The Smiley Smile Message Board

Hey people, I just bought Priore's book a couple of weeks ago. I'm half-way through (reading it on my way to work) and the more I read, the more confused I get about how I feel for some band members. Was Mike Love such a douche bag back during the Smile sessions? Was Van Dyke Parks the savior of the band in the 70s when he got them the Warner contract and gave them 'Sail On, Sailor'? Was Carl really involved in forcing Brian to abandon the Redwood project?

I know real life has too many shades and not everything is black and white. But come on, the more I read about the BBs, the less attractive as human beings they appear to me!

I've read other books (really liked the one from Carlin), watched countless documentaries and I spend a lot of my time in this board.  And the more I get to know about the band, the more inclined I feel to put them in either a 'Hero' or 'Villain' label, so as to reduce the complexity of how I see them, you know? Its definitely not the right to do, but its part of human nature when there are just too many variables to work with.

For example, is Brian a Hero or a Villain? This would be a quick analysis based on the information available to me:
Reasons for Hero

• All the wonderful music he made
• Completing Smile in 2014 - that sure took a lot of guts
• Continue to tour at his age so as (newer) fans can see him live

Reasons for Villain

• Canning Smile back in 1967
• Wasting a big chunk of his life doing drugs
• Not taking control of his life and letting others make all key decisions

Verdict: Hero, anyone who writes something as beautiful as 'Surf's up' will have a chance when facing God for judgement

What do you think of this approach? Anyone has the same mixed feelings and its attempting a way to minimize the emotional complexity?

In any case, even if Mike ends up labeled as Villain, that wont stop me from going to see him play next time he comes to Montreal. But it will put into perspective whatever I hear him say when he gives an interview.

The Beach Boys are like everyone else who has ever lived on this Earth; sometimes we are all Heroes and Villains at different times in our life.

Yes, I agree. My intent was to understand a bit more why some of them were Heros or Villains at a certain time. And just to see how people analyze and categorize them.

For example, Mike Love gets a lot of flak in this board, but seems to me that a lot is just free riding - he's bad because I heard he was bad. But if you list his good deeds and his asshole moments, wouldnt that give you (and everyone who reads this post) a better understanding on how you see this person?

Anyways, just wanted to start an interesting discussion...

That would be the 2005 Smile book ? You should know that there's a lot of claims in there that have either been disproven, or have the shakiest possible foundation.

Example: Mike was filmed by Oppenheim having an argument with Brian about the "Surf's Up" lyrics. No, he wasn't. No mention of any such thing in Oppenheim's filming notes.

Example: The Beatles covertly listened to Smile tapes in LA and that informed Sgt. Pepper's. No, they didn't. Couldn't have. The respective timelines don't mesh. VPD later recanted his claim in any case.

Example: the Redwood incident. There's a single source for that, Chuck Negron's autobiography. Danny Hutton's never said word one about it in the ensuing 46-odd years. And he would.

A huge part of becoming a Beach Boys' fan, besides all the great music, is because of the insane characters, the long saga and the prevalent craziness. Why would you want to spoil all your fun reducing everyone to heroes vs villains?

This.

I have trouble classifying anyone in my faovorite band as either "hero" or "villain". I don't quite understand the point of this thread.  ???

I just want to know how people, with more experience and insight than me on the BBs history, evaluate the band members. And instead of just getting a 'Bruce is a boring tag-along', I'd like to get the arguments behind their opinions. I know its a lot to ask, but it was worth giving a shot.

And by no means I want to reduce the fun of being a BBs fan. At all. I wanna know moreeeee

<sigh> I understand. The final verdict part is not necessary if it doesnt make sense.

But I mean, I'm sure that even though you like Carl (for example) there might be things about him that really get to your nerves. Call this group therapy about our fav group so as for all us to voice how we view them and exchange opinions. I'm sure it could make an interesting thread.

Except for Bruce - he's God


(http://oi61.tinypic.com/bfg75j.jpg)

 :lol

And we now know that not only did the BB play on the Darlin track, Carl played drums on the initial session while the song was still intended for Redwood, thereby disproving the Negron story for good.

Well, you might start then. Who's a hero and who's a villain in your opinion, and why? We'd love to read your evaluation.

Simple - no heroes, no villains. Just a zillion shades of gray. Everyone's had their moments.

Besides, if you read anything that Priore wrote, you'll find that most of it places Brian in the Hero category, while Mike Love is going to be lower than a Villain. His work seems to be, um, slanted in one direction.

Ok this is how I feel about them:

Carl
Hero because

• He fought for the band and for their musical integrity (until mid 70s at least)
• He made copies of the Smile tapes with Desper that saved the music for posterity
• He contributed in the studio, playing with the Wrecking Crew as a session musician and learning how to produce (from Brian)
• Bonus: He helped finish Love You, my fav BBs album after Pet Sounds  :)

Villain because

• He failed to keep the band from becoming an oldies act after 'Endless Summer' - if he was the band leader, then yes, it is his responsibility
• Why did he took so long to get Brian away from Landy? I mean, come on, he should have acted sooner
• He failed to deliver good songs after Feel Flows...its a big disappointment 'cause that song and LPR are so good, it makes you wonder what else he could have done...

