Thanks, SJS- great post, agreed on all points. Glad we're square. I swear I wasn't trying to get off any big crusher or anything.  As you say, there's an art to posting and I sort of failed it on that one.  Too pompous on my part, even if I had a decent point, which was simply that we all have to go carefully in characterizing each other's arguments. Message boards catch a lot of hell, and rightfully so, to some degree- but a few years on this board is a better education on the Beach Boys than anything in print.

Kudos to us.

Kudos to good conversation, Cam- that's how I finally made it to the middle. Too many good points on all sides, over the years.  And anyone who disagrees with me on that lacks insight, information, or any sense of fairness, and is a product of bias, ignorance, and a broken home.

(Agree that this is a cotillion, too!)

TdHabib, I think you and I are on the same page here.  How you react to a guy- it's a highly subjective thing, we're never going to arrive at an agreement and all see Brian or Mike the same way. And there's no correct answer, and one thing being true (or reasonable) doesn't make another thing untrue (or unreasonable).  

Did Mike contribute to the "downfall" of the Beach Boys? Sure. Here's a mild statement for debate: all six of the original Beach Boys contributed to the rise, and the "downfall" of the Beach Boys.  But to what degree? In what way?Back to subjectivity.

Mike did this, so he's a bad guy.  But Brian did this other thing, so Mike's a good guy. Mike and Brian are not functions of each other. Brian's issues are not a rebuttal to Mike's, or vice-versa. I think they're too different to even compare- totally different stresses, different talents, different challenges, different responsibilities. Life placed them in different situations.  They were both raised by a dominant and troubled Wilson parent, but they responded differently. They had very different ambitions that harmonized for a while, until they didn't.

One guy led the Beach Boys in the studio, and one led them on the stage. Brian wrote and produced a lot of brilliant songs that will live forever, and Mike contributed a lot to them as one of his better lyricists, and kept those songs in front of a lot of people for a lot of years, and did a great job with that. Along the way they've screwed each other over a few times and said  a lot of snarky things and pulled in different directions. Choose which one you like and put on your blinders...

I'll make it a New Year's resolution to do a better job, to be less disrespectful, more reasonable, and less dilusional. Maybe I can work my way up to your standards.

Not meant to be taken that way at all, SJS.  Apologies if I was too blunt.  Sarcasm aside, do you think I have a point at all? If not, fair enough.

Hmmm. For the most part I'd agree. But one thing: I'd say it was not Brian as a person, but the illness that wrecked Brian for a long long time. In psychiatry one has to be very careful not to imply that the patient is one and the same as the illness. Even very tragic cases sometimes have their good moments with the real person shining through. If there is one case history in pop where a person's drug abuse is a textbook example of self-medication, it's Brian's, for me that is.

That's why I'd argue that Brian is not always as responsible for his own behavior as Mike is. I'm not saying Brian is blameless,  but i think his illness has to be taken into account. Whereas with Mike, people look at some of the things he's done and there's no explanation for it, other than, "he was acting like a jerk that day."

Yes, this seems to be the train of thought when it comes to Brian: Damn Murry, damn Loren Schwarz, damn Capitol Records, damn Beatles for getting "there" first, damn radio DJ who didn't want to play "Heroes And Villains", damn Danny Hutton, damn Tandyn Almer, damn Eugene Landy, damn Joe Thomas, damn Mike Love, and damn God (or god?) for giving Brian an illness.

But poor Mike....he only missed a couple of days one time because he was having some problems. Nope, no excuses for you!

Yep- everybody who disagrees with you is just oversimplifying the case, and lacks insight, information, or any sense of fairness.  See my earlier post. People who see Mike in a positive light are thinking/reasoning sorts, enlightened, balanced, and well-informed; those who criticize him are knee-jerk "Brianistas" blinded by their own biases, to be dispatched easily with a zinger.  You could reverse this for the other side and it'd be just as true.

Question for those on either side: has the other guy- even though you disagree with him/her- ever made his/her points in such a well-reasoned fashion that you could respect the other side and find it reasonable? Or are those who view Mike differently than you always deluded fools?

SJS, not meaning to get on you personally- just making a point that could have just as easily been in response to many thousands of posts over the years. And of course I'm guilty of this kind of rhetoric all the time- everybody is.

Probably talking into the wind here...

[SMiLE]

Stebbins pretty much covered my take on this, but I'll add a few stray opinions:

History gets streamlined and subjectively re-worked by all sides with a focus on the other guy's bias that knows no sense of irony. Here's my digital simulation, based on years of following this board, and you could reverse the sides just as easily:

Mr. New Poster: Did Mike undermine SMiLE and cause it to be shelved?

