The Smiley Smile Message Board

Back in the fall of '82, Carl told Geoffrey Himes (when speaking of the groups' individual vocal contributions): "It's not widely known, but Michael had a hand in a lot of the arrangements. He would bring out the funkier approaches: he'd decide what rhythms and syllables to use in the background, whether to go shoo-boo-bop or bom-bom-did-di-did-did. It makes a big difference, because it can change the whole rhythm, the whole color and tone of it."

So, the question is, which songs might these be? The first to come to mind is, of course, the VERY first one: "Surfin'", which has a bass vocal line almost identical to the second one Carl describes here (and the TM-like chant in "This Whole World" seems to be a derivative of that). Any others like that? And what about the first one Carl describes here: can anyone think of any BBs song that might incorporate a background line such as that? I'm sure there are others that Carl had in mind, he just happened to mention these two types of r'n'b-styled backgrounds as examples...

Perhaps his backing vocals on I Can Hear Music, particularly during the bridge breakdown part...

The bow bow bow in Help Me Rhonda and possibly ba ba ba and did its in Do It Again.  Not that Carl was referring to those, but they sound like something he would have come up with, especially on Help Me, Rhonda.

It's so damn difficult to think that myKe could come up with something as complex as bow x 3 as well as did its! What about TLGIOK, too. Man, how profound is that? He makes Brian look like an amateur!  ::)

Yeah, he sure does!  ::)

I wonder if Mike is looking for an arranger credit.

Those were Carl's words reported, sure, but suggesting or doing a doo-wop based "bom, bom, dippity dippity" bassline vocal if you're the bass singer in a vocal group is not worthy of being credited as an arranger.

I can guarantee you Mike is not looking for an arranging credit. Carl told Himes "Mike had a hand in the arrangements", and I simply brought it up out of my own curiosity.

Given what I know...and following through in order to also accurately consider his more modern contributions [say those made to Slumber in Pair of Dice for example]... ... ...I think we can safely assume that 'he' would have been behind the concept of the group going with the memorable. daunting, and ever-so-challenging "Duh duh duh...duh duh...duh duh duh...duh duh.../Duh duh duh...duh duh...duh duh duh...duh duh"  intro to Louee-Louee. :o

"Duhhhhhh."   Those are the kind of special lyrics and moments which immediately enable me to conjure up the image I have grown accustomed to in terms of equating  that 'love' character with all of the great stuff he's has done to...er - sorry...'for' the brand...I mean band. ::)

:bw  You're killing me smalls!

Very moving, and probably the single most underrated moment in their whole catalog.

Looking at most (but not all) of the above posts, it's no wonder the OP has taken his question elsewhere.

Mike is plugging away at trying to find a way to make more money off the BBs legacy and diminish BW's work in 1960s. ::)

I think you could argue that, in cases where Mike wasn't directed by Brian or others on how to sing his bass part and/or what "sounds" to use as background syllables, etc., and worked it out on his own, he "arranged" the song in the same way that, say, George Harrison "wrote" parts of Lennon/McCartney songs where he wrote the lead guitar part from scratch. That is, a wholly original part, but one that is dictated by a pre-existing arrangement/melody/chord structure and a situation where that addition (whether one agrees or not) was and is not typically awarded a credit.

So in this sense, in a world where a lead guitar part wouldn't receive a writer's credit, Mike forming his bass part with no outside help wouldn't warrant a "vocal arranger" credit on an album jacket.

I think Carl in that interview is using "arranger" in a looser fashion, and pointing out that Mike did form his own vocal parts in some cases is certainly an important thing to point out, as are cases where he picked which vocal sounds to use as backing. But this certainly isn't the same as writing out or verbally dishing out actual fully-formed multi-part harmony pieces.

As for cases where Mike did this sort of thing, coming up with the "do-do-do" versus "woooo-buh-do" and all of that stuff, I would tend to think post-1967 stuff where Brian wasn't cracking the whip as much or having as much direct control over sessions might be more likely cases where Mike more freely added that stuff.

Not an unfair observation in the least given the recent history of vocal credits (and who was all tied up in that). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why all of that was done in the first place...thus it's not surprising that people were cynical/sarcastic about this specific topic.

Regardless, glad it found its way to the Pet Sounds Forum, far from that "other" board lol

Wasn't it the liners for one of the copyright releases?

No surprise Mike came up with many of the bass vocal lines on the songs, rather than those being dictated by Brian - Good Vibrations comes to mind (although it just echoes the bass line), the part in the Water chant was Mike's (now now now ...) and I'm sure numerous others.  It would be interesting to try and list all the songs with vocal bass lines that "make" the song or at least are an inseparable part of their structure.

Could you elaborate on this?

.

[/quote]
[/quote]

[/quote]

[/quote] :woot :woot :woot :woot :woot

Is that really necessary?

I don't care how much of a dick he can be to Brian or anybody else. the man is a hell of a lot more worthy of respect and credit as a member of a vocal group than he's been given in the past, or right now in this thread. Listen to the vocal only mixes of Breakaway or Cottonfields, and see if you can come up with something half as good.

You could ask that about the majority of OSD's posts too. 

He probably gets just as much credit as he deserves. People know he contributed a lot to the band's 60s music and by the way, I'm sure rock critics would be very kind to Mike Love if he was a little more humble about those contributions. He was the lead singer, frontman and sometimes lyricist during the band's prime and he did some great bass vocals too. Not a genius but indeed a hard working guy. :)

This is my take on it too. Mike had an incredibly distinctive voice, and his bass vocals on 'Cherry Cherry Coupe' for example are some of my favorite vocals these guys ever recorded. His lyrics on 'Warmth of the Sun' or 'Good Vibrations' are simply phenomenal.

Not to get too far off topic, but that's something I admired about Mike's lyrics; Brian was into pocket symphonies - little 2-3 minute Spector like tunes. It's not easy telling a story in that amount of time, considering you'd only have two or three short verses to tell it in. Take 'Warmth of the Sun' - there is story, poetry, and vivid imagery that is damn hard to pull off in the allotted time...that takes a lot of talent, which is why these guys were always in the top part of the charts (regardless of who co-wrote, but Brian certainly did pick the right people for whatever song he was working on in those days, and Mike was certainly one of those right people).

I think we'd all focus on these moments more if we didn't read accusations about Brian supposedly being under Landy-esque control right now (as well as other similar negative comments). I don't think this is something that can be denied. All these guys have flaws, but life goes on. Dennis had flaws, but do we talk about those flaws constantly? No, we talk about how amazing Holy Man is. Carl had his flaws, but most of the comments we see here about him are about how beautiful his voice was. Brian has flaws, but do we focus on them? No, because Brian hasn't a negative thing to say about anything (except for the same old sh*t being on Jeopardy) so why would we focus on the negative?

Mike on the other hand brings up, well, the things that he brings up. If he were to play his shows, talk about the good days and not focus on the negative, talk positively about his cousin, I would bet big money that people here would see it as a redemption and anyone would rightfully look like a total ass if they were to constantly criticize him after such a turnaround. I would also bet that if he did a 180 on how he talks about his cousin the likelihood of them getting together to work on a project would be exponentially better than it currently is.

As for the topic at hand, I would love to know more about his contributions to the bass vocal parts. All of these guys contributed in one way or another, and it's not unrealistic by any means that Mike was there adding his own vocal flavor to his parts. Although I still stand by my statement that being cynical about the intentions of the original topic isn't an unfair reaction given the history of these credits.

That aside, I'm wondering if Mike's parts on the intro of 'Dressed Up For School' fall under this umbrella of Mike's contributions.

Very rarely is Mike's musical contribution to the band, *especially* his contribution to the early era songwriting and vocal work, criticized or downplayed or belittled.

If he's a total dick to "Brian or anybody else" and you don't care, then that's your thing. If others point when he's being a dick, it's not to say he didn't make great musical contributions. I suppose his being a dick becomes the headline-grabbing item rather than his musical contributions, but to the degree that is the case, that is mostly *on Mike.* There are many, many ways he could have and still could correct that. He chooses not to.

To the point of this thread's topic, the specific question is the very interesting question of whether what Mike did would constitute more credit in a general sense, and/or a specific actual credit for vocal arranging. To point out that he did great work but that his contributions may not rise to the level of actual "vocal arranging" in the way that, say, Brian actually wrote and arranged multi-part harmonies, is not to downplay Mike's contribution but rather to simply get a clear picture of what his contributions might be.

I think Carl was magnanimous in highlighting Mike's contribution to group vocals. I think he was speaking with a broad but still generous tone in talking about Mike's contributions in that interview cited at the top. I think his comment is a great jumping off point to look more closely at what Mike did or could have done based on the info we have. I also think it's okay to point out that deciding it should be "doot-doot" instead of "bip bip" or something does not necessarily rise to the level or arranging all of the individual vocal parts to "Our Prayer."

The way it works is that there is the forest and there are the trees. In situations on songs or sessions where there was an arranger, that was a specific role that sometimes overreached the job description, but basically involved organizing all of the musical pieces and parts together (the trees) in order to create the finished product (the forest).

It could be, in the rock and pop world especially, a very liquid role to play, meaning it could vary song to song...and that is why a lot of these credits and references and research need to be approached that way. At the same time, there is still an arranger, as in someone who put all of the parts together to form a whole.

I won't mention the subjects topical to this discussion, Brian and Mike, for the examples to follow. But anyone who thinks it can be argued or needs to be revised around what people in and just outside the band have said since the 1960's, that on those "classic era" cuts it was Brian doing the arranging and teaching the guys their parts, they are either sorely mistaken or have been drinking too much Kool Aid. Can that be argued? Fact is fact. Anyway...

Take the example of Philadelphia International in the 70's, the home of "Philly Soul" where Gamble and Huff were cranking out hit after hit on the R&B and pop charts, grooves that were massive combined with sophisticated chords changes, great vocal performances, and surrounded by lush horn and string arrangements. They were the Wrecking Crew and the Stax house band of the 70's, and they even said they wanted to do a more sophisticated version of what Gordy did at Motown the previous decade. And they did it.

So consider there were two main producers/writers and arrangers working with that house band on all those hits. Primarily it would be either the team of Gamble and Huff, or Thom Bell. Check all the credits for those names to appear.

Now consider how they worked: The word is that Thom Bell would come to a session with all the musical parts charted out, every note written and arranged for the musicians to play. That was how he worked - He showed up like the old-school big band arrangers who would come to a meeting with a briefcase full of charts and a score, give it to the bandleader, and get paid for it. But every note was there.

Now contrast that to Gamble and Huff. They would come in with general outlines and had guitarist Norman Harris as arranger too, but more of what they got on tape came from opening it up more to the players on the floor in terms of coming up with grooves and parts. Instead of Bell scoring every note, Gamble and Huff went for more of a group contribution, having the main idea and outline in mind but allowing things to develop on the studio floor more freely than Bell's arrangements.