Dennis
Hero because

• He was the balls in a rather nerdy-looking band
• He was always an unconditional supporter of Brian
• He wrote some good stuff and he even let some songs intended for Bamboo on LA - think that was very generous

Villain because

• Seems he was an asshole womanizer, even getting his way with the wives of the other band members
• He didnt take performing seriously after the mid 70s, getting drunk, showing up naked...losing his performer credibility
• He failed to stand up for Brian during Smile and later when the band lost direction in the late 70s

Mike
Hero because

• He had the guts and ambition to take the frontman role in a band full of shy nerds
• He co-wrote some amazing songs, he was a very valuable collaborator - whenever he wanted to be
• He still tours, at 70+, doing more shows than most kid bands nowadays...RESPECT

Villain because

• Failed to grasp the musical moment post 1966 summer, which led him to not support the band in projects like Smile and Monterrey
• Made too many enemies in the industry, hurting the image of the band - the RnR Hall of Fame speech is such a bad moment for Mike  :(
• Keeps on playing Kokomo and pretends like its the big deal - oh Mike if there's one thing I cant forgive you is that piece of shi***

Al
Hero because

• Lived a healthy life, so he has still a great voice and allowed us to enjoy it during the C50 tour
• Came back to play with the BBs and not pursue a career in dentistry
• He came up with the idea of covering Sloop John B...good call!

Villain because

• Never really produced good material for the band
• Its impossible to understand how he feels about Mike: one moment he criticizes him publicly about ending C50, the next he plays with him live...dont get it
• Should have stopped pretending he plays guitar and just do bass - apparently he was very good at it in the early days

Bruce
Hero because

• His musical skills and the quality of his playing/singing for the band
• Came back in the late 70s when he could have had a successful solo career
• Continues to tour at his age so for us to enjoy his mic adjusting  :)

Villain because

• He could have done so much more in a producer role with his skills; feels like he never really went that extra mile, both LA and KTSA are so lame...
• Wears shorts during concerts, WTF??? He's clearly not Angus Young!!!
• Contributed to the whole cheesy BBs 80s image in a conscious way and for someone as smart as he is...its just so wrong

I already did Brian and I dont know much about David to make this analysis. What do you think?

Just did, let me know what you think

Any key shades of dark and light gray among the zillion ones? Like if you were to be Mike's attorney in the heavenly court of musicianship, what would be your top arguments?

I don't believe Dennis ever showed up naked. He streaked onstage a few times in the '70s when streaking was big. There's a big difference.

You're wrong about Carl and Oldies Act thing. Turns out it was Dennis who went to Guercio, who in turn to make them Superstars again, had them go the Greatest Hits/Oldies route.

Ok, but wasnt Carl calling the shots on the band material in the early to mid 70s? Or was Dennis so influential at that time direction-wise?

And what would be the source for this, if I may ask?

The band decided together to send Dennis to Jim Guercio. It was his suggestions and management of the band that led to a second Superstardom, especially in 75 & 76. Can't remember if it was Jon, Ed, David Beard or someone else who mentioned it, but it was mentioned in here, say in the last 2-3 weeks.

Dennis was always a supporter of Smile. He was one of the first to share the tapes!

Yeah... saying "Dennis failed to stand up for Brian during Smile" is a total mis-read of the historical record.

This is true, but should be put in context. Dennis did go to Guercio asking for his suggestion on how to get the BB's back on top, and Guercio's suggestion was to load the set with classics, and tighten up the presentation, more uptempo songs, less jams, less gaps...plus a whole bunch of business advice regarding management and concert production issues. Guercio also encouraged Dennis to pursue a solo career.

Thanks Mr. Stebbins! This was the whole intent of this thread, to validate if my understanding of the history was correct or not. I'm sure a lot of people (specially newer fans) were as confused as I was.

Think I meant for someone who was the balls of the band, who seemed to become a growing influence in the decision-making process, why not act and help Brian finish Smile? Its great that he gave interviews saying that Smile would make Pet Sounds stink, but why then not fight more to get the album release in 1967?

Maybe I'm very wrong and Dennis fought like crazy to get Brian to finish it back then. But its not what I got from the books and from this board.

Don't know about trying to get Brian to finish it, I doubt it as that wasn't how their relationship worked. But he definitely stood up for Brian when others doubted his approach and direction. To Dennis... Brian was the master and everybody else should fall in line behind him no matter. I think that changed in the mid-seventies when Dennis became more of an independent artist and Brian became less engaged, but in the Pet Sounds/Smile period Dennis was a soldier for Brian's vision, and he thought the other guys should have the same attitude.

Sadly this incident (aside from his HOF fiasco) seems to be the incident that is brought up the most as an indictment of Mike Love's character.  If it is a falsehood I would love to see it definitively disproved in the public forum.

Cool reply, Mr. Stebbins, thank you.

I read somewhere that Brian was forced to agree to the release of Surf's Up in 1971. Guess I thought he could have been equally 'influenced' back in 1967 to get the full album released, but maybe the difference is that in 1971 it was the entire band pressuring him while in 1967 it might have been just Dennis.

Anyways, I read a lot of critics about the poor decision-making of the band - specially in Priore's book. So I'm just curious to understand how that process was actually conducted, how much was really up to Brian or if third parties played a critical role (Capitol, Murray, Jack Reilly). The band never struck me as being really democratic...unlike U2 for example, where everything is pretty much decided as a group.

