The Smiley Smile Message Board

This blog is overdue: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/02/be-true-to-your-school/. 

I think the thing to remember is that the group is made up of distinct individuals. Mike idolized Ronald Reagan, but that was for his positivity more than, say, his foreign policy. Brian is apolitical - although his Landy-directed memoir paints hims as a liberal. I would say his recreational drug-taking and introspective music make him more of a hero to blue state ears. Yes, The Beach Boys played Ronald Reagan's centenary, but Alan seemed a bit uneasy in doing so. He thought it was a nice thing to do, but his strong views about the environment do not sit well with Republican ideology. Bruce readily admits he's a conservative guy, whereas David Marks, I have no idea.

I recall doing a topic about this a ways back. Mike is interesting in that he seems like a Republican, but then again also has spoken out on enviornmental issues as well correct? Brian probably likes whomever is president. Didn't Al say he was a fan of the green party guy Ralph Nader? I wonder if any of them realise that most democrats and republicans are evil except Ron Paul!  >:D  :3d  >:D     :hat

I would like to add that I find it odd that people say that progressive music is left wing and safe commercial music is right ring. I never understood that. I am very conservative politically (libertarian), but am more into progressive type music. Certainly their are many liberal democrats into commercial  music. So why?

a friend of the professor has commented on this silly bit of academic whining in the NYT, pasting here:

Some pronoun trouble, Associate Professor Nester. You wrote: "For longtime Brian fans like me, who prefer to keep images of Ronald Reagan out of our heads as much as possible, the chance to see every living Beach Boy onstage and hear those harmonies sung live leaves me conflicted over which Beach Boy legacy I’m supporting."

But you ought to have written (additions in CAPS): "For a longtime Brian fan like me who preferS to keep images of Ronald Reagan out of HIS head as much as possible, the chance to see every living Beach Boy onstage and hear those harmonies sung live leaves me conflicted over which Beach Boy legacy I’m supporting.

That is, please do not generalize your (utterly predictable, standard-issue, and dull) academic Leftist politics on to the rest of us fans, though you may generalize the desire to see the band we all love. I suggest you free your self from the new-historicist trap you have fashioned for yourself and just listen to the music.

I thought the blog piece was good.

Face it, as Brian himself would be the first to say, Pet Sounds and Smile are drug music.  The music was conceived on drugs, sometimes performed on drugs, and sounds great on drugs.  That's why Brian found returning to Smile so scary, and was -- and maybe is -- so shy about it.

In the late 60s the long hair-short hair; psychedelic-straight, environmentalist-corporate social distinctions were very stark. 

John Lennon once said something like, we weren't leaders, but maybe we were on the prow of the boat shouting "land ho."  So was Brian.  He was a visionary for a different way of looking at the world, a different way of prioritizing things, that at least for a time was associated (though not by Brian himself) with "the New Left."   How that association came crashing down in the face of greed, hypocrisy, and too much cocaine, is a sad and complicated tale.  But part of what makes the Beach Boys story so interesting is that the devolution and decay of late 60s culture panned out in a very graphic way with the troubled dynamic within the group itself.  It's that, which the opinion piece is pointing to.

Things are probably so mixed up now that for those who came of age in following decades, associating kinds of music with politics can seem rather silly.  But it wasn't always that way.  The Beach Boys and the Stones are the two last surviving great 60s groups.  I don't think it's inappropriate or unexpected that, as they celebrate five decades, we are led to reflect back on the social history of their times.

Owen (also a professor)

Owen, you compel me to think of Shelly in this regard:

"The great instrument of moral good is the imagination; and poetry administers to the effect by acting upon the cause. Poetry enlarges the circumference of the imagination by replenishing it with thoughts of ever new delight, which have the power of attracting and assimilating to their own nature all other thoughts, and which form new intervals and interstices whose void forever craves fresh food. Poetry strengthens the faculty which is the organ of the moral nature of man, in the same manner as exercise strengthens a limb. A poet therefore would do ill to embody his own conceptions of right and wrong, which are usually those of his place and time, in his poetical creations, which participate in neither. By this assumption of the inferior office of interpreting the effect, in which perhaps after all he might acquit himself but imperfectly, he would resign a glory in a participation in the cause. There was little danger that Homer, or any of the eternal poets, should have so far misunderstood themselves as to have abdicated this throne of their widest dominion. Those in whom the poetical faculty, though great, is less intense, as Euripides, Lucan, Tasso, Spenser, have frequently affected a moral aim, and the effect of their poetry is diminished in exact proportion to the degree in which they compel us to advert to this purpose."