Sound familiar? Spector and Wilson did the same thing. A lot of producers and arrangers follow that method, while some like Thom Bell, Zappa, etc...they have every note on paper. If something needs to be changed, they change it, but the bulk of what they wanted recorded they had written on the score beforehand.

If, say, Hal Blaine were to come up with a specific key drum beat that anchored the entire arrangement, if not created a hook of the song as he did often, was Hal "arranging" the song? Or was he doing his job as the drummer while Jack Nitzsche actually arranged the tune? If some member of the Baker-Harris-Young Philly Soul house band had a bass riff or drum groove or guitar rhythm hook that made the song, did they "arrange" the song?

Or did they contribute one part into a bigger whole?

I've said before, it can be a slippery slope if and when trying to micro-manage the way recording sessions went down, especially in the 60's and 70's, if isolating contributions down to someone coming up with "dit dit, dit dit, dit dit" or a specific drum or guitar line is ever elevated to the credit of "producer", "arranger", or even "co-writer". Are they interesting topics and valuable contributions to those songs? Yes - But that's the extent of it. They are trees among many in the forest.

I gave two examples, I'm sure there are more.  Just like he came up with "Good night, baby, sleep tight, baby" on WIBN, but that's just on the tag.  Mike was intimately familiar with doo wop and bass vocal lines and likely needed little prompting to come up with bass lines to go with many of the early songs.  Obviously tightly arranged four and five part harmonies were dictated by Brian - Prayer, Lord's Prayer, A Young Man is Gone, And Your Dream Comes True, Old Man River, Their Hearts were Full of Spring.

That's kinda what I meant, I didn't know if Mike was more heavily influenced by do-wop than Brian or what.

GREAT post, Rab! (Somehow, I like that sentence...) Couldn't agree more. I would immediately "forgive" Mike for everything if he just LET GO.

We know that Brian did drugs, Mike. Brian himself is on record for saying it's the thing he regrets most.
We know that you were cheated out of your rightful credits for a long period. You were also amply compensated for that, many years ago, no need to keep on harbouring darkly vengeful feelings.
Most importantly, we know you and Melinda aren't best buddies. That does not make her Landy's equivalent.

LET GO, Mike. Please. Let us concentrate on your great leads, on your great bass parts, on your good and sometimes great lyrics, on the good work you are still doing with your band (though even that is somewhat besmirched by that unrelenting license thingy...).

Mike frustrates me to no end. He won't let go. It's like hoping for a live "Rio Grande" by Brian. Not going to happen. :(

+1. And I truly believe everyone on the other board - even Mike's most ardent defenders - would agree with everything you've just said, even if they won't publicly admit it.

I have no doubt in believing that Mike added all sorts of little nuggets of cool stuff to the vocal arrangements throughout the catalog.

Here's another: Mike's bass vocal parts in Make it Big, such as "and everything that you do, doll" during the choruses sound like something he would have added off the cuff, with "doll" likely being an ad lib. It feels sort of like the "split, man" type of vocal riffing in The Little Girl I Once Knew.

I'd be more than willing to give that asshole way more credit...IF he wasn't such a complete and ongoing, never-ending, never fading, self propelled  shithead.  But he is ALL of that.  So?  He get's what he deserves.

Duhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just to restate it - The nature of how music is made often involves off-the-cuff contributions from any number of people involved. That's a fact. If it extends beyond accepting that working method as the way things were and are, and credits start being sought or applied to everyone who said "why don't you try this..." or added something at any point in the process, it becomes an exercise in futility. And ultimately, what's the purpose?

Two eye-opening facts were spoken to me when I was still in college. One was that any number of film and TV composers who are and were household names had teams of writers and interns and whatnot "filling in" the grand orchestrations and even compositions themselves, after the main composer sketched out a melodic idea or a few phrases to run with. The staff would often fill in the rest. What were their names, those staff writers and arrangers and composers who fleshed out those sketches and ideas to create what audiences heard in the theater?

Second - Art History classes and lectures. Take any number of "masterpieces", those recognized around the world as the true masterpieces. On more of those canvases than people might realize, it was a similar structure as the film composers, where students and those studying under the masters or at their studios would "fill in" the details such as backgrounds, certain objects on the canvas other than the main subject...just like the film scores above. Yet who were these students and apprentices, and do they get credit...or does the master artist who signed the canvas get recorded as "The Artist" who painted the work?

Just some random thoughts.

 

Yet in the case of Beach Boys music, specifically that classic Capitol era 62-66, it's pretty clear exactly where the work was done and who did and should always and in the future get credit in terms of arranging and producing those records. Unless the other band members were lying when they introduced him at various live shows.

I agree with you 100%, Jay. It seems there is an unwritten rule on this board against saying anything complimentary about Mike.

Not for me. I may not be 100% supportive of the decisions he's made, but you will *never* hear me disparage the work he did with the band.

Of course, I'm also one of the only 3 people in the world to my knowledge that actually LIKED Looking Back With Love

4

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/meow1_zps73f1f2f4.jpg)

Even the cat is looking at you like "really?".  :lol

Another thing that never fails to frustrate me is this: it should be obvious to everybody that here the opinions about Mike are very nuanced. Then someone comes and bundles together Billy, Craig, Bicycle, Century, Hey Jude, Rab, Add Some, OSD, Smile Brian, ...

By the way, there is a reason I'm not commenting on this thread's true topic. I'm so sick of the arguments (and lawsuits!) about "credits" that I don't want to touch those matters with a pole. They are read-only to me.

Seriously guys, this is a can of worms I now regret opening. OK, for the record, once and for all - I posed this question simply out of my own curiosity. It's been on my mind at various times since the fall of '83, when the Carl quote first appeared in the Musician magazine article on Brian and his music. I was hoping to engage my fellow posters in a scholarly, academia-based thread, as I frequently do - in this case, something similar to the great Definitive Vocal Credit thread to which many have contributed, including Adam Marsland and his ear for picking out individual BB voices. In retrospect, maybe I should have just posed the question there, instead of creating a new thread on the subject. I figured there would be a few snarky comments, but didn't really anticipate having my own motives called into question. I like to think that most people here believe in my sincerity and objectivity, and love of the music. The thing I can't stand is the politics - if I wanted more of that, I'd stay at work all day instead of taking refuge in a message board devoted to the music of my favorite band. It's bad enough that politics have infected the workings and interpersonal relationships of the band itself, but truly pathetic that they have encroached upon this fan-based board to the degree they have. That said, I think perhaps this should be my final post - on this or any other topic.

I can talk only for myself, but absolutely believe in your sincerity, objectivity and love for the music.
What I said in my previous post was not directed against you or your thread, at all, and am sorry if it sounded like that. It was only a sincere attempt to explain why I was saying nothing about the thread's subject: because I'd have the sensation of walking on uncommonly brittle eggshells.
Though, on second thoughts I have ALWAYS this sensation in the world of BB fandom. :(

I'd say they are fools if they don't.

I think it was and is a great topic, c-man. I've tried to skim back through the entire thread, and I don't really see anyone calling your motives in starting the thread into question.

I don't think the thread has fallen off the deep end or anything. I do think one or two people seemed to have kind of overreacted and assumed if someone in a very measured and conversational tone suggests Mike *doesn't* quite deserve a literal "vocal arranger" credit despite his great work on all of those vocals, it's just "another Mike bashing thread."

I think several things:

1. Saying Mike's work may not rise to the level of a typical definition of "vocal arranger" isn't a knock on Mike, or at attempt to bash him.

2. Posing the question in the first place is a *great* excuse to examine the material again, and with a different eye/focus.

3. Much like I found out when a year or two ago I attempted to start a scholarly thread examining the late 90s period and published statements about Mike not wanting to appear on stage with Carl, there's *usually* going to be the potential for "politics" (meaning band politics) to become part of the discussion. Fans should examine how much this stuff infects our discussions and enjoyment of the band, but it's also *very* important to realize that a large percentage  (not all, but a large amount) of why this happens is because of the band and its messed up (to put it politely) history.

4. Even from the most objective historical aspect in terms of the band's biography (meaning the whole story, not just the music alone), it *must* be noted that Mike has spent a *half century* helping to seal his fate and his reputation. It's not *all* on him, but a lot of it is. His long history of backbiting and snark and lawsuits and passive aggression and all of that, that all has unfortunately imbued most any discussion of the guy and his role in the band. It *shouldn't* be this way, and great writers and historians and scholars can still effectively separate it all out and keep the political stuff out of it when it *isn't* germane. But it so often unfortunately *is* germane. The second that "credit" comes into play, whether we're talking literal "credits" or just anecdotal/historical "credit", even then unfortunately Mike's rep and history and the political stuff do become germane to some degree. It doesn't mean it has to turn into a bashing thread.

5. Some folks just don't delve into the "politics" side of things relating to the band. Others delve into it too much. I don't particularly like either extreme. The problem with the latter is obvious. But in the case of the former, I tend to not be a fan of the 100% politically-neutral-at-all-costs point of view either, meaning neutral to the point of ignoring or omitting anything. But I do realize that once you *do* let that stuff into the discussion, it's difficult to keep everything on topic.

Don't leave, c man.

There are moments of listenability on it.

All of this is true, HeyJude.

I apologize if I let my stupid emotions sidetrack legit topics sometimes, as I do appreciate scholarly discussion of all matters BBs, including Mike. I am fascinated by figuring out who might have contributed what part to what song (certainly including Mike, who I'm certain DID in fact contribute plenty of uncredited stuff here and there).

C-man is awesome and I sincerely hope he doesn't leave.

Hope you keep posting at the other board. Your frustration is understandable.

The politics had been unfortunately introduced into the discussions about the band and the band members long before this. When campaigns are launched and when efforts are made to rewrite or distort history either publicly or via the private message system here and on other boards, indeed that does pollute the waters. When the information is false, that is pure deceit. When that false information is introduced as historical fact rather than personal opinion, and when the false information or distortion of facts is presented by anyone claiming an expert or historian status, for whatever motivation may be behind it, then yes: The politics of it all infected not only the discussions but was also an attempt at whitewashing or changing history. That, I agree, is unfortunate.

When as recent as the past two years fans have to read or hear interviews or comments that contradict even the most basic facts to the point of absurdity, and challenging them gets more criticism than the actual whoppers that are being spoken or reported as fact as in "how dare you question...", it is a sad state of affairs. But as in many cases, look at the sources and proceed accordingly.

It was Carl's specific use of the word "arranging" in this case. My point is and was that there is no question who was arranging the vocals specifically in the classic Capitol hitmaking era, 62-66. There is no question who was producing the records. There is no question who was the "leader" in terms of bringing the creative vision to life for the band. The band members themselves going back to that era have backed that up many times publicly, in interviews and even on stage. Any potential attempts to dispute or diminish that, or even raise challenges, are to me a waste of time and effort. Yet that is what we have seen more in the past 5 years than I ever recall. Not saying Carl in this case was doing that, but when quotes like this start running through the machinery, getting distorted and spun, and develop beyond being a throwaway quote from 30 years ago into trying to reshape the history and the facts, that is when the problems really start, especially if the politics of the whole thing carry it even further.

