

Yes, in my view, it has all the indicia of retaliation for the Brother incorporation.  

I don't discount it as a possibility but again, if they were punishing The Beach Boys, why release a single that was more than likely going to do quite well in the charts? The fact that it wasn't a Brian composition shouldn't have been a huge issue - the band themselves had been happy to issue Sloop John B. the year before and Do You Wanna Dance the year before that. And the album Brian was in the midst of shelving had two covers recorded during the session (You are My Sunshine and I Wanna Be Around - actually three if you count Old Master Painter). I think if Capitol really wanted the band to combust they would have released nothing at all and let the band continue to flounder, having only released one song (albeit an amazing super mega-hit song) in a whole year, with no new product in sight. The fact that they released anything was a sign that they wanted to keep the name out there while there was no new music. That they chose Then I Kissed Her demonstrated just how seriously square the music "business" was at the time (and yet knowledgeable enough to know it would be a hit), but not necessarily that they were purposefully malicious.

OK! Here is the vocab word. Just one.  It was all "temporally" related.

There was an element of surprise. It creates the inference that in the past history dealing with Capitol, that they had never pulled that kind of a stunt. They had a history of business dealings over between six and seven years.  They may have had some procedures in place to submit for approval to the band, which recordings would be released and when.

They could not have been happy with the Brother incorporation.  It may have given them motivation to retaliate.  JMHO  

Strange things happen...

Gaumont palace interview

http://youtu.be/uehyh57k2_E

http://youtu.be/so7lsV6i4V4

About 17 minutes.  Enough English to understand the gist.  Carl talks about how the band changed, and not accepted by the record company, particularlizing Capitol.

"They portrayed a completely different impression..surf group rah rah hot rods...and we weren't that at all." Carl

"The record company didn't want to let the public know that we had changed...wanted to keep that quiet." Mike

From their own mouths...hope the youtubes open! 

[Mike's Beard]

Pet Sounds - Mike took an exception to the drug inspired lyrics to one songs and wrote a much better set. Band initially was taken aback with how different the new music sounded but soon got on board with the project.

Asher claims that the band was calling the songs "stupid," Al says he wasn't thrilled by it at first, and also claims Mike was confused by it. Brian says the band didn't like it and thought it was too much of a departure. This doesn't seem quite as minor as you are making it out to be.

Good Vibrations - Mike worried it was 'too out there' on first listen.

On first listen only? What is your evidence of that?

Smile - Mike worried Van's lyrics were too abstract for their fans; sang them anyway.

Again, how many songs from the Smile era are missing a lead vocal? They are thus:

Do You Like Worms
Child is Father of the Man
Cabin Essence
I'm in Great Shape
Barnyard
Surf's Up

It is true, the Beach Boys sang some of the vocals and ultimately sang very few lyrics from Smile. Five of those songs are on the album's track listing, making up nearly half the album.

Redwood - Brian was giving away two of their best songs from the period just when the group had suffered a flop album. Even Redwood members admit they would have objected if the roles had be reversed.

So the band is on record hassling Brian about Pet Sounds, Good Vibrations, and Smile - what would ultimate be the creative highpoint of the band - and then they get mad because he is "giving away two of their best songs"? If I had been Brian I would say, "You clearly don't know what a 'best' song was if it fell out of the sky into your lap and rather than having to sit through your criticisms of my music again only for you to have a change of heart later, I might just save myself the trouble and work with people who respect me enough to trust my instincts."

Friends - Many years later Bruce goes on record as saying he didn't like the album as a whole. No reports have ever leaked that this caused conflict during it's recording.

That's true. But we do have Marilyn's quote on record that the band "slowly tore him down" and I would imagine that Brian having to face criticism over his work yet again would contributed to negative feelings over all.

Breakaway - Many years later Al goes on the record in saying it's underproduced. It's not but I think the final edit is flawed, the tag on the Hawthorne version is far superior.

You say that these these were said "Many years later" but what are the odds that the performers made their feelings known at the time? I mean, given the track record?