Without going into the Mike issues, ...in this case I can say that there is precedent regarding Brian recording a track and going back and forth on whether it was for the Beach Boys or another artist, and some of them have had other Beach Boys on them in the earliest stages. So, the evidence that Carl was on the basic track doesn't necessarily sway me one way or the other, but the Negron story does only give one perspective. I'm interested in going back and hearing the Redwood version (concentrating on the track), and then the Beach Boys version knowing it had some extra work done on the backing track by the boys. As most have said, i always thought the two backing tracks were identical, but not the case according to C-man.

Please call me Jon. Someone on here is gonna flame both of us for the Mr. Stebbins thing.  ;) I think in the case of Surf's Up Brian was given no choice in the matter, Dennis was just given the job of telling him that...and that BW was initially against it's inclusion, and then came around to contribute to the new section is more evidence that everything is gray with this outfit.

I think with the Beach Boys instead of Democratic it's more like parliament or the UN with everybody arguing and different factions gaining leverage and power in different periods. Howie Edelson made a very prescient point how the Beatles always had that inside layer (Neil Aspinall) that gave them a last buffer between the group and any outside influences...Murry kind of played that role early on but lost the trust and respect of the boys. They never had that constant and consistent presence after him, it was always a revolving door of new managers, assistants, relatives, wives, lawyers etc... each protecting and influencing their own connection to the golden goose, but not the total entity.

Thank you Jon :)

RE: Negron/Redwood

I did a couple of pretty lengthily interviews with Negron a few years back and he told me the tale in detail, and I gotta say, I believe him.
He had no agenda, he seemingly knew all the key players pretty well over interactions in the ensuing years -- I have no doubt it played out exactly the way he said.

Personally, I think if anyone from that trio is going to offer any type of accurate portrayal of the events, it would be Negron.
 

However it went down, The Beach Boys did the right thing in recording Darlin themselves. Mike had co-written it, they needed a hit and it was comfortably the most commercial song they had at the time. I think Danny Hutton was quoted as saying he would have done the same thing himself?

As for the question posed by the OP, I don`t think any of the band members are heroes or villains. They all have good and bad facets to their characters and opinions about them seem to vary wildly depending on who is being interviewed which is only to be expected.

We're all Heroes and Villains (look at AGD for cryin' out loud   :lol :p ;)) - you, me, all of us and everyone else.   We may err on either side at times (or always) - but everyone is, and can be, both. 
It's the way it is. 

Well, you also have to remember that Carl turned into a major producer around 1969-70, and often helped Brian to finish his songs. His contributions weren't only what the songwriting credits tell you.

If you wanted to define a villain as somebody who was willing to hurt others in order to benefit themselves, then Murry would be the only candidate.  

  

And one Doctor Landy.

As far as Redwood was concerned. Let's say Chuck's account is true. Danny Hutton said (and remember, he was/is one of Brian's BFF) HE (Danny) would have done the exact same thing. If someone in Three Dog Night had been a writer for them and someone else wanted some of their songs, he would have run them off as well.

As far as SMiLE is concerned, Leaf and Prioire both heaped praises on the Brian's posse during the SMiLE period. But seeing them during the Beautiful Dreamer documentery (especially Loren) made me want to take a shower afterwards. THESE were the great thinkers around Brian? Vosse, Loren, etc. Sheesh, the word leeches come to mind. Only Van Dyke and David Anderle were worth a damn. And from someone who knows him well, Van Dyke has some Mike Love in him. Take that for what it is worth.

Vosse was a decent guy, wouldn't call him a leech. But must agree about VDP, except I think you were being too nice.

Not cool to call Michael Vosse a leech. Not cool at all.

Read this:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?topic=17054.0 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php?topic=17054.0)

He did quite well for himself after the Smile era, without "leeching" off anyone and based on his own work and personality, and managed to work almost three decades in the TV news business as a producer who won awards for his work. Not to mention his graphic design work and other behind the scenes music-biz work that included helping to both organize the event and design the program for Monterey Pop.

Not to mention nearly everyone who knew him or worked with him had nothing but good things to say about the man. I wish I had met him or interacted with him beyond the internet. 

Leech? Hardly.

Putting a guy like Michael Vosse in the "leech" category is beyond ridiculous considering how many people who share both a family last name and DNA with various band members in their history have f*cked them over, but good. And in some cases leeched hundreds of thousands of dollars from them.

Again, has it really come to this?  ::)

Hey GuitarFool, I dont know much about Vosse to say anything about him. But the intent of this Heroes and Villains thread was to identify our understandings, rectify misconceptions and try to clarify (as much as possible) the history of the BBs. Specially for us newer fans, since we dont have the context that people like Andrew, Jon Stebbins or yourself have.

So thanks for expressing what you see as a misunderstanding of someone key in the band's history.

I'm starting to think the biggest villain of them all is us, BB's fans, with all our misconceptions and awful understanding of the events  :(

You just ain't whistlin' Dixie. While there are many here who work very hard to spread the truth, there are also many here who still rather ignore it in favor of their own opinions and myths.

Simply put one of the smartest posts I've read here in a long time. Agree 100%.

Could we suggest a book project to clarify all misconceptions and myths? I have Stebbins FAQ book and it could be something like that but really focused on those key events in the band's history where most controversy arise: Smile, Monterrey, Redwood, Surf's Up in 1971, etc

I know anyone interested like you say in spreading the truth to future generations would read it. I would.