If the well had not been already poisoned with the politics of damage control, axe-grinding and grudges, and distract/distort/diminish/discredit tactics ripped directly from a DC political PR war room, maybe none of these situations would happen.

Ugh. This thread reads like a parody of this board put together by the PS Forum.

And, GuitarFool, you quickly jumped down c-man's throat with this "well it looks like Mike is looking for more credit" BS. And the thread turned into another opportunity to either bash Mike or pretend to be fair-minded about him while also taking the opportunity to bash him. And then it veered toward "if only Mike would let it go" for some unfathomable reason.

This board doesn't deserve c-man, if this is how he will be treated. Unbelievable.

Agreed. I think my time here is coming to an end...

Stay everyone.... :-\

Maybe I need to re-re-read all of the posts in this thread, but I'm not seeing some huge epic "Mike vs. Brian" or "Mike bashing" going on.

As someone who has started threads that have been sidetracked, hijacked, motives called into question, I don't see anything nearly that heinous going on here.

If one thinks Mike maybe didn't arrange vocals in the way someone else may be thinking he did, and believes that the arranging was firmly in the hands of Brian despite plenty of contributions from all of the band members, that's not some huge epic thread-hijacking "anti-Mike" attempt.

Is it possible in posing a question about Mike's role in arranging that you might come across a particularly zealous fan who tends to really lean towards Brian's role in the band? Sure. Is it possible someone is reading the top post and imbuing it with more "motive" (e.g. pumping up Mike's role) than is there? Sure. This is all par for the course on this or any board.

C-man is *not*, however, someone that would do something like this. Much as I have pondered specific stories or comments or moments in the band's history and then posed an open question to the board, it's clear this is what c-man was doing.

I don't see anybody in this thread who was not open to a back and forth on this topic.

I think it's important to not get too "anti-Mike", either in content and certainly in terms of the more silly rhetoric. Same goes for being overly-defensive of Brian.

But it's also important to not jump to the conclusion that disagreeing with a point such as the one in question (Mike "arranged" vocals by some definition) means there is some nefarious anti-Mike motive.

I'm just perplexed that among the MYRIAD of crazy, bomb-tossing threads that have devolved into madness, *this* is the thread being singled out as a "parody" of what others think of the board, or rising to the level of people leaving the board?

I will also offer this: In re-re-re-re-reading C-man's original post, I can see that he wasn't even really posing the question of whether Mike should be credited as an arranger, or even whether Carl's comments were justified. Rather, it looks like he was simply looking for examples, *if* or *where* such examples exist.

While weighing on whether the base assertion makes sense is not really "off topic" nor a huge left-turn in the topic at hand, I think perhaps it might help to admit and point out that the original intention of singling out any specific song examples (which would, in theory, include a response of "not much of anything" if that is one's opinion) was quickly sidetracked in this thread. I don't think anybody intended to do it really, but that's how it appears to have gone down. Just as I think maybe a few folks are too quick to apply the label of "anti-Mike" to the discussion, I think it's worth acknowledging that a predisposition to be skeptical of Mike (a predisposition which is a huge and weighty topic all on its own) could have played a role in moving very quickly from "song examples" that C-man was looking to discuss to a more pointed indictment of the underlying theory/assertion.

And also worth pointing out is that, if one is inclined to not like that underlying assertion, your beef would be more with Carl and not with C-man.

Oh please. After the first OSD comment, it was all downhill. A few good people tried to get it back on track, but almost every other friggin' post was calculated to make sure Mike Love didn't get TOO much credit, despite what Carl said.

(edited to indicate which of HeyJude's posts I was responding to).

Stop using OSD as the "crazy BW fan" scapgoat.... ::)

Agreed.

The snarky post from someone very early in the thread was a tone that C-man didn't deserve.

The idea that formulating syllables and sounds (e.g. "bop bop", "dit dit", etc.) is a far cry from even helping to actually "arrange" vocals is not an outlandish assertion.

But C-man didn't burst into a new thread claiming Mike should be getting a bunch of additional credit. Rather, I think he wanted to place Carl's interview comment in context.

Again, those who feel Carl's assertion is to some degree hyperbolic have a beef then with Carl, not C-man.

I tend to think Carl's comment was just an off-hand aside, a sort of "Hey, not too many people mention Mike's contribution to the group vocals", and that he was using "arrange" in much more broad sense. Al and Carl (and Dennis, and Bruce) were integral parts of the harmonies as well. I wouldn't be trying to say Al and Carl were as important Brian in pointing out how *key* Al and Carl were to the vocal blend, often taking the *hardest* mid-range parts in the harmony stack for instance.

I really hope C-man stays. There have been in the past and no doubt will in the future be plenty of "fork in the road" moments on this board; I just don't think this thread is one of them.

He started the same thread at psf and posted the same "sorry I opened a can of worms / maybe I should quit" sentiment there, too (after a not particularly divisive or heated response). Maybe he's just feeling frayed or sensitive today, or having a bad day. It happens.

Going back to his original post, he actually asked two specific questions, only one of which was answered. I honestly don't know how we all got so off track.

Stay Jay....

Everybody please chill out.

But no one is disputing that  - this is setting up a paper tiger to destroy, it's irrelevant to what was asked and suggested.  Are you so insecure about the dominance of Brian's creative control over the band's output that any comment that could be twisted to be read as challenging that brings such an extreme and exaggerated response?  Brian doesn't need you as his defender.

Brian was writing and arranging and producing the music yet that was clearly at times a collaborative venture with the musicians having important input, whether they played it differently than Brian intended and he liked it and kept it, or they made suggestions which he approved of as in the God Only Knows bridge.  There is no reason the vocal arrangements couldn't also at times be collaborative and here we were talking specifically about Mike's bass lines.  It's an interesting question which has been unnecessarily sidetracked.

One thing I'm sure of is Brian doesn't need me or anyone here as his defender. 100% sure.

So is commenting and discussing related issues being a defender?

I recall several recent releases and reissues. I also recall several interviews of recent years. Among the comments was the idea that Carl was producing the "Party" sessions and other assorted sessions into 1967. Also that Mike produced the Endless Summer release. And that various members were "arranging" songs that featured the band performing Brian's arrangements from the records. And that despite what Chuck Britz said decades ago, that someone other than Brian was calling the shots (i.e. 'producing') the early sessions that Chuck had a front row seat to witness and said clearly Brian was the one calling the shots even on the first sessions.

The challenges to some of that commentary can be easily made by listening to the sessions, knowing the history, and taking everything into consideration to weigh the facts accordingly.

It's when the actual credit is in dispute, as in who produced what or who was the arranger, that yes - I will step up with the facts, as inconvenient as they may be depending on someone's perspective or intent, and if that is now labeled being a Brian defender, than so be it. Even though he doesn't need to be defended by me or anyone here, the facts are the facts.

I also posted plenty above on the nature of creating these works, beyond making records and into visual arts and film. We could list example after example from the film world alone where the actors for certain scenes played the role of director, writer, and in some cases cinematographer yet are credited in line with the way it's done as "actors" and not the above.

Maybe if I had put a smiley face emoji next to the comment that has everyone in an uproar, there wouldn't be an uproar?

It comes down to me seeing Carl use the word "arranged" in a way that I disagreed with - in my opinion - and actually having worked as an arranger and gotten paid for my musical arrangements on score paper in a previous career, with some understanding of the job description. And If some recent examples were any indication, I'll stand by what I said regarding fans or commentators potentially crediting someone other than Brian Wilson for the role he actually played in the process, whether it be arranger or producer.

Maybe it was a semantics thing, perhaps the topic would have been better placed in the thread dedicated to deciphering the vocal roles each member played on various tracks, in this case specific to bass vocals from Mike. But Carl's use of the word arranging struck me as similar to some attempts to give credit for things where credit isn't due, whether it be "producing" a compilation of Brian Wilson productions from the 60's or "arranging" tracks that Brian arranged.

If that's defending or being a defender to a fault, so be it. That's how I feel.

It does happen, indeed, to everyone. If that's the case, I hope all is well.

And in the case of whatever happened on another forum to generate the same response, I or my posts had nothing to do with that whatsoever since I am not registered and do not post there - For those pinning this on me.

C-Man has  never been snarky or disrespectful that I have seen. His presence here is valued! He has forgotten more about the BBs than I will ever know.

I, for one, am not going to disagree with Carl Wilson. I think the other members of the band were a lot more involved in the record making than we were lead to believe years ago. It started with the "Brian Wilson is a genius" stuff decades ago, and although not usually said outright, kind of implied "the other Beach Boys are not even worthy of ironing Brian's shirts". Then you have all the talk about the Wrecking Crew playing every note of every song recorded after a certain date. Mike can be his own worst enemy, but I think it's only fair that credit goes where credit is due.

Are we ever going to actually know what the hell happened here? I fell like I have read the above paragraph a hundred times or so now. Honestly think this board has gone from one extreme to another.

To make a long story as short as possible:

 >:(

And here is how I "hate" Mike:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24884.msg604637.html#msg604637

And no, I'm not implying that he secretly smokes.

Guys, it's very simple. If Mike could "arrange" vocals in their entirety, he would have written a heck of a lot more songs for the band over the years.

He clearly hasn't done that. As a songwriter, Mike is the least of the group.

Now, as to adding specific parts to songs conceived of by others, there is no question that Mike's performances--and quite likely his ideas for those performances--have been value-added to those songs.

Frankly, identifying all of them should have been easy for c-man, who is certainly capable of going back through the songs and generating a comprehensive list. If he'd wanted an "academic" discussion, he might have done a little more up-front work and created a post that had more detail to it. That would have also served to forestall a lot of the "snark" that seemed to get under his skin. He posted a similar lament "over there," so it would seem that everyone has failed him with respect to this topic.

Apparently ADG is asking Mike to tell us which songs he actually created particular bass line riffs. What this may inevitably lead to is the claim that Mike thought up most, if not all, of the bass lines he sung, which would seem implausible on its face, given Mike's testimony over the years that he never ceased to be amazed at Brian hearing and then "dishing out" "all of the parts," which presumably includes at least some of the bass riff lines.

There does seem to be a desire on the part of a plurality of folks to diminish Brian's role in creating the music in the 1961-66 period. Clearly others (the BBs themselves or the Wrecking Crew) had a big hand in executing the music in the studio, and some changes to the creative process occur in that phase of things--but when we listen to the instrumental tracks via the SOTs, it's clear that Brian is making the call for what is the "final cut," like a combination director-film editor. As for vocals, we can assume that the final product is being monitored by Brian, with input from all of the band.

I think Carl was simply acknowledging that the bass-riff function in BBs vocal arrangements was (mostly) the domain of Mike, and that he was creative in that role as well as proficient in execution.

Don, I certainly could have done so, but thought it would be fun to include others on this board in this particular academic pursuit. Clearly I was wrong.

We've crowdsourced research on this board before-- I see no problem with c-man's presentation. It could have been a very fun exercise.