Ol' Man River - the band work on this for days before telling Brian they're going in circles and it's time to quit it. With a bit of editing, the version on the Friends/20/20 twofer was perfectly releasable.

They could have made the same claim about Good Vibrations a few weeks in. I'm not saying Ol' Man River was the next Good Vibrations but, sometimes recording is a process. The reaction against these recordings is total nonsense in my opinion.

Cotten Fields - Brian's version appears on 20/20. Al thought he could do better - turns out he could.

Yeah, he could. This doesn't contradict the fact that this is yet another example of Brian's music facing opposition.

'Till I Die - Mike thinks lyrics are too bleak, changes a few lines. Original version is the one that gets put out anyway.

To use Bruce's exact words, one band member "didn't understand it and put it down, and Brian just decided not to show it to us for a few months. He just put it away. I mean, he was absolutely crushed. This other person just didn't like it.” This isn't quite the same as how you have decided to characterize it, is it? In Bruce's version (someone who was there), Brian was so "crushed" by the reaction to the song that he put it away for "months" --> that you have altered this (and I gave this exact quotation elsewhere in the thread) to Mike changed a few lines he thought were bleak but Brian put out his version anyway, is really radically revising what actually happened historically, according to someone who was in a position to know. And given that you have revised the history here, I urge you to reconsider the ways that you have treated all of the above examples too which you characterize as simply mild and trivial criticism. Because you do that here, while failing to acknowledge that, in fact, the reaction was more severe that you characterize it and the consequences of the reaction were seemingly devastating. And when you consider that this was Brian's major contribution to Surf's Up, it's all the more damning.

15 Big Ones - Can't blame Dennis for realising they'd put out a turkey.

This doesn't contradict the fact that this is yet another example of Brian's music facing opposition.

I'm sorry but no history is being revised here. The band built a studio in Brian's home in an attempt to keep him recording. Members have been quoted as saying they would drop whatever they were working on in an instant if Brian wanted to try something. Breakaway was chosen as the last single for their Capitol contract, they thought Brian had written a hit which would boost their chances in getting a new deal so they must have thought highly of it. Didn't Stephen Desper say eariler in this thread that Brian and Mike had a very good working relationship during his time with the band? None of this sounds like a band that was constantly putting down Brian's new music. Was there any second guessing? Undoubtably, they had gone from being the biggest band in America to not being able to buy a hit. Was Brian the only member having his songs put under the microscope or were they critical of each others contributions too?

[Mike's Beard]

COMMENT and Correction:

'Till I Die -- The original lyrics were never released. Brian re-wrote the lyrics in the last few weeks of production. Michael, reeling from Brian's insistence that the original lyric, which everyone had known for months, be changed, ereased (by me) and then re-sung by Brian caused some concern by Mike that the new words needed polishing, but Brian held his ground. (More on this song will appear in part two of Recording The Beach Boys)   ~swd

Cool, another myth busted.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'm sorry but no history is being revised here.

You radically distorted the events regarding Til I Die. You stated the the conflict was that Mike found some lyrics bleak, wanted them changed, but Brian held his ground when what actually happened, according to Bruce, was that Brian was so crushed by a member putting down a song that wasn't liked that he shelved it for several months. That's a complete distortion.

Didn't Stephen Desper say eariler in this thread that Brian and Mike had a very good working relationship during his time with the band? None of this sounds like a band that was constantly putting down Brian's new music.

You're right. That sentence doesn't sound like the band constantly putting down Brian's new music. What does sound like the band constantly putting down his music are the quotations from the band members putting down Brian's music or quotations from people who were there reporting how the music was being put down that add up to a historical record of consistent opposition. That being said, I don't believe that you have engaged honestly in this discussion nor do I see any evidence that you are prepared to do so. Therefore I am opting out of it with you.

[guitarfool2002]

Some posters here vehemently deny any arguing about material and direction ever took place, when the ample evidence to the contrary is irrefutable.  That's how we get threads this long arguing about whether or not there were arguments!