Petsite .... How dare you have an opinion about Michael Vosse's association with Brian Wilson after everything YOU'VE read. Your opinion is wrong! And, not only that, your opinion is also ridiculous! But, thank you for posting and please post again. ::)

There are a few villains in the Beach Boys story of varying degrees of villainy; Murray, Landy, Charles Manson, Stamos (joke!)  but I wouldn't class the band themselves amongst them.
Now let's here it for the heroes: Gary Usher, Tony Asher, Roger Christian and VDP for starters.

To me, a notable difference between heroes and villains in general, and particularly in the case of this band, is a given person’s ability (or lack thereof) to take responsibility for their own actions if they have hurt others, even inadvertently. I’ve seen interview clip after interview clip of late 80s/early 90s Brian publicly reflecting on feeling bad/guilty for not having been a good parent to Carnie and Wendy. You can tell it pains him to say it, but he has the guts and strength of character to have addressed this publicly multiple times on camera. He didn't have to talk about it. But he did.

Compare and contrast to Mike never (as far as I know) having uttered a public word about his daughter Shawn. It's tragic any way you slice it.

No, nobody (even celebs) are *required* to talk about stuff like this in public, I realize that. And I know that we only have a small glimpse of the true goings-on about these people, and they’ve all done good/bad things… but that being said, this striking contrast to me in terms of a parent taking responsibility for not having been around, or just for addressing the existence of their own offspring, ultimately speaks volumes when comparing the character of the individuals in this band that we all love. Maybe I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about, and maybe I have no place saying such an opinion from the outside.  But that's probably the case for everyone posting in this whole thread :)
 

None of them ever killed or raped anybody so I can't get to a point where I call any of them a villain.  They're all human with faults, it's just somebody wrote most of them down.  If everybody wrote down everything shitty I did 30 years ago... I mean come on.  There are very few people walking around who haven't done something shitty to somebody at one time or another, and eventually people forgot or forgave them for it.  None of them did anything unforgiveable and through their music all of them did a lot to spread joy and love so I give all of them a pass. 

I'd nominate Chuck Britz.

Well said.

I'd love to be able to read/hear any of those interviews sometime.  :)

Thanks  for your post, man, I like how you expressed your opinion without the negativity of other posters in this thread. And although I was focusing on how they were heroes or villains to their own history, your analysis is really valid.

It's tough starting a thread here, everyone seems very aggressive and pistoff'd but replies like yours make it worthwhile.

Cheers

We are all saints and sinners at different times in our lives...it is a part of being human. When we are young, things are black and white. As we age, and make mistakes, shades of grey (and empathy) begin to overshadow the black and white. We forgive others for their missteps, and we try to forgive ourselves for our own.

Oh sh***t, there's a book called 'Heroes and Villains: The True Story of the Beach Boys'.

Is it worthwhile or more of the myth building? I didnt get a clear answer from the book review thread.

Let me explain myself and my previous reply regarding Michael Vosse. I do react negatively when someone who had been living his own life and career free and clear of what happened in 1966-67 up until his recent passing is called a "leech". I'll say again it's not fair, and I'm not as much reacting to the people suggesting this but rather the way the history has been spun to suggest anything of the sort. This in light of the fact, too, that anyone here on the board can search his name or even read through the tribute link I posted here and get a better history of who the man was and what he did, with information you'll not find pretty much anywhere else.

I've reacted the same when similar things have been suggested about any number of people pictured in the 1966 airport photo, and individuals who were among Brian's inner circle during the "Smile era" in 1966-67. Some are still friends, some parted ways as early as 1967 and never came back, but among them are very successful musicians and professionals in other fields who have sold tens of millions of records, not to mention have been successful in other areas of the entertainment and media business, from the 70's onward, and none of which have ridden coattails from someone in the Beach Boys to do so.

If it's negativity, then I'm guilty and I didn't mean to finger-point at anyone. But at the same time it is important to clarify whatever misinformation has been going around which leads to calling certain people leeches or coattail-riders or hangers-on in various discussions.

Just consider some of these things when making the list.  :)

How would you guys place Zeppo Wilson? hero or villain? after the incident with the chicken and the gerbil I'm not sure how people would place him on the list.. here's my thoughts.
What makes him a hero
1. He never gave an interview so he never was able to gossip about the other members
2. He was married to 20 wives, at the same time, for me that's a hero, most people have a hard time with just one wife.
3.He gave money, annually, to the "Homeless Snail Charity"
4. He wrote some amazing songs, but the BB's didn't want to record them so he gave them to the Beatles and allowed them to use their own names as songwriters.
5.fought in WW1 and single handedly won the war for everyone
6. hung out with Mother Theresa and helped to bring the gospel to the pygmies.

villain
1. that thing he did with the chicken and the gerbil, which I'm not going into since you all know what happened
2.unfortuantly he was the one who introduced the guitar to Manson
3. he wrote Kokomo
4. unfortunately, he introduced the band to John Stamos
5. it was a shame when ,a couple years ago, when Zeppo was working with the band on the 50th ann tour as a computer tech and accidentally messed up Dennis' performance of "Forever" that one day..
 

A veteran of World War 1 working as a computer tech in 2012? Forget that guy in the Dos Equis commercials, Zeppo truly is the most interesting man in the world, if not of all time.  :lol

 :lol

Zeppo Wilson is love. Zeppo Wilson is life.