It still can be. The board hasn't shut down. All people have to do is stop with the self-absorbed state-of-the-board chatter and talk about the subject itself. Presto change-o.

My guess would be that many--even most--of the bass parts that aren't part of true "composed" harmonies (e.g., "Our Prayer," or other parts when the harmonies really work as more or less block chords) were Mike's. He's talked about doing the "Good Vibrations" part that follows the bass line. He's talked about the "get around, round, round, I get around," if I'm not mistaken (which I think is genius). On the other board someone mentioned the "Big Bopper type" part in "Got To Know the Woman," which I thought sounded about right. Maybe "Cottonfields," with the "bow bow bow bow ditti dit, ditti dit," (or whatever the syllables are), as that sounds in the same vein.

I think a list of that style of bass parts could be put together pretty easily. Now whether Mike had total, partial, or no input on any one of them? That's harder to know, obviously.

We have the friggin' session tapes on a pretty decent amount of sessions to get an idea of what was going on in the studio. The other BBs were HUGELY involved in recording those vocals, singing *amazing* parts. These guys, in their 20s (Carl barely out of his teens), who were largely not professionally trained, were singing stuff like "Our Prayer." However much they liked or understood what they were singing, they sang "Cabinessence" and "Wonderful" and all of that stuff.

Nobody much has ever denied the HUGE amount of credit due to those guys for singing that stuff.

Saying Mike's role didn't rise to the level of "vocal arrangement", whatever Carl may have meant in some interview years later, is not to diminish Mike's role. Rather, it is to clarify it. If Mike came up with the monosyllabic sounds for some of his bass parts, I think it's important and interesting to know. I have no problem also believing that at various points through the years all of the other vocalists in the group may have altered or changed bits here and there as rehearsals and recordings took place. Hell, I give the band *outside* of Brian a lot of credit for *re-arranging* songs going into the 70s for their live concerts; and I would guess a lot of that credit goes to Carl as de facto musical director of that era. Turning "Heroes and Villains" in a barn-burning rocker with a lot of "oomph" was great work.

I think a better and more clear word for Carl to use in that interview would have been something along the lines of Mike helping to "form" the backing vocals or something like that. "Arranging" is a pretty specific and loaded term in writing and musical production, much like "Director" is in films. If an actor pitches an idea to the director for how to block out a shot for a scene, or asks to change some words in a line of dialogue, that can be an important and interesting factoid, but it doesn't mean it would necessarily be accurate to years later say "What a lot of people don't know is that so-and-so actually helped direct and write that movie." That's not to say this is a perfect analogy.

But you know, if I may digress and probably bore everyone, I've been listening to "Fabcast" lately, which is put together by Howie Edelson and company. I've been emboldened a little bit in listening to them talk about the Beatles and various eras/aspects of their career. They're very bold and honest in talking about them. One might think "bold and honest" is some sort of code for "not afraid to say something sucks", and while that is also true, what's most refreshing about how they talk about the Beatles is that they're not afraid to just boldly say something is great, or something is the best.

So, to me, I don't think it's out of line to be a little bold in just saying "You know what, Mike was great on those vocals and was an important part, but let's not kid ourselves that in pre-1967/68, and certainly in the prime era of 1964-1966, it was Brian doing nearly all of the heavy lifting in the studio and on the creative side. Nobody else in the band should really be having "vocal arranger" anywhere near their name even for all of their great contributions."

We can't go back in time to ask Carl what he meant. My position is that he was speaking much more broadly, and perhaps was simply looking to remind folks that the other members of the band made contributions as well and that those are often overlooked. All fine points. If, however, Carl was trying to formulate a more specific argument that Mike was a "vocal arranger" in the same way that he was "co-writer" on "Wouldn't It Be Nice", then I have no problem respectfully disagreeing with Carl. In doing so, I'm not particularly disagreeing with what Carl is relating that Mike did on those sessions, but rather simply with the label Carl is using.

As I've also already mentioned, I think it's important to also note that C-man's core question of actually ID'ing songs where Mike may have formed the monosyllabic sounds for bass parts did unfortunately go largely unanswered. Maybe people got too jumpy in trying to clarify the Brian/Mike roles instead of just talking about song examples. It may *also* be true that not a lot of examples were forthcoming because there doesn't appear to be a ton of examples where Mike's contribution in that specific regard is obvious and prominent enough to tag it as a "Mike" idea. Indeed, without additional context and clarification, Carl's quote becomes more and more of a head-scratcher the more one tries to move away from portraying Carl's comments as a very, very broad, generalized statement.

I'll put on the table and clarify another point that shapes my opinions and comments on this, and what Carl said specifically in that article.

Either you agree or disagree with the Wouldn't It Be Nice ruling that awarded Mike equal 1/3 credit on any future listings and credits for the song. I strongly disagree that a "good night baby, sleep tight baby" vocal phrase ad-libbed over the last 10-15 seconds of the recording/song are worthy of shared equal credit with Tony Asher and Brian Wilson. There is the first 95% or so of the song which has already been heard before that contribution even becomes a part of the greater whole. Yet, somehow, this contribution from Mike got argued successfully to where a court judged that one phrase at the close of the record equaled the other 95% contributions from the two actual songwriters. We'll leave out for now the other arguments about clandestine phone calls during studio bathroom breaks and the like.

So there was the argument "the court hath declared...", therefore you have all current and future credits giving three writers equal billing and credit even though two of the three did the lionshare of that writing, lyrics and music, and the other ad-libbed what amounts to ten seconds or so of a fadeout that was judged as essential as everything else.

So my mindset flashes forward to that precedent, and all possibilities of sometime in the future if and when similar credit *could* be taken to court. And if a court sees evidence introduced like Carl's early 80's comments about Mike's contributions to the arrangements, there could very well be another case where common sense and logic regarding the process of writing and recording a song, adding producing and arranging that song where credits are concerned, get thrown out the window if some legal magic could convince a court that the credits must be changed or amended to include any similar contributions in the process.

It's about precedent. If the standard of WIBN and that equal three-way credit is applied, we'll see credits like (in my opinion) WIBN that are not fair nor true to the history. If a case could be won that "good night baby" is equal to the whole of WIBN, what other cases could that same argument be applied, whether it's accurate or not? I (my opinion) do not think it serves anything to go down that road.

Again on the precedent, I mention again how at some point why couldn't Ringo Starr go to a court and stake a greater claim and credit for "A Hard Day's Night", both for the hit film and hit single and album that generated millions in revenue? Ringo coined the phrase that became the title song of a hit film with related hit soundtrack album and a now-iconic single. I'd argue Ringo if it were ever pursued would have a stronger case for valuing and weighing his contribution to "A Hard Day's Night" than Mike was able to win the case over an ad-lib at the fadeout coda of WIBN.

I don't see Ringo doing anything like that anytime soon. With the Beach Boys, however, the precedent was already set back in 92-94, and in that specific case, at least to me it defies all logic to credit or even seek and own credit based on that standard.

Craig, I certainly cast no aspersions on the content in your post. And I am in no way trying to defend those who dump on Mike personally at the slightest provocation. I do think that given how much we know about the fraught circumstances that exist(ed) here, in large part over Mike, that there are ways to mitigate the type of response that is unfortunately all too likely to occur. It's not good that one has to think in those terms before posting, and it might not have been that way 5-6-10 years ago, but given the events of 2012 and the debilitating effect on this board and the subsequent "schism", it does seem that we have to keep all this in mind when starting threads, particularly one with Mike's name in them...

More concrete evidence and additional detail is always better, regardless of the context, and I for one wonder if an original post by you with even, say, ten examples (ten songs) of this type of arrangement motif where Mike was demonstrating both proficiency and value-added creativity had been present, then the level of snark would have been minimized.

I think we should take another crack at addressing this further, as was being done by a majority of posters. But I also think we should look for any patterns in this aspect of the music--meaning by that, did the songwriting/vocal arranging change so that Mike's role in creating bass-line motifs became more/less frequent, less or more prominent in the arrangement? There would be a lot to evaluate if these nuances could be laid out more explicitly for the reader...and something more systematic might yet emerge from such an exercise.

As for GF's recent post, it covers a lot of good territory about actual song credits, and I find the arguments in that area convincing. But our subject here is more akin to Mike's interjection of "Pa-pa-pa-pa oo-mow-mow" into "Got to Know the Woman"--where the songwriting credit remains "Dennis Wilson" and not "Dennis Wilson-Mike Love." The slope became more slippery as a result of the Mike v. Brian litigation, and we can see that something like the above example would be even more egregious were a claim to be made...you would be moving toward the logical fallacy that everyone who sung on the song should be given songwriting credit.

It's also certainly worth noting that Mike has more of an "ear" for harmony than it may seem. That is, I wouldn't say he was exclusively some drone repeating stuff Brian was giving him (and even if that were the case, what all the BBs were doing on those harmonies was *still* amazing and difficult).

One of the most telling moments about Mike's innate sense of musicality and harmony is that 1976 in-studio Brian demo tape, the one where he's demonstrating a bunch of Adult Child/Love You songs. Three moments stick out that show Mike had the ability to recognize harmonies and interesting chord changes, unfettered by his nose for something "commercial" or "catchy" or a novelty bit of some sort.

In one instance, you can hear him briefly join in on a second harmony with Brian singing "Let's Put Our Hearts Together." Simple and very brief, but interesting to hear Mike do a nice two-part harmony on a song he's (presumably) singing for the first time.

In another instance, after Brian demos "Airplane", Mike seems *enamored* with the song and even jokingly demands to get the lead and says he'll quit the group if Brian doesn't give him that lead.

Also, his (and perhaps someone else's) reaction/cheering as Brian gets to the bridge of "I'll Bet He's Nice" is one of the more heartening moments of the band realizing Brian's talent actually being caught on tape.

Also on the tape, after one of the songs (I'm blanking on which one, maybe still "I'll Be He's Nice"?) Mike utters his famous "that one's a motherf***er" or something along those lines. (This quote ended up on some bootleg pasted onto the end of "Carry Me Home", but it comes from the '76 demo tape).

All small moments. But Mike had an ear for what was good, and an ear for ear-catching chord changes and melodies and all of that. Maybe it's still there, but it was usually bogged down for most of his career by his other aspirations and motivations and sensibilities.

For the life of me, I can't figure out what is so hard about this. C-man sited two "vocalizations" that Carl gave as examples of parts that Mike contributed to, and asked us to help identify. It has nothing to do with who owns or deserves a legal "arrangement" credit.

I hope you don't go, c-man. On behalf of the more rational side of the board, I apologize.

Great post, and that Love You demo tape is one of my favorites.

Brian's somewhat "broken" voice on that "I'll Bet He's Nice" gives the song kind of extra "depth" to it, if that makes sense.

Well geez, it's not like it has "nothing" to do with the issue of "arrangement." That's what Carl's quote is about.

While nobody is saying C-man was suggesting any actual change to any official or legal credits, the framing of Mike's contribution by Carl is part of tackling what Mike did.