Should we list the people who have reported that these arguments actually took place and that they witnessed them? I totally agree, the evidence is both irrefutable and ample, yet it's been something of a trend in recent years to suggest otherwise, and the ways that is tried have included questioning those observers. So here we go:

Brian Wilson, Marilyn Wilson, Van Dyke Parks, Durrie Parks, David Anderle, Michael Vosse, Danny Hutton, Jules Seigel...that's 8 of them. I can only imagine Mike is the primary voice who is suggesting otherwise at this point?

I'll say whenever someone tries to discount or even personally trash those involved in these months, 1966 into 67, look at that airport photo from October 1966. Consider the people in that photo have sold in excess of a combined 200 million records (give or take), have produced successful projects in the fields of film, television, music, and other related interests, have won Grammys, Emmys, and other awards, and have name recognition in their respective fields that went beyond Smile into the decades leading up to the present. Hardly the hangers-on, parasites, and plagarizers that some would like you to believe. Any questions?

[Mike's Beard]

You radically distorted the events regarding Til I Die. You stated the the conflict was that Mike found some lyrics bleak, wanted them changed, but Brian held his ground when what actually happened, according to Bruce, was that Brian was so crushed by a member putting down a song that wasn't liked that he shelved it for several months. That's a complete distortion.

Neither of those statements contradicts the other.

[drbeachboy]

Some posters here vehemently deny any arguing about material and direction ever took place, when the ample evidence to the contrary is irrefutable.  That's how we get threads this long arguing about whether or not there were arguments!

Should we list the people who have reported that these arguments actually took place and that they witnessed them? I totally agree, the evidence is both irrefutable and ample, yet it's been something of a trend in recent years to suggest otherwise, and the ways that is tried have included questioning those observers. So here we go:

Brian Wilson, Marilyn Wilson, Van Dyke Parks, Durrie Parks, David Anderle, Michael Vosse, Danny Hutton, Jules Seigel...that's 8 of them. I can only imagine Mike is the primary voice who is suggesting otherwise at this point?

I'll say whenever someone tries to discount or even personally trash those involved in these months, 1966 into 67, look at that airport photo from October 1966. Consider the people in that photo have sold in excess of a combined 200 million records (give or take), have produced successful projects in the fields of film, television, music, and other related interests, have won Grammys, Emmys, and other awards, and have name recognition in their respective fields that went beyond Smile into the decades leading up to the present. Hardly the hangers-on, parasites, and plagarizers that some would like you to believe. Any questions?

Don't get snippy. I really don't care what they did after their time with Brian. What were they doing up to the point where they became friends or associates of Brian? We already know that most were unsuccessful working for Brian and the Beach Boys.

[Cam Mott]

I don't remember anybody ever suggesting the Boys didn't have issues, it was a band, they have told their very few issues with the work. It's getting inflated into conflict and putting down and bullying etc. that some of us think is a step too far. Actually some of their issues were with someone else's lyrics or being expected to do things or things in a way they found humiliating, not Brian's music. It is on tape that they did do even that which they have said they were bothered by or questioned.

We can take anybody's opinion about the Boys before we can accept the Boys' own words about themselves. Even Anderle said the most antagonistic situation was not antagonistic, they were very close, a great deal of love between all the fellas.

[guitarfool2002]

Some posters here vehemently deny any arguing about material and direction ever took place, when the ample evidence to the contrary is irrefutable.  That's how we get threads this long arguing about whether or not there were arguments!

Should we list the people who have reported that these arguments actually took place and that they witnessed them? I totally agree, the evidence is both irrefutable and ample, yet it's been something of a trend in recent years to suggest otherwise, and the ways that is tried have included questioning those observers. So here we go:

Brian Wilson, Marilyn Wilson, Van Dyke Parks, Durrie Parks, David Anderle, Michael Vosse, Danny Hutton, Jules Seigel...that's 8 of them. I can only imagine Mike is the primary voice who is suggesting otherwise at this point?