The Old Pros: Certainly not! It was a very complicated situation!  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah-blah-blah?...Capitol Records, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, drugs, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, BLAH!, blah, Dennis, blah, blah, blah-blah, blah!...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,  blah, (blah-blah-blah) blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Priore, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Beatles, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, BLAH-BLAH!, blah, blah, blah, blah, bluh-blobbity-blah-blah, blah,...

....[eighteen months, seventy five pages, four hundred thousand words, two suicides, three vows of revenge, twelve AGD citations of factual error, eleven Lords A-Leaping, and endless profanity, death threats, and bannings later]:

Mr. New Poster, minus his BB virginity: Wow. Not as simple as I 'd heard. So why does Mike get the blame?

Old Pros: Because of that bastard David Leaf!

The fact- no wait, my opinion-  is that no one is more responsible for who Mike is and how he's perceived than Mike. Mike is a pretty straight shooter and has apparently been pretty content with who he is for fifty years as a public figure. It's the fans who aren't o.k. with that and try to remake him in their own image, from both directions.

I think maybe the infamous "Bad Vibrations" "Dr. Love" interview in Goldmine or whatever it was made him a little uncomfortable for a while- for a few years after that it seemed he was a very reluctant and suspicious interview subject. But even that was a pretty honest portrait (again, in my opinion), like it or not. That's who he is.  No big conspiracy or frame-up.

It wasn't one simple thing- the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame speech, the Leaf book, Pet Sounds or SMiLE resistance, "Kokomo", the politics, this or that lawsuit, this or that comment- it wasn't four or five things or even eight or nine things. It's all part of who he is, as far as we're able to know him, over the course of fifty years, along with (of course) the many, many positive contributions.  Some people like that guy, and some don't. Some people see him entirely one way, some people see him entirely another way. Big revelation here: neither group is right. Nor are they entirely wrong.

Sorry to use up all the italics, but ED5 didn't leave me any exclamation points! <---(except that one).

[Hapworth 16, 1924]

Luther, once again, you and I are on the same page on another subject.  About ten-fifteen years ago I went to Dutton's Books on Hollywood Blvd. once a week to make sure the projected release of Hapworth 16, 1924 was still on track. Yep, still set for September" (or whatever it was). And then, inevitably: "Nope, withdrawn".

"The Original Laura"- are you referring to the Gene Tierney film, or what?

Merry Christmas to every one of you, and all your dogs and cats and goldfish, from Atlanta, Georgia!


PS Nice work, Brian F!

[Stack-o-Tracks]

O.K., Grillo, I'm getting you now- misunderstood before.  Your point is well-taken. I think a lot of people see it that way, and I did too, to a degree, at one time. I've really grown to love the hits a lot more over the years. Some of them are monsters, obviously- "California Girls", "Don't Worry Baby", "I Get Around"- and I know you're not talking about those, at least not primarily.  But "Little Deuce Couple", "Shut Down", "Catch A Wave"...these records have a really special place for me and they just seem to get better with age.

And one that I think is one of Brian's most underrated achievements- not one of his greatest, necessarily, but one of his most underrated- is "Help Me, Rhonda". The bass line on that one is one of the greatest in pop history, and the changes are  really slick, too (though they nearly always were by then).  Certainly one of his most inventive tracks, when you think of that guitar lick playing off the totally unique bass line. Then the little eight-note device to get into another key for the chorus is just more icing on an amazing slice of cake. Something as simple as learning it on guitar only increased my admiration for it, but the Stack-o-Tracks version of it is the single biggest testimony to that record, other than the record itself.  It also has great lyrics. To borrow a phrase from J.R.R. Tolkien, I wish it had more honor among its own people (us).

I also love "Fun, Fun, Fun" , but I've loved that one since I was seven years old, so I might be biased.  I think it's possibly Mike's and Brian's greatest lyric, and it's just an exciting record that never gets old.

One I'll single out to sort of "agree" with you on- though you didn't say this- and though I might get pelted with rocks and garbage, is "Surfer Girl" (which I like a lot) vs. "Girls On The Beach", which I love. "Surfer Girl" will always be the classic record; to me "Girls On The Beach" is "Surfer Girl" revisited and perfected- just a better record than the classic, in my opinion.