To our point today, fussing about President Reagan, environmental issues, etc. is incredibly small and dull. Rather transparently it was Nester's way way of plugging for Obama by accusing Romney, ridiculously, for planing to appropriate the BB show.  Our colleague in the NYT may have sounded thoughtful to you (you sound kind and fair minded and I appreciate your letter), but I found his concerns to be boilerplate, English-departmernt cant and generic Liberal pablum, adding nothing to any cultural or social history.  I am surprised he did not say "problematical" or aporia, or "interrogate," or "ambivalence" at some point.  None of it affects the BB corpus and legacy.  

Please stop writing. This is such worthless dribble. Can we lock this thread please mods???

NO POLITICS ON HERE PLEASE!

Obviously a Byron fan....  ::)

I recall reading that Brain said before the last elections that he preferred McCain over Obama, for the reason that "He has a good smile". So I guess it's safe to say that he's apolitical.

Wonder how long it'll take for this thread to get moved to the sandbox.

'I was in a position of defending my lyric poetry…it went from ‘ding witty pearl hang-ten-childe-harold’ …I mean, I didn’t know that language…to….ah, like…Weep for Adonais, he is dead'

The NYTimes (and respective affiliates) often choose writers who are lively journalists but, poor grammarians, and who, through no fault of their own, have a poor concept of subject-verb agreement, and are victims of American English teaching where, it has become sloppy and politically correct.  No one, or almost no one teaches students to "diagram sentences" and the identification of dependent clauses. Over-reliance on spell check and grammar check tools have resulted in good content, written poorly.

It is more likely an indictment on the educational system.  The texts are a disgrace. 

Grammar ain't fun, but it's necessary!  :lol.

And, pigeonholing a person, especially a celebrity musician is ridiculous.  Most people are more "hybrid" vis-à-vis ideology, and even Republicans, can be environmentalists and socially responsible; and Democrats, can find themselves fiscally conservative and moderates.  No one party membership should and does exclude free thinking and practice.  There are so many layers which defy a "one size fits all" approach.

No one asked me but I will be happy to elucidate my observations from years of being a fan.

I have always envisioned most of the guys as being generally Center/Right in their politics.  Yes Brian created psychedelic sounds in the mid-60's but he also matured as a person and grew into what he is today. 

In their youth, I doubt there was much thought given to "politics" other than the feeling that the war was "bad news" in the late 60's.  I'm sure everyone here is aware of Carl's draft thing.  But by the end of that war, most people felt it was "bad news" so that was a pretty universal feeling I think, having little to with politics. 

If you watch Brian on the Mike Douglas show in 1976, it's clear (to me anyway) he is in a place (mentally) where he feels like he has earned his success and he is proud of it.  I don't get the sense that there is a lot of "wealth guilt" that is common among a lot of Center/Left celebrities.  Couple that with their appearances with the Reagan's in the 1980's and just various comments ever since then.  I draw my conclusions from that stuff.

I think Brian is Center/Right.  Mike is probably pretty much a full on Republican.  And the others, they probably fall all over the place. 

What I find amusing about this is the fact that there seems to be so much interest.  If there weren't indications that The Beach Boys (Brian Wilson) was at least to some degree Center/Right, would there be an article about it? 

As Art Garfunkel said about Brian..."he is rock music's gentlest revolutionary".  Something I have always appreciated is that there is little to no proselytizing in the Beach Boys music.

P.S. After re-reading the article I'm particularly annoyed at the fact that the writer seems to infer that the competing histories of the Beach Boys are at odds.  As if to say, no Reagan loving musician could have had anything to do with that masterpiece "SMiLE".  Odd.  Note to self, Republican's don't create works of art.  Furthermore, should the National Review write stories about the conflicting legacy of John Lennon?  What drivel.