RE. Vosse: I agree. He was not a leech, he was an employee for one thing, hired by Brian, in the employee of BRI and doing a job.

RE. Negron:
 
"It all came to a head...when Mike Love, Carl Wilson and Al Jardine came to the studio and heard our version of 'Time To Get Alone'...They manoeuvred Brian into the control booth and reduced him to tears. It was a cruel and pathetic scene. Danny, Cory and I were in the studio and could see it all happening through the control-booth window. It was as if Brian had turned into a little boy. The conversation appeared quiet and calm, but we could tell it was emotional and intense. The others were doing most of the talking, like overbearing, controlling parents. Brian would move away, and they would block his escape. We couldn't hear what was being said, but I think a good lip-reader would have picked up something like, 'We don't give a **** about these guys, and we want those songs for us.' We could actually feel Brian crumbling, and when he came out of the booth, a tear dropped down his cheek. His head was lowered and his shoulders sagged. It was the body language of a child who had just been scolded and punished. And this brilliant musical icon - whose songs defined one generation and influenced another - weepingly told us, 'We can't do this. I have to give the songs to them. They're family and I have to take care of my family. They want the songs. I'll give you any amount of money you want to finish an album, but I can't produce it. They won't let me.'"

In his book Negron is not even aware of what was said and is just speculating about what was going on. Also, he has Brian offering to "finish" an album but somewhere I'm pretty sure Hutton is quoted as saying Redwood jumped ship on their BRI opportunity because Brian was only willing to do singles instead of an album. Maybe I don't remember that exactly right.

So Negron is speculating on seeing Brian come back with tears in his eyes which were not there before Mike, Carl, and Al showed up, and he did not say something to the effect of what Negron quoted him as saying? Is that the suggestion?

I don't buy it. Too much of a stretch to dismiss Negron's account in that way by suggesting he was speculating on the scene he had just watched unfold in front of him during a recording session.

Danny Hutton is still around, still friendly with Brian...someone should ask *him* what happened at that session, what *he* remembers from it if anything.

It wasn't exactly an unreasonable request though was it? "Hey Brian, remember that album of ours that just completely bombed and those flop singles? Maybe we should take those couple of tunes that are better then anything else we have lying around and make them into BB tunes?"

He is speculating about what was going on in there unless I'm missing something. Does he not say in the quote that he did not hear what was said?

Just to clarify - I know Danny has talked about this before, I know his take on it was he could understand how the Beach Boys felt and might have done the same thing for his group in such a case, but I'm pinpointing the way Negron's account is having doubt cast on it by suggesting it's speculation. Danny Hutton was there too, I'm just saying it would be nice to get him to comment on it beyond what he already said...which is basically the same as what Negron said, that it looked like Brian was intimidated that day by the Beach Boys who came in to the studio and pulled him aside during the session, and he then came back from that conversation saying he could no longer produce the album for them, and was shaken up.

Is it true, though, that other members of The Beach Boys also circumvented Brian's original plans to produce a full album and offered Redwood a deal for a *single* on Brother, basically without involving Brian in this offer? That I'm not sure...

Let's speculate a bit on our own, here:

Brian is at Wally Heider's producing a vocal session for Redwood, with Hutton, Wells, and Negron.

Mike and Carl (and Al) show up, and pull Brian aside for a conversation which is observed through the studio glass window.

They leave, Brian comes back in shaken up. On Negron's account, he had been crying.

He then tells Redwood, in the middle of a Redwood vocal session he was producing, that he can no longer produce them. The band will not let him, and he'll be working on the Beach Boys album instead.

And that was all she wrote for Brian producing Redwood.

So.....Before the Beach Boys walked into the studio, he was producing Redwood. After they pull him aside and have this "speculated" discussion, he is no longer producing Redwood. And he appeared upset by the whole scene to the point of tears in his eyes.


Someone make the connection I must be missing to suggest the conversation wasn't more in tune with what Negron and Hutton are "speculating". I'd love to hear what else they could have been talking about, what changed the entire plans for Redwood before and after the "meeting"...were they discussing baseball perhaps? Meditation? Where they'd meet for dinner the next day?  ;D

Isn't he speculating about what was going on, his impression? He saw what he saw and he did not hear what he did not hear.

For all we know the Boys were trying to get Brian to realize that BRI couldn't afford to even release their own album or who knows what.

One aspect of this which is important to consider is that one of the reasons why they wanted to form Brother Records in the first place was to allow the individual band members to scout and produce other artists which they'd produce on their own and release on the Brother label, using Capitol's distribution and marketing. It was basically the same template Apple used when they tried to set up a similar organization so the individual Beatles and associates could bring in and produce on their own outside artists, only Brother was a year ahead of them. Recall Harrison got Jackie Lomax, McCartney got Mary Hopkin, Mal Evans got Badfinger (The Iveys), and I believe Peter Asher got James Taylor produced and released on Apple in that way.

Brian's outside group was Redwood, but they weren't entirely unknown and untested in the business since Hutton on his own had moderate success as a solo artist and had released singles and made the usual TV appearances, so he was somewhat of a known entity rather than a total unknown potentially getting "signed" under Brother.