[Endless Summer]

Somebody who had access to a lot of the studio tapes once told me (twenty years ago) that it was like one day a different guy walked into the studio.  He said all the confidence and command you always hear on the earlier stuff just seemed to vanish overnight.

Great post, ED5- to back up your "tip of the iceberg" point, just pull out Endless Summer, which was drawn strictly from that era, all pre- Pet Sounds, and then Spirit Of America, which was drawn from the same pool, other than "Breakaway".  Just a stunning achievement, when you think that those eight incredible LP sides loaded with iconic songs represented about fifty months' work and completely excluded the band's (consensus) best album and single greatest hit*.


*Though "Good Vibrations" was later tacked onto the CD version.

Well, I respect that, even if I see it differently, because I know from years on here that you know your stuff.  Good points, SJS, too. I strongly agree that the BBs changed more than their audience did. The standard line that they were suddenly out of step would make a lot more sense if they had been putting out more "Barbara Ann" and "I Get Around" and "Help Me Rhonda" and suddenly flopping with it.  The truth is probably closer to the opposite of that, striped shirts and "Papa Oo Mow Mow" excepted. And (as you mention) when they did put out a nostalgic record, "Do It Again", with a surfing mention, it did pretty well.

[Pet Sounds]

O.K., now I really disagree with the last couple of posts, except of course the parts about Luther's tragic but inspiring battle with addiction. But he's beginning to ask questions, and that's a good sign.

Cam, just my opinion, but I think BW underwent a radical change, personally, professionally, and creatively, the biggest of his life, in Spring '67 and the BBs let that define them from pretty much then on. Have at me.

Grillo, one big difference I have with most here is that if I chose my top fifty BB songs, many more would come from before Pet Sounds than after. I like the later stuff, love much of it, indifferent to a lot of it. But I really love the earlier hit-era stuff.  Songs like "Wendy", "Warmth Of The Son", "Please Let Me Wonder", "Don't Worry, Baby", "Girl Don't Tell Me", "Keep An Eye On Summer", "California Girls", "Fun, Fun, Fun", "Girls On The Beach", "Salt Lake City", "Good To My Baby" - seldom equaled by anyone at any time- again, just my opinion.

If whatever makes it yellowish sometimes has something to do with New York, don't anybody tell me what it is.

Denial- that's one of the phases, right? We're here for ya, man!

[Smiley Smile]

Also, Luther, Cam, SJS, all good points in good posts, despite Luther's obvious ongoing alcohol problem (moment of clarity?).

I agree with what you guys are saying, and think these points all mesh. The one thing I would try to add is that the Beach Boys' decline (I know that word is going to start a riot, but what the hell) is just so sudden and abrupt that you can't help but zero in on that period and ask questions. The change from "Good Vibrations" to the rest of Smiley Smile is a jolt almost unlike anything else in rock history.

Dylan had his ups and downs but his career followed a generally logical path. The Rolling Stones evolved logically, waxed and waned here and there, and then gradually declined to dinosaur status. If the Beatles had hung in there, albums consisting of the solo material as band material would have shown more hits, but some slightly less iconic ones,  the emergence of George followed by a fairly gentle decline into increasing musical incompatibility, and then various personal problems, especially John's circa 1973-75.

The Beach Boys were cruising at full altitude when they flew into the side of Mount Everest.

Of course I'm talking about their career status and perception, not the artistic merits. But the nearest comparison I can think of would be Elvis in his schlock movie soundtrack period, which still yielded a lot of gems like "Bossa Nova Baby" but was a jolting and bewildering change from where he had been.

Luther, to your (alcohol-tinged, but lucid and insightful) point the only "what-if" of great substance in 1967 would be one involving Brian's mental health and well-being.  But I think of it this way: they had Sunflower in their fairly near future.  That wasn't a hit album in 1970, but they had lost a lot of ground by then.  The kind of focus, talent, and multiple contribution that produced that album might have gone quite a bit further in 1967 when they still had more career momentum. If only they had managed themselves better when Brian abdicated...Good as some of the stuff still was, you just look at all that talent and shake your head.

About ten years ago Mojo magazine reviewed the (then) latest Lennon compilation and called John Lennon's solo career the biggest disappointment in rock history, which I thought was an interesting comment. I would rank the Beach Boys' failure to step up following Brian's golden age right there with it.

Jimi's comment "and you'll never hear surf music again" was a reactionary message about Dick Dale, who I believe had been injured in a major accident in early 1967 and was also one of Jimi's heroes.