I'll say whenever someone tries to discount or even personally trash those involved in these months, 1966 into 67, look at that airport photo from October 1966. Consider the people in that photo have sold in excess of a combined 200 million records (give or take), have produced successful projects in the fields of film, television, music, and other related interests, have won Grammys, Emmys, and other awards, and have name recognition in their respective fields that went beyond Smile into the decades leading up to the present. Hardly the hangers-on, parasites, and plagarizers that some would like you to believe. Any questions?

Don't get snippy. I really don't care what they did after their time with Brian. What were they doing up to the point where they became friends or associates of Brian? We already know that most were unsuccessful working for Brian and the Beach Boys.

Michael Vosse's history is laid out in the Fusion article, he was working in television production and writing music articles that were picked up by Teen Set among others, and David Anderle was working as a manager and in A&R for artists like Danny Hutton and Bob Dylan among others before they became associated with Brian Wilson. The success of the groundwork they laid with Brother Records in actually getting things happening and bringing in key people to make it a reality is shown into the present day through BRI still being the main corporate body behind the Beach Boys. It all began with Brian bringing in David, Michael, and others into the band's universe to help set up a new idea for a venture called Brother.

It's funny too to think how many times the Beatles' similar venture that followed after Brother, Apple Corps, has been described as a failure as well, yet Apple still exists as one of the most profitable music-related corporations in existence. The first years were rough, sure, but look at where Apple Corps is as it exists today. Like Brother, it started as an idea to start a company to give the band freedom to branch out into producing other artists and media, and developed as most successful businesses do into something beyond what was imagined in the first years of planning and executing.

Hardly a failure on either front if both Brother and Apple are still in existence and dealing with millions in revenue. Something was done right in those first stages, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

[Cam Mott]

"It got too hard for David. He couldn't deal with explaining something five or six separate times for five or six separate people. And there was no way to get them to agree to a single course of action when they all had their own personal desires.

Mike Love was the tough one for David. Mike really befriended David: He wanted his aid in going one direction while David was trying to take it the opposite way. Mike kept saying, "You're so good, you know so much, you're so realistic, you can do all this for us — why not do it this way," and David would say, "Because Brian wants it that way." "Gotta be this way." David really holds Mike Love responsible for the collapse. Mike wanted the bread, "and don't f*** with the formula.""

So far this article seems to be the source of the quote. It is in a section of the article about Brother Records under Anderle. The context is discussions between Anderle and Love about doing Brother's business. The quote is unattributed but the context is it is either quoting Anderle describing Mike's attitude in the business discussions (which it seems to me to be) or it is Anderle quoting Mike's description of his own opinion on conducting Brother's business.  Either way it seems to me the "formula" is a business formula and not a music formula.

David sounds as though he was "hiding behind Brian." (Maybe doing what "David wanted.") (I'm skeptical of "managers" who often have their own career agenda and use a business to advance their own personal interests.)

In working for Brother, inc., he had a duty to work for "all the band" members. And he should have been able to get all the interests of all the members on the table. This is a small corporate board of members/directors.

To me it's clear this discussion and the quote is about creative direction, not business.  What business direction was Brian wanting to go down that Mike wanted to go another way?  Other than Brian's ideas of starting Brother and potentially signing other artists - if Mike was ever opposed to that he apparently has never mentioned it in the almost fifty years since and it has never come up in any of the books or interviews or research on their history.  It's creative direction that there was a disagreement about, and that's what's referenced in the Anderle account.  "Bring Mike a bag of money" - the other Beach Boys joked about Mike's motivations, he didn't want to rock the boat.  

I don't know Lou, David wasn't their Producer or even A&R guy, as Nolan said, he was "Director" of Brother Records.  What Anderle was doing for all of the Boys was business and he and Mike were working together on Brother Record business.