What outside artists at the time Brian was producing Redwood had Mike, Carl, Dennis, or Al brought into the Brother label and what were they producing or offering to the new Brother label in the way of recording and releasing new songs from outside artists?

Consider that element of how and why Brother Records was formed, and keep in mind it wasn't solely created and designed to release Beach Boys records. Who else of note were the other band members besides Brian bringing in at that time in '67 when they were trying to build the label?

Whatever was said that Negrin couldn't hear is speculation.  What Brian told him afterwards wasn't.

Exactly, Brian's words are Brian's words according to Negron.

Something else to consider, BRI was a corporation and each of the Boys were only one vote in how they operated.

Also, I think it is true that Brian had never had and would never produce anything considered commercially successful for any group other than the BBs before or after so Redwood even with Brian producing was a wildcard. 

Exactly, the outcome is not in dispute. What exactly was said, by whom and the nature of how it was argued is speculation as neither member of Redwood was in the booth at the time.

Brian could live off royalties in 1967 while Carl, Al, Dennis and Mike couldn't. They exposed their angle to Brian, who could have focused on the next Beach Boys album or told them to take a hike and become a independent producer. He chose the former. The end.

Thing is, though, Brian didn't know he could've just lived off the royalties back then, especially once the back catalogue was delted later on. After 1974, that's different, though.

Don't know much about this band or other sources on this tale, but here's a quote from Hutton I saw in his interview on 'Darlin'' in Fifty Sides of the Beach Boys, so a fairly recent interview.

"According to Hutton, it was about other Beach Boys wanting both the Redwood songs and Brian's full attention.

"'He's giving away those hits like he did with Jan & Dean!' - I see their point," Hutton says.  "I get Mike Love saying, 'Hey, Danny, man, I know about this album thing you want to do.  What about a single or something?  We've got an album to do, man.  I don't know what you guys are doing.  We gotta get in this room.  We gotta start working.'""

LOL! Now we know why Brian resists being in a room alone with Mike :D

Really Brothers Records as a label was sort of a pipedream anyway wasn't it. Even at the time Redwood was supposedly recording for Brothers weren't the Boys themselves already reverted to Capitol as their label? Was anything not Beach Boys released on Brother Records, Pickle Brothers or anybody?

Another aspect to consider:

On another recent thread, it was debated and discussed just how much of Wild Honey Brian actually produced, and how much of it was Carl or a "group effort". Some suggested Brian didn't do that much production work on the album, I suggested we can hear where he did more than others, and overall my point was Brian was still involved more than some were suggesting.

Ok - So let's assume for the discussion that Brian really didn't do that much on Wild Honey, as the suggestion was made. If that were the case, why would they need him to stop work with Redwood and take up producing Wild Honey?

It seems that if we take the notion that the Beach Boys coming into Heider's studio that day and essentially ending Brian's work on Redwood's album, then doesn't that also in a way dispute the claim that he didn't do as much production as Carl or anyone else on the record?

So why would they need him, then, to almost immediately quit Redwood and get back to working on Wild Honey, if as some claims suggest Carl was the one calling the production shots more than Brian?

The Flame


Perhaps as has been mentioned, they simply wanted to use the studio and didn't want Brian wasting all of their available time by recording someone else ( Redwood) ? 

Brian was cutting most if not all of the Redwood tracks at Wally Heider's, I believe. Or do you mean they just didn't want Brian booking time at Heider's for others instead of them?

I missed that, I guess, but definitely they wanted BRian's time to be spent with the BBs, whether he was producing or simply taking part

Or they just didn't want him working with anyone else, or giving good ideas to anyone else but "the family", yet Brother was partially set up for the band members to do just that - work with outside artists. Keep in mind Brian was still doing Honeys sessions in 1967, right? Some of the studio photos originally thought to be Smile sessions were actually shot at Honeys sessions, some of those showing Brian with his custom Hawaiian shirts circa '67.

I guess Brian working on Honeys sessions wasn't as big of a deal for Carl and Mike?  :)

I forgot to add that the Wild Honey tracks, at least I think a majority of them were cut at the home studio which was still in flux, although Jim Lockert eventually final-mixed the record piecemeal at Heider's as he had done with Smiley Smile, at least according to what he said. So having Brian working at Heider's should not have affected Carl, if he were producing as much as suggested, from working at the home studio as they had been doing.

Makes some sense, but, perhaps Carl's producing felt better knowing Brian was nearby and not across town working with Redwood? maybe just feeling they wanted to get Brian thinking more about BBs / less about Redwood. 

 Brother set up for working with other artists, ties neatly in with  that wonky country/pop singer acetate  that was supposed to be delivered to Carl at Brother; tho what the thought process was there , is beyond me. 

I'd say that thought process is exactly in step with the original plans for Brother - It wasn't just Brian, but also Carl, Mike, Dennis, whoever else...if they heard an artist that interested them, Brother was set up so they could bring them in and cut records, or even demo them. I'm sure they were also scouting for and soliciting new artists and demos, which explains that acetate to a degree. We could go to the extreme and bring up Charles Manson, where Dennis heard his music, Mike was hanging around the Manson clan too and heard his music, so they (mostly Dennis but who knows) had him come in to record some demos.

And this is speculation, but I think those two almost out-of-place Smile recordings where Carl produced Tune X and Dennis did I Don't Know were, at least in my opinion, attempts at them learning the ropes so they could work with artists on their own, producing under the Brother umbrella which was at the time those were recorded very much a plan in motion.

oops

Which artists did Mike bring in? I know the famous ones were more 70's, like Craig Vincent Smith, but did he have anyone come in back in 67?