I agree with this completely.  I mean, there are a number of people anymore that I know that are right of center fiscally and socially very liberal but don't care for the Libertarian cause.  We have no home...  :)

I was asked for my opinion on the subject by the author of this article while he was writing it. I told him that despite what many on the outside think they know... the Beach Boys (past and present) are a group of politically diverse individuals and to put the band into a Republican bag is a narrow view that overlooks a far more nuanced truth. Mike is not as solid of a Republican as Bruce...who is very solidly one. The others (past and present) range from right leaning to left leaning. Most of them prefer to keep their politics to themselves, which, as a music fan, I appreciate.

Or, the phrase "fans like me who prefer" could have been improved to "fans such as me who prefer" etc.  "Such as" is a better choice than "like" here.  Also, his use of the comma is probably wrong.  It's poor writing to say the least.

See, grammar IS MORE INTERESTING THAN POLITICS!!!!

AMEN!

Norbit 2012

The major point of the piece is that the Beach Boys are playing that gig in Utah tomorrow on the 4th.  The writer mentions that Romney might try to capitalize on it. I tend to think not, because the last thing Romney wants to do is remind people he's a Mormon.  I'm not trying to get into politics and religion, but a lot of the Republican base are conservative Christians who don't think Mormonism is a true Christian faith. It's likely the Beach Boys are just playing the gig because they're getting paid.

A discussion of whether we ought to support this policy or candidate or that should be consigned to the sandbox.  I am not interested in that; I don't think the professor is either.  I think the blogger has his eye on bigger issues of what the band means to us, the fans, and how we process our appreciation of both the music and of the men who made it.

Just like the words "liberal" and "conservative" the word "counterculture" is vague and often unhelpful, but it still meant something, maybe still does.  For at least a good ten years the term referred to a cluster of ideas (political, ecological, spiritual) and lifestyle choices that were often found together, and reinforced each other.  These were formative years for a lot of us, and music the Beach Boys made during those years has all kinds of emotional and conceptual resonances with us.   Brian's musical and spiritual explorations, his dalliance with health food, TM, etc -- and -- unfortunately, the band's slide into occasional excess, indiscipline, and debauchery are all part of that -- at least in the public mind.  

Younger people might not share those associations, which is fine, but I -- and the NYT blogger --do -- and I thought the blog was a thoughtful mediation on how we deal with the cognitive dissonance of seeing the band associated with the Republican party.  You may or may not be a fiscal conservative -- that's not the issue -- but apart from a little hair over his ears, Romney himself kept himself very far from anything "counterculture."  A lot of Romney voters love Smile -- great! -- but the Smile/Romney association, for many, might be a little like Obama/Lawrence Welk -- if you know what I mean.  [Which is not to say that I may not yet learn to really dig LW -- or that Welk-heads can't be seen out at an Occupy rally.]

These sorts of associations might be silly in retrospect -- fine --- but much of the fan base still carries them around.  The blogger is not offering a reasoned argument for "liberalism" -- he is rather sharing the difficulty of living with these kinds of deep mental associations, in the face of a reality that is really too complicated for any simplistic way of cutting up the pie.  I think he did that well.

I would agree with this..  they are doing this tour regionally, that show just happens to be next on the list.

Well, perhaps.  But I can't help but think of all of the times when an artist (musician, director) that I admire deeply and who probably happens to be a progressive/liberal chooses to openly rip into "conservatives".  It's a drag and can overshadow the greatness of that artist.  Luckily, I don't feel the Beach Boys have ever done this.

And frankly, I feel like I'm a very open minded fellow, I'm probably more progressive socially than some "progressives" I know. People are all over the map.

As another user said, just enjoy the music.

My problem with it is the article drifts and doesn't make a lot of sense.  It does attempt to link the band to Romney due to Romney's use of Good Vibrations as a campaign song.  I guess if the Beach Boys don't raise a big stink about that, then that means they're for Romney?  Some bands make a big deal about it and ask for a desist and others don't.  Bruce Johnston said he didn't care for Romney in the same drunken off the cuff remarks he made about Obama.  There's less room for moderates in the current Republican Party who support things like environmentalism, and Mike and Bruce are both into the environment (both are members of Surfriders, for instance).  I doubt they'll be campaigning for Romney or Obama so it seems pointless.  If they want to be popular again on a larger scale, they will avoid controversy or taking sides when at all possible.