Are there few examples because, well, there aren't a ton of examples of this? How many examples have *anybody* thrown out in this thread? What was Carl talking about? The fundamental question C-man asked as an intriguing one. Was Carl kind of really only thinking of the really early stuff like "Surfin'?"

Further, I'm also thinking that it would be difficult to pinpoint when it's clear Mike made the contribution rather than being directed.

Take something like the backgrounds on "Help Me Rhonda." Was it Mike's idea to do the "bow, bow, bow" stuff? Would we ever know for sure? Do session tapes reveal some answers to these questions on any particular songs? Which leads me to another factor here: C-man's question is intriguing but would possibly require spending a good amount of time going back to listen to the stuff in question, and listening to extant and circulating session tapes.

Edit - re Jay's post: it makes sense. I think it's the same effect that leads people to describe Dennis's voice as especially emotional, honest, vulnerable, etc.

That entire demo tape from '76 should be released. The "circulating" version inexplicably has *better* sound quality than the one demo on the IJWMFTT soundtrack. I would imagine an even better-sounding tape might still be in the vaults.

I wouldn't lose sleep if "Little Children" were dropped, but really the entire thing is a no-brainer for release. Mike (and perhaps others) are there supporting him, Brian is soft-spoken and vulnerable and just belting the stuff out unfettered by anything and anyone. In many cases, I prefer these renditions to the eventual Adult Child/Love You studio versions.

To be completely honest, I prefer Dennis's post 1974-ish voice for that particular quality. I would go as far as to say that a version of "Thoughts Of You" sung by   Dennis with a pure and "undamaged" voice probably wouldn't sound as good as the version on POB.

A million percent agreed. I was kind of disappointed these weren't on MIC.

Me too. I thought putting "I'll Bet He's Nice" on MIC was a no-brainer, if for no other reason than to hear the reaction of the guys listening to it.

I do wonder if, in compiling MIC, they may have taken into consideration what is already "out there" in relatively good quality.

That is, with limited space for the previously-unreleased stuff, they tried to work in more (though not exclusively) previously unbooted stuff.

I always figured that might be an explanation for the lack of any "Adult Child" stuff other than the speed-corrected "It's Over Now." I figured at least a few of those like "On Broadway" would be likely inclusions.

Everybody Wants to Live should've been on there. No reason why that missed the cust, yet Why Don't They let Us Fall In Love and Da Doo Ron Ron made it

Me, too. Those clunky arrangements on LY obscure some great chord changes. They sound great, just Brian on the piano, and his broken voice.

As "broken" as it was, I greatly prefer the demo vocals to the ones on the released album.

I feel icky commenting here...but can totally sympathize with you c-man. There are 2 ways of looking at it:

1) It's the internet (Internet?), any asshole can post anything, don't take it personally
2) Can't we have a decent discussion as adults?

I tend to feel more alliance with #2.
I may agree with OSD et al. more than I did with some of the exiled posters, but that doesn't mean he isn't sh*t posting too.

And to at least briefly touch on the actual topic of this thread, it's hard to expound upon this without having further details. "Arranging" can be a fairly fluid term- was Carl implying that Mike actually came up with "riffs," or just syllables to sing to already existing melodies? Probably a combination of both, but given his relative lack of original material would probably trend towards the lyric rather than than the musical side. Which is an important distinction because, for me, lyrics (particularly when authored by someone other than than musical composer) are a distinct element from the music; the music is the artistic focal point, and the lyrics can either enhance or diminish the music, but rarely define it. And which is why Dennis and Carl are lauded for there relative MUSICAL achievements, while Mike's contributions seem to be largely LYRICAL, which is a notably lesser achievement in my eyes. And so what? If anyone insulted Ringo for merely being a great drummer I would laugh.

Yeah, but Carl specifically said "...he'd decide what rhythms and syllables to use in the background...it can change the whole rhythm, the whole color and tone of it." (italics added by me) Rhythm implies music, syllables implies words. And if the whole rhythm, color and tone of a song was changed, I'd tend to think this was a fairly significant contribution to the arrangement...limited, I'm sure, to the bass vocal arrangement, but essential nonetheless.

Very true, I missed that point, which does turn it into an arrangement idea. Again it's hard to speculate without examples, but I suppose that's what we're discussing.

Guitarfool brought up the point about how such contributions are often uncredited historically- is that fair though? Even when it comes to professional arrangers, I believe they're paid on a work-for-hire basis. It's too late to turn back time, but theoretically why couldn't Mike (or anyone) receive, say, 0.5% of a song's royalties due to contributing the rhythm of an intro bass riff? But then you get into the discussion/argument about how much each contribution is worth, which is obviously completely subjective; and in itself having the discussion can impinge on the creative process, if not outright destroy songwriting partnerships at the extreme end of the scale.

Some bands have gotten around this arrangement-attribution issue by crediting the entire band as songwriters. I don't have much real knowledge about specific breakdowns, i.e. it certainly wouldn't have been split equally between all contributors in every such case, but surely that has been done in some instances, even where a certain band member didn't contribute anything of note to a specific song. The obvious example would be Lennon/McCartney.

But it would be interesting if things had been done differently in the business, and you had credits like (completely fabricated as an example):
I Get Around - B. Wilson/M. Love, arr. B. Wilson/M. Love/C. Wilson/G. Campbell/H. Blaine

I don't think this topic should be so controversial and divisive. I don't think it's any secret that Mike was the "hook" man in the Beach Boys. It's been noted in various interviews by various people associated with the group. To me, it seems that's basically what Carl was referring to.

I don't think anyone is trying to make a claim that Mike deserves a co-arranger credit. I think there's a difference between contributing arrangement ideas and being the arranger. Many people can contribute to an arrangement, but the arranger himself has the final say with whether or not to use the suggestions.

And as I laid out above in one of those posts relating to WIBN, there is a difference too between contributing songwriting ideas and being the songwriter, yet that went to court and the decision went against that very notion.

Anytime ol' baldy made a contribution he'd be back to claim more than he really gave at a later date.  [Often in court..."Goodnight my baby/sleep tight my baby"  Ya he co-wrote 'Wouldn't It Be Nice' my arse.]   Let me be crystal clear here when that 'love' buffoon got left behind by the changing tides of the musical horizon back in the mid 60s his contributions became less and less and LESS meaningful...and even less successful.

When he wrassled control of the group back into his vision in time for '15  tiny ones' and then moving forward...HE single handedly killed the group.  They slowly but SURELY transformed into Sha Na Na on surf boards.  While there were still some higher moments on vinyl...they came WAY less and less often and with a diminishing frequency of returns.

So we can sit here and sift through the rubble right up to Slumber in Pair of Dice and the the touring circus called 'the Beach Boys' which, at one point and for a length of time prior to what proved to be the 50th analversary screw-up, was at least 2 notches below talented.  You want to shower this twit with false credit and accolades?  Groovy.

But it's bullshit.  And so was/is he.

I'll cut him no breaks.  Which is exactly the same number he's cut the band over these past 40 years.  I don't know how in the name of the greatest vocal arrangements and harmonies ever recorded some blinder-wearing nomads can justify sucking on the tit of what Mikey-boy did for the group during the first 4 years but it's been 1/2 a friggin' century [plus] and you seem to conveniently keep forgetting what that bag of turds wrote about the reasons he does what he does...including touring [not to mention dragging the brand and the fans through the mud he pisses in regularly.]  He said it.  He does it for his "nourishment and revenge."

No wonder they've actually and literally cut him out of the picture.  He's a distraction at best.  At worst?  He's rock-bottom.  There's more to come. 

He arranged Pieces Brother.  His thumb is planted where it belongs.

We need to buy OSD and add some front row tickets for M&B. >:D

 :woot :woot :woot

I don't know all the details of the court case, but an argument could be made that the "good night/sleep tight" tag is a hook in "Wouldn't It Be Nice", even though the part seems minor from a lyrical standpoint. Not sure where I stand on that issue, other than I don't think it deserved a full 1/3 writing credit ... but probably more than contributing a line or two.

BUT ... writing is not arranging, and most BB records don't have an "Arranger" credit per se anyway. Arranging (and often producing) is not associated with royalties most of the time either.

I agree, Donny...and, guitarfool2000 - while I'm not suggesting a further alteration to any "official" songwriting credits, I am trying to find a way to bring some additional clarification to my own "unofficial" sessionography work at beachboysarchives.com...with that said, since we've read that Brian came up with the title for "WIBN" but Tony wrote the actual words...and then Mike added that "Goodnight baby" hookline in the tag...I would break it out as "Music - Brian Wilson / Words - Tony Asher; title by Brian Wilson; additional lyrics by Mike Love", or something to that effect. That way we know that even though Tony wrote the words, the title was still Brian's, and Mike added something "additional". Again - not suggesting any change to any official credits, just adding additional insight to my unofficial archival work.

Likewise, I'm not proposing a change to the "official" production credits for any albums or singles...but, just as we know from Mark Lewisohn's work that not every single Beatles session was actually produced by George Martin, despite the credit on nearly all official releases reading as such, we know from the session tapes and from statements made by Brian and Carl that their dad had a hand in producing, or co-producing, some of the BBs' records....so in my credits at beachboysarchives.com, I would be inclined to give Murry and others (such as Carl, Dennis, or Bruce, for example) credit for co-producing, or serving as "assistant producer", or providing "production assistance", or just serving as "control room ears" on various sessions....a way to give some acknowledgement t in an unofficial way, while keeping the overall single or album producer's credit as is. Another example would be "Surfin' U.S.A." - the song - where we know Brian and Murry produced, and Nik Venet was not even present, despite receiving the label credit - there's no way to change the official credit there, but at least the true producers - Brian and Murry - would receive acknowledgement of their status through my work.

I can speak to that having worked ever so briefly as an arranger. The old-school way usually meant the arranger, if a member of the Musicians' Union, would get whatever the scale was per page, or depending on the project, per song. Same with the copyists who would extract the parts from the arranger's score. Per page, in that case, unless it was as happened in LA where they'd take the scores to Bob Ross and extract the parts onto onion skin and print them out or whatever method was used before Xerox. It would also depend on who the arranger was and what else he or she may have done for the song, and as per the deal worked out for the project. Look at Nelson Riddle, Billy May, Gordon Jenkins, "Hank" Mancini (as my arranger mentor called him, lol...). They get prominent credit for what they did on the projects which they worked. Whether royalties were involved, we'd need to go case by case because guys like Jenkins would both write the song and arrange it, and the arranger often conducted the studio session as well.

Producers - again, a case by case basis - but even into the modern era, they could either agree to a payment for services rendered up front, or negotiate for "points" on the records they worked. The points system could be akin to winning the lottery if that record or album hit big, because in those cases the points could equal six or seven figures in compensation - recurring - for that producer. But it was a gamble. If the record stiffed sales-wise, they would be better off taking the up front payment. But if the record hits, they get a portion of whatever that record or song earns as long as the agreement is valid.