Brother was put on hold, but consider too the Capitol issues and the shopping for a new contract which led to Reprise, then Brother came back into existence. I'd like to read up more on the details of all that, I'm not really up on the full backstory and all of that to explain how and why that happened between '67 and '69/'70. Only thing I know is Nick Grillo took over after David Anderle's departure, and Grillo finalized the Brother deal with Capitol. Then Brother all but fell asleep for a few years, didn't it?

You think that for as long as you've been a fan, you'd know the name of the label is Brother Records, not "Brothers".

Could look this up but just thinking out loud...That cover of Let The Wind Blow - was it a female singer named "Amy" or was the track labeled "Amy Vocal"? - was that one of Mike's outside-artist projects for Brother? I don't know what else they/Mike did with Craig Smith, either, or if anything, or whether they just had him in recording and Mike's voice is on that session tape? I'd say Carl bringing in The Flame probably produced the best results all around, obviously.

Yeah...what WAS the deal with 'Amy'...or the kid on that 'Oh Yeah'  track?

Mike brought in the Pickle Brothers.

A few thoughts on the notion of Brother Records being a "pipedream". I disagree. And the results since it was formed in 1967 prove it was in fact successful. Consider again Apple Records - everyone knows it was a complete mess, a sham of a business, money flowing out of every possible window...yet look what it turned into. Eventually it got reshaped, reinvented, put under the stewardship of people like Neil Aspinall who not only knew the business but also had the band's interests and legacy in mind.

Apple Corp. is worth a fortune. Was it a rough if not disastrous first five years or so in business? Of course. But look at where Apple Corp. stands in 2014.

Consider Brother Records in 1967. Rocky start, not much motivation after the initial plans were drawn up and the deal signed, in fact the whole "company" and name basically went on hiatus for several years as the band changed labels and contracts, only to be revived and revisited. Now, it is still in existence as BRI, more or less, and BRI is as far as I think we know a profitable and valuable business interest.

We forget in 2014 that starting a company from scratch no matter how much investment capital one may have is at least a 5 year proposition before the company shows a profit, unless it's a stroke of luck. The whole dot-com and internet startup business debacle/sham made people think the model was reversed so the "founders" of a dot-com struck it rich and cashed out before a single successful year was in the company books...it didn't even matter. Score early, score big, get the hell out of the business. Remember pets.com? Solyndra? The founders and owners lived like kings. The companies were sh*t and they knew they would fail...it didn't matter. They got big profits on an IPO, sold snake oil, and cashed in.

BRI/Brother and Apple Records...They were a near-disaster, but with the usual reworking, reshaping, revamping that any business may go through before finding its groove, look at where they are today.

Hardly a pipedream when you consider the template suggested by Brian, David Anderle, and others is still a viable company almost 50 years later. Not in the same way, but how many companies are? How many companies last 50 years, period?

I agree that BRI is a successful and on going corporation but as a label BRI had like 3 or 4 records altogether. It wasn't really producing much of anything as a record label. It had only one non-BB release I guess. To me, as a label that would release records of outside artists and non-group project it was a pipedream.

The corporation was formed January 11 1967 and by October they weren't even releasing their own recordings on their own label.

Since they all wanted it to happen and made plans apparently, makes me wonder if the label being a mostly pipedream must have been something beyond their control, like the terms of a settlement, or cash flow, or something.

I don't think cash flow was an issue for 1967 and 1968. They had a banner year in 1966, especially towards the latter half of that year, which ended in them having the #1 record, winning that poll over the Beatles, and coming back from a successful European tour that saw them all but welcomed as heroes in the UK. With the money they'd receive from these events in late '66, it wouldn't actually reach their accounts in some cases until well into 1967 via record sales, tour profits, new offers to perform, etc. So they were set for 1967 based on income they had made in the previous years.

Keep in mind, too, that at this same time and into 1968 they had Grillo burning off some of that money by investing in various deals like that Alameda area land purchase strictly for an investment (ultimately it didn't go so well), dropping who knows how much into the Maharishi tour debacle, and were actively outfitting Brian's house with a working professional recording studio so they wouldn't need to worry about booking outside facilities. They were still set throughout 1968, it would seem.

Then, into 1969-70, some of the bills started to come due, some of the investments soured, and it coincided with them not being able to sustain the sales and popularity that had filled their coffers previously. Capitol was out, they needed a new deal, and again some of the bills were coming in. Murry sold Sea Of Tunes and pocketed the money...Manson and the family leeched off Dennis and that hit his wallet, they were still touring but to less paying customers, etc. That's when it got bad. That's when Brian did on a larger scale what he used to do at Radiant Radish by putting his own money into the cash register when things got tight financially to keep things solvent.

Whatever was planned and set up through Brother Records in 1967 was also looking ahead to the future - unfortunately the immediate future wasn't paying off as it had before, and like most businesses starting up it was a period of very lean years. That doesn't mean it was a pipe dream from its inception, and eventually what was set up for the business plan did start happening.

Apple on the other hand came right out of the gate with their "outside artists", the first batch of Apple releases were pretty successful including the Beatles' own singles, then that side of it dropped off. And the poor business practices nearly sunk the entire corporation, obviously, until they restructured the whole thing, the Beatles were over as a band, and it started to make money under the right hands.