I always figure that the BBs are the one right-leaning rock band that I really love.  Nothing against right-wing rock bands, it's just that they tend to suck.  But, when I think about it, they are indeed kind of all over the place, especially when you count Carl and Dennis.  Bruce seems to be pretty solidly conservative, Mike leans that way, Brian seems to have no politics at all, Al may be leaning a bit to the left these days, and Dave, who knows.  Count Carl and Dennis, and you've got a pretty wide spectrum. 

And, when you look at their actual lyric content, whenever they get around to writing anything like a protest song (which isn't often), the content tends to be more progressive, at least by American standards.  Stuff like "Trader" or "Looking at Tomorrow" comes to mind.  But most of the stuff that gets labeled left-wing is environmentalists.  And the idea that environmentalist = left wing is extremely American.  Here in Japan, the right wing governor of Osaka (Hashimoto) is a big no-nukes guy, while the right wing governor of Tokyo (Ishihara) is really into limiting greenhouse gases.  Just because Americans have somehow managed to make environmentalism into a left-right issue doesn't make it so. 

By the way, for those who constantly preach about the evils of "liberalism" and "liberals," it's worth noting that in many countries, including Japan, "liberal" refers to someone who is liberal both socially and economically...  meaning more free-market oriented from an economic point of view, but also for less governmental controls over social issues--kind of like very moderate libertarians.  Right wingers tend to favor more social controls but less economic controls, while left wingers tend to favor fewer social controls but more economic controls.  We Americans somehow managed to make "liberal" a synonym for "left wing," which it wasn't originally. 

It still isn't but in the United States the left has been completely disenfranchised and marginalized and as a result being a center-right "liberal" is as far to the left as someone can legitimately go.

I thought Brian revealed recently he voted Repub? Doesn't TM have it's own political party or did I imagine that? If so, I bet Mike and Al are members of that.

I just posted this on the NYTimes website.  After getting home this evening and getting the kiddies to bed, I was able to reflect and try and be a little more lucid and to the point with my thoughts:

very nice, jm

To be honest, I think what this article does well and what a lot of people here aren't quite accounting for, is that art (like people) are political whether they want to be or not. Not announcing your politics in your art is not a non-political act - it's very political and it's even more political to not say anything when Americans were coming home in body bags from Vietnam on a daily basis.

Well, this is America after all. Where politicians can actually accuse each other of "playing politics" with a straight face.

Son of a gun....Debbie Keil is among the commenters at this NY Times post. She has a low opinion of it, far as I cam tell.

I wonder what Melinda thinks when she sees Debbie commenting on things?  Maybe she's one of those cool chicks who doesn't care, because she knows she has her man.

Good point!  I won't argue with you there. 

I'm more horrified by some of the comments, like this one claiming that the BB music never evolved:
"Their music only went so far back in the day, and hasn't moved since. ... OK to boring in '64, more boring today. Just like republicans, they never moved on or evolved. Let alone noticed the larger world around them.

She locks the doors

Classic liberalism is different from modern liberalism.

Economically, classic liberalism is more aligned with Republican economic views.  I won't say what the economic views modern liberals are aligned but only observe that they yhink they are capable of getting the trains to run on-time.

Thank goodness that the Beach Boys never used their music to preach their politics. 

While it is important for artists to take there art seriously it rarely works out well when they take themselves too seriously.  Outside of Marvin Gaye, I can't think anybody who benefited artisitcally by melding their politics with their art.

Economically yes, socially no. 

And I can observe that the Japanese "liberals" (which are usually considered more right-wing, especially economic issues) are extremely good at getting the trains to run on time. 

I can think of many, including Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, The Byrds, The Clash, Woodie Guthrie, and Manu Chao.  Having said that, I don't think that the BBs music and overall message has ever lent itself well to political statements.  I like some of the songs when they have gotten overtly political, but others ('Don't Go Near the Water') are pretty awkward. 

That's true to an extent, of course (although it wasn't just Americans who were dying in Vietnam -- rather more Vietnamese people were being killed by Americans...), but it's not like the band actually said nothing about Vietnam -- Carl was very publicly a Conscientious Objector, and the rest of the band publicly supported him.