[guitarfool2002]

I'll put the question to Cam: Do you think what David Anderle told Paul Williams about the Beach Boys resisting and arguing with Brian in the studio in 1966-67 over the music was accurate or not?

[CenturyDeprived]

I don't remember anybody ever suggesting the Boys didn't have issues, it was a band, they have told their very few issues with the work. It's getting inflated into conflict and putting down and bullying etc. that some of us think is a step too far. Actually some of their issues were with someone else's lyrics or being expected to do things or things in a way they found humiliating, not Brian's music. It is on tape that they did do even that which they have said they were bothered by or questioned.

We can take anybody's opinion about the Boys before we can accept the Boys' own words about themselves. Even Anderle said the most antagonistic situation was not antagonistic, they were very close, a great deal of love between all the fellas.

What would someone have to do in a band for you to say that they did inflict some emotional bullying?

[Cam Mott]

I don't remember anybody ever suggesting the Boys didn't have issues, it was a band, they have told their very few issues with the work. It's getting inflated into conflict and putting down and bullying etc. that some of us think is a step too far. Actually some of their issues were with someone else's lyrics or being expected to do things or things in a way they found humiliating, not Brian's music. It is on tape that they did do even that which they have said they were bothered by or questioned.

We can take anybody's opinion about the Boys before we can accept the Boys' own words about themselves. Even Anderle said the most antagonistic situation was not antagonistic, they were very close, a great deal of love between all the fellas.

What would someone have to do in a band for you to say that they did inflict some emotional bullying?

Well, it certainly wouldn't be for having a lot of love and doing my job to the best of my ability while or in spite of offering a very few constructive suggestions or having a few questions or qualms  or embarrassments.

[Stephen W. Desper]

Some posters here vehemently deny any arguing about material and direction ever took place, when the ample evidence to the contrary is irrefutable.  That's how we get threads this long arguing about whether or not there were arguments!

Should we list the people who have reported that these arguments actually took place and that they witnessed them? I totally agree, the evidence is both irrefutable and ample, yet it's been something of a trend in recent years to suggest otherwise, and the ways that is tried have included questioning those observers. So here we go:

Brian Wilson, Marilyn Wilson, Van Dyke Parks, Durrie Parks, David Anderle, Michael Vosse, Danny Hutton, Jules Seigel...that's 8 of them. I can only imagine Mike is the primary voice who is suggesting otherwise at this point?

I'll say whenever someone tries to discount or even personally trash those involved in these months, 1966 into 67, look at that airport photo from October 1966. Consider the people in that photo have sold in excess of a combined 200 million records (give or take), have produced successful projects in the fields of film, television, music, and other related interests, have won Grammys, Emmys, and other awards, and have name recognition in their respective fields that went beyond Smile into the decades leading up to the present. Hardly the hangers-on, parasites, and plagarizers that some would like you to believe. Any questions?
[size=10
11pt]

COMMENT:
Yea, I have a question.  What's your point?  There are far more significant people you could list in Brian's spear of influence. All these people will have heard from Brian and Michael in the course of things, griping, complaining, wondering, planning, daydreaming, and in Brian's case, playing head games with people. Any statements made at any of these chance or appointed meetings could be taken out of context and blown into something different.  Of course they all discussed many aspects of their lives and careers openly -- being family in a home setting -- so ?  It's not a reality TV show. It's not documented.  Every individual takes something different away from what they experienced. I think you have to step back and look at the forest, not the trees. I witnessed a lot of times these guys were together, both in the studio and on the road. I have lots of little snips of statements rattling around in my memories, but each one is not a pivot point in Beach Boy history. Outside influences enter in as well. Market trends, group evolvement, growing families, business pressures, etc. Overall, look at the overall. Look at the overall result.  [/size]  ~swd 

[guitarfool2002]

Some posters here vehemently deny any arguing about material and direction ever took place, when the ample evidence to the contrary is irrefutable.  That's how we get threads this long arguing about whether or not there were arguments!