Keep in mind as well that in the late 60's turmoil with Capitol, it wasn't just the breakage clause that the audit revealed Capitol had been stiffing the band with. Brian Wilson as producer was *not* paid his rightful share of producer royalties by Capitol, and even in the late 60's that was I think up into the 7-figure range which he was owed and eventually won from Capitol.

It's yet again a situation of going case by case because often it would change from project to project. But consider the examples of arrangers Nelson Riddle, Billy May, etc and how they were all but joined at the hip with Sinatra, Nat Cole, etc and were credited as such because that was the sound that helped sell the records and define that music.

So it was a credited role, both arranger and producer regarding payment systems, at least in the old school ways of the 60's and such. heck, even on late 70's Steely Dan albums they give an arranging credit for the musician who prepared the charts for the players.

That’s all fine and good …

But we know that Brian and the Beach Boys challenged traditional roles and broke boundaries.  Brian was the primary writer, producer, arranger, singer, and often musician on these sessions. So these roles as pre-defined by industry standards were naturally blurred.

I think Dennis said it best, “Brian is the Beach Boys … we’re his messengers”. There is no other way to put it.

However … you need a mess of help to stand alone, and Brian certainly had help from the fellows, the wrecking crew, Marilyn, and probably everyone in his orbit.

I think what Craig/C-Man is after is trying to document these types of contributions, and using the Smiley board as a source to gather that info and brainstorm.

In the case of credits on Beach Boys releases, some say “Produced and Arranged by BW”, the Christmas Album has the Dick Reynolds credit for those orchestral arrangements … but most just say “Produced by Brian Wilson” or “Produced by The Beach Boys”. Which leads me to believe that Brian and the group were well-aware that “arranger” did not serve a function in their recordings because when you are the creator from start to finish, “arranger” as a defined role is not really applicable.

Additionally, we are discussing vocal arrangements specifically. Which was never anything that was credited as such on the original BB records. It is well-documented that Brian Wilson arranged the Beach Boys vocals. And in the case of a vocal arrangement in which Mike may have come up with a bass part, or a hook, or a style of bom-bom vs wow-wow vs. nah-nah-nah … Carl’s point seems to be that this was something that had an influence on the vibe of the song. In the case of a song that Mike did not co-author … I would say this falls firmly into the category of “having a hand” in the vocal arrangement. This does not make Mike the arranger, co-arranger or suggest that he is the vocal arranger or even co-vocal arranger. It simply means that he may have made some contributions to the vocal arrangement that Brian - the PRODUCER/ARRANGER - liked and decided to incorporate. It’s also worth pointing out that Carl does not seem to be referring specifically to Mike’s parts only.

Let’s face it, this would not be a problem if the topic were not Mike Love. Certainly there are plenty of reasons why responses may come as they do. But if the topic were Hal Blaine and his contributions to the arrangements via drum parts, I don’t think the responses would be so charged.

The fact remains that this type of discussion simply does not work on this board anymore, and that’s a shame.

<<I think what Craig/C-Man is after is trying to document these types of contributions, and using the Smiley board as a source to gather that info and brainstorm.>>

Bingo, Donny. That's all I'm after.

Notice I also said in multiple replies that these kinds of things should be looked at on a case by case basis, which is exactly how all of this went down and still goes down in the process of making a record, from conception to final approved mix. And specifically on who did what and breaking traditional roles. Heck, did Chet Atkins actually "produce" Elvis' first LP on RCA, or did Elvis basically run the session? Chet says he sat back and watched, in awe, and even called his wife to watch what Elvis was doing, and maybe added some rhythm guitar or whatever. Yet Chet is "producer", officially. That's the business.

I'll bring up one that I learned recently after years of listening to, reading about, and researching The Beatles.

Who is generally credited as arranger when The Beatles' records used instruments outside guitar-bass-drums-keyboards? 99% of the time it was George Martin who translated the Beatles ideas and added some of his own onto sheet music that the musicians brought in could read. The string quartets on Yesterday and Eleanor Rigby, the brass on Got To Get You... and Pepper, etc., the strings and wind instruments on Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields, I Am The Walrus, etc.

It was George Martin credited as producer but also did the bulk of the actual arranging, as in creating the parts for the outside players to play. That's common knowledge up to the White Album at least, when George would go on holiday and enlist Chris Thomas to fill that role. No dispute there.

Then factor in The Beatles themselves. It was surprising to learn how much of a key role George Harrison (happy birthday George, btw) played in arranging and translating the arrangements on his songs like Within You Without You. George Martin was not as well versed in Indian music,. meters, and rhythms as Harrison, nor did he know the ins and outs of the phrasing that characterized that music as well as Harrison. So Harrison worked hand-in-hand with both the Indian musicians they assembled as well as George Martin who scored it for the traditional Western string players also on that session. Martin's use of glissando and portamento on that chart influenced a lot of other arrangers at that time to write strings the same way, or on request from other artists who wanted that sound. It was, in fact, a "new" sound for traditional strings to play that way.

So George Harrison was the arranger and producer, right? As was McCartney who worked closely with Martin actually singing the brass and wind parts for Penny Lane, and onward and upward on everything from Here Comes The Sun to Martha My Dear. The Beatles themselves did not have the musical knowledge to do the full job, yet had ideas on what they wanted. So George Martin as producer also was their arranger, vocally too as on Because.

Common knowledge, yet it's exactly what I said earlier - Case by case basis, song by song or session by session basis. Who played what roles versus who got the credit on the albums and liners.

The reason why this is an issue, I do agree, is because it is Mike Love. Do you see the Beatles or their estates trying to seek credit for decades old recordings and releases as Mike has and had done? Do you see surviving Beatles or their families giving regular interviews where they mention credits as often as Mike does even though he won the case to get them? No. Is Olivia or Dhani Harrison saying George didn't get proper credit and looking for his name to be amended on this or that release? No. Any court cases over credits and partnerships where credit was sought when it was not justified? No. Has McCartney claimed he produced one of the many Beatles repackages and releases or do those releases still read "produced by George Martin" as they did all along? But I read in articles and interviews that Mike produced "Endless Summer", and I still don't know how that works logically. I see equal 1/3 credit given for "good night baby" in a fadeout of a record and still don't know how that works logically. Has Ringo ever tried to seek co-writer credit for Hard Day's Night, Tomorrow Never Knows, or any of the other phrases he uttered that got turned into songs? Of course not, even though his "a hard day's night" as a phrase was more crucial to that record and film than Mike saying "good night baby" in a fadeout.

So yes, as I said earlier too, the precedent is there from what Mike has done and tried to do regarding credits before.

Endless Summer, WIBN, how about the 30 or so songs that got taken out of his lawsuit after his initial claims and filings for co-authorship? For the roughly 30 he was awarded credit for, what about the other 30 or so that he claimed and never made it through to the final judgement?

That's just me. But yeah, if credit discussions come back to Mike, it is a factor because of the precedent set over the past decades and the rancor it caused on various fronts. Or even the head-scratching it causes when fans read that he produced Endless Summer, which was a collection of hits from 62-66 that Mike did not produce.

You brought up production and producer royalties, I answered it Donny - That's exactly how the biz works and how some producers are able to live comfortable for years off of those "points" and the royalties they negotiated before starting the project that became a smash hit. Capitol tried to put the screws to Brian in the 60's by not paying up on those, but they eventually did because Brian obviously produced the records and was due those payments and points.

I'd say if there were not overt attempts in the past to overshoot on seeking and applying credit, as unfortunately surrounds this band and perhaps always will, it says more about the band and the dynamics of the members and their behavior than it shows anything negative about this board's ability to have a discussion on this and related topics.

if you think it's isolated to this board and people here, see what the reaction is or would be to an article in a well-circulated music magazine that challenges the nature of the writing, arranging, and producing of the Beach Boys' classic hits, that 62-66 era specifically. Hypothetically If there was something published suggesting Mike in that era was "co-arranger", "co-producer", or similar credits on those records, you'd see reactions that would go beyond anything on this board. The people know, especially musicians, what went into those records. But I've said that already.

I'm trying to follow this, but I'm getting a little lost!

As I'm sure you're aware, I'm personally with the differences between Producer, Arranger, etc. and 1960s recording history.

We've established that the credits on the jackets are not always correct. For instance, Sky Saxon was a personal friend of mine and told me that "Marcus Tybolt" (who is credited with producing all of the Seeds records) was a fictional name that he created! Sky is also credited with performing bass on all of those records ... which he did not. Tons and tons of examples, so I'll leave it at that ...

I don't have much interest in the Beatles, but what you have noted above is exactly what we're talking about here: the jackets say one thing, but what really happened is another. How do we determine what really happened? Interviews with people who were there, interested historians researching, fan communities brainstorming, etc ...

... and here we are, in the Beach Boys world, doing the same thing ...

... but if the subject involves a possible uncredited contribution from Mike Love, we are not to explore or discuss these possibilities on this board for fear of possible litigation against Brian Wilson. I say this makes it a political issue. It's not about research and discussing the history of the Beach Boys recordings ... it's now about Mike Love vs. Brian Wilson, and the "side" each poster is taking.

These are indeed issues isolated to this board in my opinion, as it has become increasingly divisive over the past couple years. It used to be that you, C-Man, aeijtzche, myself, and others used to have open discussions with primary goal of getting as much info down about these BB sessions that we love. With the occasional post by heavy hitters like Stephen Desper, Mark Linnet, Alan Boyd, etc.

The results of this thread are a good example of where we're at: valued contributors are either absent completely (from this thread and/or the board), and those who remain are attempting to have an adult discussion are brought into the politics and made to feel unwelcome.

If the board continues like this, at some point, these types of (in my opinion, important) discussions will simply disappear altogether.

PS -- Where is Mike Love credited as Producer of Endless Summer ?!? The label credit says BW. Mike is known to have sequenced and/or selected the songs and named the record ... so "Curator" at best ... or maybe "Executive in Charge of Production" :)

We did have some good discussions before 2013, Donny - Great ones. Unfortunately at some point the politics DID infect the fanbase, and various aspects of trying to tell the story and history of the band got more concerned with image making, legacy building, and damage control than they did with actual discussions of the history, the facts, and the research. I don't know if it will ever be the same, unfortunately, because the politics will always get in the way.

That was the precedent set as well - A sometimes blind and total refusal to see facts as they were laid out. Attempts to diminish or discredit one in order to boost another. When all else fails to change the facts or rewrite the history, either ignore, filibuster, or lie. I could go on, but it's old news. At some point "you reap what you sow" in terms of trying to discredit and diminish in order to boost. I got tired of seeing endless attempts to outright lie about Brian Wilson, his family, his recordings, the whole nine yards. Consequently, if someone challenged Mike, that was "bashing".

Such became the state of online fandom and discussions. Thanks to Doe and others who will remain nameless.

Check Mike's press releases, bio, various articles: According to those he "produced" Endless Summer. If I can find any, I'll try to list them.

Did Mike "produce" Endless Summer?

Did Carl produce "Party!"