Brother Records morphed into BRI, things got better over the years, and again it is now firmly in place as a corporation. Was it the multimedia juggernaut originally planned? No, but neither was Apple. They both had to change and adapt, and work through the usual growing pains to become what they eventually did, which are successful companies that started out as a record label.

I still don't see the pipe dream aspect if it did in fact develop over time into a successful player in the music business.

OK but to me a record label that only released 4 records in 47 years is a pipedream of a record label. We will just disagree.

Maybe it wasn't cash flow, but still feel was something not in their control that kept them from making their record label aspirations a reality.

Edit: You mentioned Nick Grillo, maybe he had some sort of advice against it for some reason. I got ahold of Nick a long time ago and at the time he was not interested but referred me to the book H&V (title?) and said that what is attributed about him there is accurate. Does it say anything about it?

Yes. It's on Google Books, and clicking this link takes you to the available pages/passages mentioning Grillo:

http://books.google.com/books?id=spwdCTYbJP4C&q=grillo#v=snippet&q=grillo&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=spwdCTYbJP4C&q=grillo#v=snippet&q=grillo&f=false)

Enlightening stuff. Mentions Brother, mentions the land deal in Simi Valley, mentions Brian *and* Grillo putting tens of thousands of dollars of their own money into the band's coffers, including Brian taking out a second mortgage to keep the band's finances afloat, mentions Mike demanding money from Capitol in the form of royalty advances to finance his film about the Maharishi to the point of Mike writing to Alan Livingston personally demanding the loan, mentions how much the Maharishi tour debacle cost them, mentions how they couldn't get a record deal in '69, mentions how Capitol deleted the entire Beach Boys catalog in response to another lawsuit later in the 60's which cut the band's income considerably since no one could buy their albums, mentions how Murry screwed everyone with the Sea Of Tunes deal - pocketing the one-time cash payment and not distributing it - in light of another offer to sell which would have allowed the band to keep half of Sea Of Tunes interest for income, mentions how Mike was one of the main supporters of Brother Records for business reasons as he trusted Anderle and it was set up so the individual band members could work with outside artists without Brian's involvement...

That last one, make note of that...  :)

And Grillo basically spells out the specifics of how and why the band's finances shrunk to the point of near-bankruptcy, which is basically what I outlined as bills came due while revenue sources shrunk...which led to Grillo himself putting a decent sum of money into the BB's bank, as did Brian, then Grillo was one who got the finger pointed at him by various band members, and Jack Reiley and Stan Love and was basically fired over the phone, after being confronted repeatedly when things got really tight with money over how much he was getting. Yet the band still owed him quite a large sum from what Grillo put into their coffers which was a loan basically, and back payments he was due for his services.

So that's a summary, definitely read the link to the book. If Grillo says it's accurate, there is some pretty negative stuff to be found in that account of the "lean years", 68-71.

I'd definitely recommend reading what Grillo said, it adds a few elements to the 1968-69 time period that could help explain just how and why things got so bad financially, besides the obvious.

Consider Capitol as a player in all of this. It doesn't get talked about much that they deleted the Beach Boys catalog, which again meant not only could people not buy the back catalog of albums, but Capitol was basically taking a financial hit as well because that meant the albums were not making money for them. And The Beach Boys therefore could not collect payments on them either. It was asked earlier whether Capitol would be willing to take a financial hit post-lawsuit by possibly not giving the full weight of marketing and distribution to a band who had cost them potentially millions of dollars through a lawsuit, then again for another lawsuit. And if they went so far as to delete the entire catalog, I'd say there was bad blood for sure.

Grillo also mentions Mike asking for money to fund his Maharishi film project, which also led to Mike essentially asking the head of Capitol for a loan on future royalties, and that may have also caused tension because it would seem you didn't go to Livingston basically begging for money in this way.

Keep in mind, the Beatles had a major issue with the Maharishi as well regarding money. The Maharishi was doing some things the Beatles didn't like, nor did they agree with, regarding using their image and fame to try building his TM empire through the media. He had a full broadcast studio, radio-TV-etc, and at one point several Beatles basically made a special trip to meet him to tell him basically "cut the crap" and stop using them and their money.

Another facet: Maharishi at one point asked for the Beatles to sign over their royalties to him and his multimedia organization. A ridiculous request.

Consider though, that in light of this rejection by The Beatles which may have been one of several similar requests to "use" them to promote TM, the tour with the Beach Boys happened soon after. If you take Grillo's word, Mike was advised against this...I have audio of Lennon and McCartney saying they were also advising the Maharishi against this, but the tour went ahead. And it cost at least over a half million dollars of the band's money, and was a total flop as we all know.

Could the Beach Boys tour promoting TM have been one part of a bigger plan the Maharishi was perhaps suggesting for the band to be the vehicle to spread his message? We know he asked the Beatles for similar things including a flat out request for their royalty profits, I'm wondering if he similarly asked the Beach Boys through Mike or anyone else for comparable things after the Beatles said no.

1968-69 it appeared that the Beach Boys in general were simply bleeding money and not getting anything back. And Capitol seems to have basically washed their hands of the band, the part about them deleting the back catalog might shed more light on just how strained the relationship was amidst several lawsuits.