I think the story on that is that Dale had just been diagnosed with cancer, or some disease, but it seems to be kind of unconfirmed. Apparently it comes only from Dale, at some unspecified later time, and may be second hand at that, as in "someone told me this is what he meant..." since I don't think they knew each other.  One version I've seen has it that Hendrix had been misinformed that  Dale was dead.  And to add to the confusion, I think there are mixes where Hendrix goes on a bit more, and it gets even vaguer- just non-sequitur stuff. If anyone knows for sure, please post.

In any case, I heard about a year ago that Dale's website was implying he's in bad shape once again.  I sure wish him the best.

Definitely- there's even white chocolate.  And I guess there's Vanilla Fudge. Found some yellow-tinted vanilla on the image search here and there, I think maybe the yellow is added sometimes to indicate some kind of additional custard flavoring. But generally vanilla ice cream is off-white.

Looks white enough to me:



Ivory is, of course, a common shade of white (or "off-white"); hence the keys of a piano are often referred to as white. Eggshell and cream are also shades of white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_%28color%29

I had cheated and looked it up.  Apparently it was January, '69.  Is "Idaho" from that album?  That's a great sounding record.

[Genuine Imitation Life Gazette]

The Four Seasons had LESS chart success than the BB's did in the '67 to '68 period.

I didn't say otherwise.  Just said "some success". Couple top twenty singles, something like that. Just making a comparison.

On the other hand, the Four Seasons were still having some success in this period, and attributed it to not changing. 

Also, the 4Seasons WERE changing as per their album Genuine Imitation Life, which is sorta good, the best song being the only 4seasons song that has Beach Boys-like harmonies (Something's on her Mind).

Yeah, by 1969.  Nonetheless, I've heard them attribute their continued success, whatever that was, to not changing, as stated. Right or wrong, it's their own view, which I thought was interesting enough to mention.  And I don't think Genuine Imitation Life Gazette was a huge career milestone as much as it is a well-regarded album.

[Pet Sounds]

Why wasn't Pet Sounds a hit album?  Because Capitol didn't promote it, and because they released a hits compilation against it, which was always a signal that a band was over.

Turns out that nothing I just said really bears close scrutiny of the facts, but it's perceived history.  History is a process of streamlining and simplifying the story, and reducing people to characters, but the truth is often more complicated.

In 1967 the Beach Boys were at a crossroads, and Monterey would have been a nice time and place to re-launch the band's image.  By all accounts it was a great showcase for Hendrix, Otis Redding, Big Brother, and the Who. Dropping out either hurt them or was (at least) a missed opportunity. The New Beach Boys could have gotten some nice press and been widely seen in a classic film, in some prestigious company.

SMiLE was, of course, the big missed opportunity.  Rolling Stone undoubtedly hurt them, and Hendrix' "You'll never hear surf music again", whatever it meant, probably hurt them about as much as Jeff Bridges' hip ranting against the Eagles in "The Big Lebowski" has hurt that band in recent years.

On the other hand, the Four Seasons were still having some success in this period, and attributed it to not changing. 

When you hear records like "Do It Again" "Darlin' ", and "I Can Hear Music" it sounds to me like a band that still had plenty to offer.

I don't believe he said that, about wanting to stick to myths, etc.  I think he said it wasn't as simple as indicated.

What is a "stripped" shirt?  Whatever that means, I'm sure they would have gone over better at Monterey than the striped ones.

I must've been thinking of Mike's "stripped-of shirt" period that came later! 

Dennis had a very brief "no pants" period, too, right?

I have always doubted the un-hip argument, too.  Actually, I had thought (until I checked just now) that Dionne Warwick had performed, but the fact that the Association were there makes the point just as well.  "Good Vibrations" should have given them all the credibility they needed. And when they smashed and burned their instruments during "Papa-Oo-Mow-Mow" Hendrix and the Who would have been totally upstaged.

Seriously, the Beach Boys have a pretty long history of showing up and getting over in a big way onstage. There have been a few selected blips in their fifty-year career as live performers- the no-show at Monterey, some criticism of the British '66 tour, and the Hawaii shows were not a highlight for various reasons.  But they have a great pedigree with getting audiences and critics on their side that continues to this day. People will knock them and knock them until they go see them, and then the response tends to be overwhelmingly positive.

Man-made global warming is a theory held by scientists. Pollution is o.k. is a theory held by republicans, a few scientists employed by republicans, and polluters who donate heavily to republicans.

What is a "stripped" shirt?  Whatever that means, I'm sure they would have gone over better at Monterey than the striped ones.