Did Mike write "Alone On Christmas Day" by himself, or did Altbach co-write it? Because the credits on the releases don't have Altbach's name at all as co-writer.

Is "good night baby, sleep tight" worthy of equal credit with Tony and Brian?

On topic: Is there any way, logically, on many of these songs and parts to narrow it down and accurately credit what Brian had in mind when creating the parts to what Mike, or Carl, or Dennis, or anyone in the BB's added on their own to the existing outline of a song or arrangement during the process of the song developing? If it exists on a session tape, hard evidence, that's one thing...as in "Hey Brian, I want to try this part..." and that's what got on the final version. But "Mike says so" isn't the deciding factor...or is it? I'll leave that up to debate. Someone seems to say Mike "produced" Endless Summer, and other assorted questionable claims.

When all of these cases kept coming up, that's the direction Mike and some of his more vocal supporters in the fanbase seemed to want to take, so that's where it is now. Unfortunate, but no more unfortunate than the ignoring of any sense of appreciating and celebrating what was actually achieved and seeking to do more creatively, rather than seeking to revisit, argue, and futz with credits that are decades old to boost a legacy or image by knocking others like Brian or the Wilsons down years after the fact. That's what had been happening for too long. In my opinion.

It sounds like you're saying that this is essentially a counter-agenda to a previous agenda. But that is still a bias that interferes with discussing things like who did what in a recording session.

Expanding on something from my previous post, and which is on-topic for this thread: Is there a way to definitively assign these credits that would be possible with actual evidence (as in confirmed versions of events, actual session tape or film, etc...) ? On the topic of Mike contributing to the vocal arrangements, where could anything be found to back it up if it doesn't exist on tape or other documentation that can be backed up?

Isn't it speculation along the lines of trying to state a definite running order and tracklist for Smile as of April '67 or whenever? When there is no definite proof, how can it be determined who added what during the process of making these tracks and doing the vocals? To further make it cloudy, both Mike and Brian would sit in that car in Hawthorne and listen to doo-wop and R&B on the radio and sing along, the Wilsons lived under the same roof and heard everything from Brian's Four Freshmen to Carl's Chuck Berry and Spade Cooley, to Murry's Lawrence Welk, to Mike's R&B when he was there, to Al's folk, and whatever was in the Wilson family jukebox and on their radio...so wouldn't that make it even more challenging to definitively pin down every R&B or doo-wop style vocal on a BB's vocal arrangement to Mike's contribution and design?

Was every guitar part that sounded like Chuck Berry on those records Carl's or David's or Al's idea, or was it a part conceived by someone else (not just Brian) who could have told him "play this solo like Chuck Berry would play it", or whatever?

I'm just curious how trying to define these contributions can go beyond pure speculation if there is no documentation or proof available from the moment the song was drawn up, and if that's the case, should it revert back to the default credit of who wrote/produced/arranged the song?

That was kinda the whole point of my post in the first place, guitarfool2000 - since Carl gave two specific examples of syllabic riffs that Mike might choose to use...namely, "shoo-boo-bop" and "bom-bom-did-di-did-did"...are there any songs where these parts are clearly identifiable? If so, we can probably assume that Mike came up with those, or at least the idea to use them in those specific songs, rather than groundlessly speculating that he might have come with bass vocal parts on other songs where those two syllabic riffs AREN'T employed.

If arguments on these issues had not happened previously directly related to and using the issue of crediting, both undercrediting and overcrediting band members on their contributions to the recording process, it may not be an issue at all. If some individuals arguing some points that would effectively seek to diminish, say, Brian Wilson's role in something were not at the same time trying to diminish Brian Wilson personally in general through some very unsavory means and methods, perhaps the issues themselves would not be as loaded.

For an extreme example, can a discussion be had at this point on a BB's board about the legitimate contributions of Carol Kaye without a bias on that issue entering the discussion? For all that Carol has contributed musically, and it amounts to legit credits a mile long beyond the basic fact that she is a terrific musician who should be recognized for that work, try to find a discussion that does not devolve into the issues surrounding her credits and claims versus the actual issues at hand.

Maybe - just maybe - some fans see credits like that one on WIBN as similar, and it tends to negatively shade any discussions of credit and contributions rightly or wrongly. It was introduced in a court of law that there were clandestine studio bathroom breaks which contributed to the writing of that song, which is beyond laughable for obvious reasons. Once that kind of over-crediting if not stretching credibility and common sense is done, it may have the same effect on discussing the legit credits as the Motown issues had in the other cases.

But, "the court hath spoken" and WIBN will have now and forever more a 3-way equal split on the writing credit.

There is no way to know for sure, all of this is speculation ... which I thought was what we're all about around here? Brainstorming, guessing, speculating. Sort of like the guitar used on the intro of "Wouldn't It Be Nice". The best guess is the answer we go with ... until more info comes along.

Getting back "on topic" ... my contribution would be a more general comment. I'd say it would be impossible to know specifically what parts Mike came up with. But just as Carl has a guitar style, Mike has a vocal hook style. And you can kinda tell the type of "Mike Love elements", as Terry Melcher said. I think it goes back to that Bruce quote too ... Mike was able to take some of Brian's more abstract compositions and make them more accessible to the masses. I believe that was Carl's main point. Certainly, Brian was also able to do that himself in many instances.

Do you hear either of those in any song beyond "Surfin" ? I think again beyond having hard proof, there isn't enough ground to go anywhere beyond speculation, surely not into saying this or that song had a bassline written by Mike or conceived by Mike unless something exists to back it up, like a session tape or some other documentation. And sometimes that speculation swells into people assuming that because Mike sang a part, he wrote that part, and that's just not true enough to use as a standard. There also isn't enough proof in so many of these cases to be able to say definitively that such a bass part didn't exist when Brian first started banging out the ideas at the piano.

We could turn it around and go back to how Brian said he would generate ideas at the piano. He'd start playing boogie-woogie patterns on the piano, which shared a lot in terms of bass motion with the kind of Doo-Wop and R&B basslines that we're discussing around Mike's parts, and who knows if something Brian played from those meditative boogie-woogie patterns didn't morph into whatever bassline Mike would eventually sing. Or maybe like Good Vibrations, Mike jumped on a bassline Brian already had and put some cool rhythmic words to it that fit perfectly - who knows what happened from the most basic idea to the end mixdown. There just isn't much to go on.

I was going to bring up Carol Kaye actually ... Because I got into it with AGD for "defending" her on some old threads. But truthfully, my opinion is exactly the same there -- let's leave the personal stuff and politics out and discuss the topics like reasonable, civil fans.

Maybe I am missing a big piece of relevant info, but I just don’t get it.

It also makes it very difficult to pin down because that very style of bass in doo-wop and R&B music as is being referenced was so ubiquitous, and a lot of it was far from unique enough musically to even pin down to one reference. We could say it was from T-Bone Walker's "T Bone Shuffle" or Arthur Smith's "Guitar Boogie" and they both have 90% of the same motion and phrasing as the bass vocal on Surfin. Then move that process to doo-wop...holy cow! It was one of the sounds of the entire genre to have bass parts moving and doing the various "bow bow" and "bom bom de bom" vocals on any number of thousands of doo-wop records. Name a few doo-wop artists and records from the 50's and you'll hear similar bass vocal patterns as I think we're trying to narrow down to whether Mike created them or not on Beach Boys records.

This one is a very, very late example...so late, in fact, that Carl sadly wasn't around to hear it...but Mike is on record as saying he came up with the bass vocal line for "Isn't It Time" (to go on top of the track already created by Jim Peterik and Larry Millas), then Brian wrote the melody (and maybe some words to go with it), and finally Mike finished off the lyrics. But I was really asking about the classic '60s songs...ones that Carl COULD have been referring to...yes, I could have just listened to all of them myself to see how times, if any, those example riffs quoted by Carl might show up...but it's more fun to involve others with an interest in musical academia.

Yes, I was just going to post the recent example of Mike's bass line vocal creation/arrangement for Isn't it Time...

I'd like to post this for anyone interested, it's a great read: The full interview with Carl where the quote came from. I didn't realize Donny had even posted it, Donny - you didn't say anything about it! Some cool and some relevant quotes and comments from Carl. I'll just post a few, along with the actual link.

Link: http://troun.tripod.com/carl.html (http://troun.tripod.com/carl.html)


Here is the full context of the original quote:

>>>>Harmony:

Everyone sensed their part. When Brian would present a song to us, we would almost know what our part would be. Michael always sang the bottom; I would sing the one above that, then would come Dennis or Alan, and then Brian on top. We had a feeling for it. It's not widely know, but Michael had a hand in a lot of the arrangements. he would bring out the funkier approaches, whether to go shoo-boo-bop or bom-bom-did-di-did-did. It makes a big difference, because it can change the whole rhythm, the whole color and tone of it. We're big oooh-ers; we love to oooh. It's a big, full sound, that's very pleasing to us; it opens up the heart.

Alan's voice has a bright timbre to it; it really cuts. Brian's voice is very complete. He's not using it now; it's really sad. But when he does, he has a very thick voice. Our voices are voiced like horn parts, the way those R&B records made background vocals sound like a sax section. They're all within the same octave; that's really the secret to it. We didn't just duplicate parts; we used a lot of counterpoint, a lot of layered sound. Obviously, Brian's influence is now massive.

Early production:

Brian was really the one making the records. Nick [Venet] would call out the take numbers, but he wasn't part of making the music. When Brian said he wouldn't work with Nick anymore, Capitol sent over this other guy. Then it became clear to Brian, and he said, "Look, I'm not cutting with these guys, and what's more, I'm not going to use your studio. We'll send you the next record." Now this was a big thing in those days, because record companies were used to having absolute control over their artists. It was especially nervy, because Brian was a 21 year old kid with just two albums. It was unheard of. But what could they say? Brian made good records. He wouldn't work at Capitol, because it was a crappy-sounding studio. It had a fabulous string sound, and that was great for those records that Nat King Cole made, but not for rock n' roll guitar. So we recorded at Western Recorders, which was really our home.

"In My Room" is a tune we've learned to appreciate more as the years go by. You can tell it's getting pretty close to home for Brian, and all those tender, vulnerable things are coming out. "California Girls" is a very artistic record for its time. The guitar part by Ray Pohlman and myself in the introduction was very different, very bizarre. You didn't expect a rock n' roll record to sound like that, classical and majestic. Then it came on like gangbusters out of nowhere.

Brian was evolving very fast. We learned as we went. He was writing stuff that really needed to be performed; that's why he needed session players.

Brian just adored Phil [Spector]; he couldn't get enough of him. Brian started going to Phil's sessions, and it just blew him away. Phil would play things back so loud it was scary. I think the psychological and emotional impact of going in and hearing songs before they came out made him totally fascinated with Phil, under a spell almost. That was Brian's kind of rock; he liked it more than the early Beatles stuff.

When Brian first heard a record, he would get the whole thing at once. The rest of us would have to listen ten times or so to really get everything that was going on. So when Brian taught us our parts, he had the total picture in his head.