Should we list the people who have reported that these arguments actually took place and that they witnessed them? I totally agree, the evidence is both irrefutable and ample, yet it's been something of a trend in recent years to suggest otherwise, and the ways that is tried have included questioning those observers. So here we go:

Brian Wilson, Marilyn Wilson, Van Dyke Parks, Durrie Parks, David Anderle, Michael Vosse, Danny Hutton, Jules Seigel...that's 8 of them. I can only imagine Mike is the primary voice who is suggesting otherwise at this point?

I'll say whenever someone tries to discount or even personally trash those involved in these months, 1966 into 67, look at that airport photo from October 1966. Consider the people in that photo have sold in excess of a combined 200 million records (give or take), have produced successful projects in the fields of film, television, music, and other related interests, have won Grammys, Emmys, and other awards, and have name recognition in their respective fields that went beyond Smile into the decades leading up to the present. Hardly the hangers-on, parasites, and plagarizers that some would like you to believe. Any questions?
[size=10
11pt]

COMMENT:
Yea, I have a question.  What's your point?  There are far more significant people you could list in Brian's spear of influence. All these people will have heard from Brian and Michael in the course of things, griping, complaining, wondering, planning, daydreaming, and in Brian's case, playing head games with people. Any statements made at any of these chance or appointed meetings could be taken out of context and blown into something different.  Of course they all discussed many aspects of their lives and careers openly -- being family in a home setting -- so ?  It's not a reality TV show. It's not documented.  Every individual takes something different away from what they experienced. I think you have to step back and look at the forest, not the trees. I witnessed a lot of times these guys were together, both in the studio and on the road. I have lots of little snips of statements rattling around in my memories, but each one is not a pivot point in Beach Boy history. Outside influences enter in as well. Market trends, group evolvement, growing families, business pressures, etc. Overall, look at the overall. Look at the overall result.  [/size]  ~swd 

I always do, I look at all that has been said and written and listen with open ears. I also know that some things happened and some things did not. If this is specifically the time period from 1966 to 1967 when David Anderle and Michael Vosse were perhaps as close in business and personally to Brian Wilson as anyone, who saw and heard the day-to-day events firsthand, I'll listen to what they have said about it.

For all of the messing with facts and parsing of words and defending the indefensible by suggesting ridiculous ways things *could* have been misquoted or misunderstood instead of taking what was said for what was actually said...and everything of the sort that has gone on in the BB's fan community for the past 2-3 years or so, it's hard to find people who have spoken honestly and upfront and matter-of-factly without trying to push an agenda or "set the record straight", and two of those men whose words I trust are Anderle and Vosse. They were asked questions, they gave straight answers. I respect that. No bull.

I have yet to see anyone come up with a reason why i should not do exactly that. Unless we should believe the slander and bile that was offered in the name of setting the record straight or winning a legal case or something. I don't think the names I mentioned above would qualify as parasites and plagarizers, does anyone else agree?

That's my two cents. I can sometimes be pretty accurate with my info as well.

What's my point? Hmmm. What is Cam Mott's point in arguing this stuff and dodging simple questions up and down this discussion? I'm at fault for asking that, though. Oops. 

[Cam Mott]

I'll put the question to Cam: Do you think what David Anderle told Paul Williams about the Beach Boys resisting and arguing with Brian in the studio in 1966-67 over the music was accurate or not?

I think he wanted to be fair and he witnessed stuff and wanted to describe and interpret it to the best of his knowledge and experience or inexperience with the band.  I don't think there is a problem with what he says, I think it might be with how it has been taken sometimes.  For instance if he reports they said "we can't sing this", it seems to be assumed they meant we won't sing this when they probably meant it is so complex and experimental we're not capable of singing it. On the other hand, they tried to sing it either way, often for many takes.

[Cam Mott]

What is Cam Mott's point in arguing this stuff and dodging simple questions up and down this discussion? I'm at fault for asking that, though. Oops.  

What did I dodge, I'll try to undodge it?

I have to ask, what is your point in making it so personal so often?