I remember a date at Gold Star one night. There were a lot of players in the room. They were making a big, big sound, and Brian said, "Whoa!" because one little thing didn't happen; someone didn't ring an orchestra bell at the right time. He used to drive Michael crazy. Michael would be doing his lead, and Brian would say, "Okay, scratch." We'd say, "No, Brian, wait a minute, we love that part." And he'd say, "Nope, 86," and it'd be gone; we'd have to do it again. But he was always right.<<<<


>>>"Good Vibrations":

"Good Vibrations" has a lot of texture on it, because we did so many overdubs. We'd double or triple or quadruple the exact same part, so it would sound like 20 voices. When I first heard it, it was a much rougher sound; it had more whomp to it. Instead of making it bigger, bulgier and more raucous as Phil Spector might have, Brian refined it, and got it more even-sounding. He had the idea of "I'm picking up good vibrations," but Michael didn't write the lyrics until the very last minute.

We recorded different sections at three different studios. Each one had a good sound for a different thing. Recording in sections was an innovation. It was pretty daring back then to record a section and see if it would fit in later.<<<


>>>As for playing with the Beach Boys, Carl agreed to do some dates with the band in April of 1982, but again the lack of formal rehearsal time irked him:

Everything was rushed; it was very mechanical. There was resistance to rehearsing out of habit. But it all finally came together at the last minute. In 1983 they'll be a lot more rehearsals, new faces, new songs... I may open some shows with my new band.

I'd like to see the group take another shot at making one more good record. That's the thing we keep trying to do but can never quite pull together all the elements. But I don't think we'll make another Beach Boys album until Brian's healthy enough to produce again. I know we could make a real strong commercial record with an outside producer. So that's possible, but, if you're talking about making a great record, "Good Vibrations" class, you're talking about Brian with us. Anything else is bullshit.

And yet, I don't mind if he doesn't make any more music. That's fine with me. I don't care if he makes hits or not. My interest in Brian is that I love him as a human being and as a brother, as I love all my family. I want him to have some joy and satisfaction in life, and he's not getting that. I'm not discouraging him by any means, but the main thing is that he have a nurturing, loving life. That's all that matters anyway.<<<


After re-reading it, a few of those points will stand out and are at least interesting in weighing various discussions and even arguments we have had on this board and on other forums. As I have already said, it was Carl's use of the word arranging that I disagreed with and even moreso by the examples he gave, but I've already gone over that with my opinions and I still disagree to a point with the use of that word in this context. But, as Carl pointed out elsewhere in this interview, he made it crystal-clear about Brian's role in the arranging of the voices and instruments and making the records overall. After reading it in context, I'd even say Carl comes close to contradicting himself, unless he was trying to state something that didn't translate as clearly to print regarding contributions from the group and Mike in particular.

I also wish I had referenced this interview which Donny posted when the topic was Murry or Venet producing the early records, I think C-Man referenced that again in this thread. Add Carl to the voice of Chuck Britz in clarifying the role Brian played versus that of Venet, in terms of fair crediting. It doesn't get much more clear than when Carl said "Brian was really the one making the records", yet I remember getting a lot of flak here for saying the same thing Carl did 35 years ago in this interview, along with Britz.

And I also have to add for my own clarification that the comments about Mike's hand in arranging from Carl in this case are not the first time I've read something similar, yet it seems to have either been missed or bypassed in the months since Mike's book came out.

Page 39:
>>>“Either one of us might come up with a concept—what’s this song about?  Brian started with a melody, which he played for me; my specialty was finding the hook, or phrase, that drew people in.  I typically wrote the bulk of the words, while Brian structured the harmonies to fit our voices.  I weighed in on the arrangements as well, in particular the bass parts.”<<<

I wondered what Mike was referring to, and was hoping for examples at some point, or at least a forum topic, because structuring the harmonies is arranging them...but maybe that's just me and semantics. And Mike's comment is more vague and left more open than Carl's.

See, now, reports of the demise of this board in terms of this type of discussion are highly exaggerated...

We are just in a moment where any thread that mentions Mike by name is going to have to endure some flak from those who have a vested interest in venting. But most of that "content" in this thread is cartoon-like as opposed to the belligerence and "lawyerly double-speak" that sucked the air out of this place, leaving it like a summer day in Hawaii when the trade winds stop blowing...

That was a fine piece from MUSICIAN, and thanks to those who posted it here originally, and created an easy link for those of us who are beseiged with other projects and have no time to give at present in the pursuit of knowledge and happiness. Carl gives us a lot of valuable insight, and from what we know now he's being 95%+ straight.

It seems to me that, over time, Brian began to move away from the type of vocal arrangement that would have been served by Mike's ability to elaborate bass-line motifs. Carl pretty much pinpoints it for us with his remarks about SUMMER DAYS AND SUMMER NIGHTS, which seems to be the point where the balance tips..."Help Me Rhonda" is a holdover from TODAY, with more fixes to the instrumental arrangement than the vocal track; "Girl From NYC" just has a few held low notes; "Let Him Run Wild" has the "waited for you girl" half-line resolution. PET SOUNDS, the SMiLE sessions and SMILEY SMILE have a much different vocal arrangement approach, though "GV" is a clear exception. (H&V is always some kind of modified barbershop, more or less pronounced.) WILD HONEY is more soul than doo-wop based; FRIENDS was cut mostly while Mike was in India; when Carl and Dennis start producing their own material, you do see a resurgence of Mike's parts ("I Can Hear Music," "Celebrate the News", "Got to Know the Woman," "It's About Time," "Forever") but you don't hear that timbre much in Brian's tracks ("This Whole World" is the exception). Another exception is the tag for HOLLAND's "Funky Pretty."

When Brian comes back for 15 BIG ONES, he does revert back to the older vocal arranging style, but my ears tell me that Mike is not much in the mix as a backing vocalist for LOVE YOU. After that, we are getting into territory where the material is further divorced from the classic sound, and I find myself disinclined to even generalize about it.

I wonder how many of Mike's vocal parts (and the other Boys' vocal parts) were largely invented by the specific Boy singing those parts for material written when Brian was out of the band?

Is it safe to say that most of the vocal parts Mike sings on Summer in Paradise were his invention (sans input from Terry)? And the same question for higher quality material that the band released without Brian's input, of which there is a good amount of.

Separate question - what does everyone think are the most adventurous and complex vocal tracks on BB tunes without Brian's involvement? I think the earliest example of a pretty complex Brian-free vocal arrangement might be I Can Hear Music, which is why I suggested Mike's parts in the breakdown bridge part might perhaps have been Mike's own invention. That is unless Carl arranged parts for Mike to sing.

I wonder, did Mike come up with the brief vocalization part right before the whistle tag in "From There To Back Again"?

Bruce actually did the vocal arrangement for "I Can Hear Music", but Mike indeed came up with the idea to sing the "Do-rae-mi" part in the breakdown.

Awesome, thanks for that bit of trivia, c-man! Sort of what I figured about Mike's part, and very interesting to hear about Bruce doing that arranging.  Bruce was obviously no slouch, having cowritten the brilliantly underrated Don't Run Away a couple of years earlier.  I'm guessing that Bruce would be the vocal arranger on that song as well?  And side question, I wonder what Terry Melcher contributed to songs like that to give him a cowriting credit. Lyrics, melody, arrangement? Or all of the above?

I think it is strange that these contributions - such as I Can Hear Music - have never been noted in any type of official capacity in actual liner notes.   Especially if it's for somebody's vocal arrangement of nearly the entire song.  Carl always gets the lions share of credit for that song, but obviously this proves there was more group input.  And I can't blame band members for being resentful for the misconception of being thought of as people who hardly contributed much of anything. I certainly don't think it's any type of concerted effort to undercredit people, but just the way that crediting tends to work in general I suppose.  

Again, as guitarfool has pointed out, it's a slippery slope with credits and obviously lots of people never really get much recognition for contributing cool things here and there. With this band, considering that vocals and vocal arrangements are such an important part of the songs, I would be extremely interested to hear more bits of information like this about other songs.

Yep that was me ... I started that site around 1999-2000, haven't been able to access it in a good 15 years, but the pages are still floating around :)

This is the exact type of info that we're talking about. How do we know that Bruce did the vocal arrangement? Because of this type of research/discussion! (And C-Man, of course)

I would tend to think that was Brian's creation.

Edited to put my new comment below, instead of above, buried in the quotes where it's less likely to be seen, as I accidentally did...

On a somewhat related note - has anyone else noticed that the innver sleeve of M.I.U. Album bears the credit "Vocals arranged & produced by Brian Wilson & Alan Jardine"? And that the "Brian" songs on the Steve Levine-produced '85 album all have a credit reading "Vocals arranged by Brian Wilson and The Beach Boys", but none of the other songs on that album bear a vocal arranger credit? I always thought that was odd...I have a hard time believing that Julian Lindsay, credited as "musical arranger" on that album, arranged the vocals on songs like "Where I Belong"...
Bruce actually did the vocal arrangement for "I Can Hear Music", but Mike indeed came up with the idea to sing the "Do-rae-mi" part in the breakdown.

I would also say, and I'm not trying to "C50-politicize" this, that Rolling Stone's description of Mike's reaction to a playback of the album's ending suite, including "From There to Back Again", would indicate Mike felt rather detached from that part of the album. So that would also lead me to believe it's less likely Mike had much of a  hand in that part of the album in particular outside of deploying some backing vocals as directed.

I remember the first time I heard the track and Mike's part before the whistling, and it very much sounded like Mike singing something that sounded very "Brian solo album-ish", something done in the mode of how Brian has arranged stuff on his recent solo albums.

It's interesting that the TWGMTR album (and to some degree NPP as well) has a lot of those wordless monosyllabic background bits. Lots of "da-do-do-do" sort of stuff, often with Al most prominent. Obviously, as opposed to the early stuff, a lot of those sort of background parts on TWGMTR are done more in the mid-range. It's a very tiny nitpick, but I think that style of background is overdone just a bit on the albums. I think it's cool Al can be heard so prominently on, say, "Think About the Days", but I think a few of the "do-do" bits could have been softened to "oo-ooo." But I dunno, maybe that would sound weird.

I think some of Mike's solo songs sound pretty Beach Boys-esque. Surely he must have had a hand in the vocal arrangements?

Completely off-topic, but I was interested in this quote from that Carl interview:
And yet, I don't mind if [Brian] doesn't make any more music. That's fine with me. I don't care if he makes hits or not. My interest in Brian is that I love him as a human being and as a brother, as I love all my family. I want him to have some joy and satisfaction in life, and he's not getting that. I'm not discouraging him by any means, but the main thing is that he have a nurturing, loving life. That's all that matters anyway.<<<

It pleased me to read that, that's all.

There's another quote in there that's quite prophetic: "We could make a good commercial album with an outside producer, but if you're talking Good Vibrations quality, you're talking us with Brian." Of course they did make a good commercial album in 1985 with Steve Levine.