But I think it's a good thing that, apart from the Rieley period, the band didn't write explicitly about their political views. Some people can do that very, very well, but I have a feeling the Beach Boys would turn out to have been a bit like the old Johnny Cash song The One On The Right Was On The Left. They didn't need any more excuses to fight.

I also think, frankly, that none of the Beach Boys have ever made a single public remark about politics that's suggested they've ever thought about any of the issues in any depth. Even the ones who have publicly expressed opinions (on whatever side) don't sound like they actually know what they're talking about.

Exactly!

I agree especially with your last point.  They aren't political people, and I can't really see them writing coherent political songs.  Sure, Carl could have written about the war, Blondie and Ricky could have written about apartheid, maybe Al can say something about the environment, maybe Bruce might have something to say about the value of tax cuts on the rich   :lol, but overall they don't strike me as very qualified or able spokespeople for causes. 

Gil Scott Heron? The Clash? Public Enemy? Bob Dylan? Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five? REM? The Dixie Chicks?

How's that? Liberalism is an ideology -- how can it change?


This is quite confused. If "classic liberalism is more aligned with Republican economic views" which it is, to an extent, then American Republicans are "modern liberals." And, in reality, so are people who identify as liberals (i.e. Democrats) since their ideology is virtually identical with those in the Republican party with minor differences.

100% agreed - I only mentioned the Americans coming home because I imagined that this fact would have reinforced the reality of the brutality occurring overseas. But you're quite right (and I've written about this elsewhere myself) that the casualties on the other side were far greater and the damage done to that country was devastating.


I suspect you're right, though Carry Me Home is a particularly good song, I think. I have no quarrums at all with the direction The Beach Boys went and I love their music from that period perhaps more than any other music. Nevertheless, the choice to not talk about these issues explicitly was a political choice.

Billy Bragg, Credence Clearwater Revival, U2 (shudder), Professor Green, Lethal Bizzle,  The Byrds, Bob Marley...the Beach Boys (Student demo time, trader, 4th July, etc & so forth).

Which is to say that, done well, just as any subject, politics & aesthetics can go hand and hand. But it doesn't have to. Context and timing can be powerful factors in determining that success.

Along with the aforementioned Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, The Byrds, The Clash, Woodie Guthrie, Gil Scott Heron, Public Enemy, Grandmaster Flash, REM, Dixie Chicks, Billy Bragg, CCR, U2, I would also add John Lennon and Stevie Wonder. EDIT: And how can I forget Randy Newman!

In fact, the entire tradition from which rock and roll music sprung was essentially as much a political tradition as a creative tradition.

Rage Against The Machine, Sex Pistols, System Of A Down, Dead Kennedys...

The current American meaning of the word 'liberal' is different from the current European meaning of the word 'liberal' is different from the 19th century European meaning of the word.

And liberalism isn't a single ideology, but a grouping of many ideologies -- even just taking the European definition of the term (with which I am more familiar), any term that encompasses John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Hayek, John Maynard Keynes, William Beveridge, Cyril Smith, Karl Popper, the Liberator Collective and Isiah Berlin has to be a fairly broad, rather than narrow, term. All those people have shared principles, and shared ideological roots, but they were expressed pragmatically in *very* different ways.

And all ideologies change. There is, for example, no Christian church I know of whose beliefs now are identical to the beliefs of the same church a century ago -- their core values may be the same, but their emphasis, and small points of nuance, adapt to a changing world. The same goes for environmentalism (thirty years ago environmentalists would have called for an end to nuclear power, now most see it as a better option than fossil fuels), socialism, conservatism, libertarianism or whatever. They all start from a set of principles and beliefs, but the consequences of those principles change as the world changes  (or the ideology disappears altogether).

I'm not sure I entirely see the differences as you describe them. To a certain degree, the folk usage of these terms have some differences and these differences are a consequence of other ideologies at work that results in a purposeful perversion of the term.


I agree.


Again, I don't see the ideologies adapting -- mostly because they can't. I see in some of those cases, one ideology coming into conflict with another/other ideology(ies). Yes, people change and people change their views but worldviews are not people.

GSH, The Clash, PE, etc. melded politics and music throughout their career.  They didn't decide to turn political one day.  Politics was part of their point.   

The Dixie Chicks are example A1 of politics detstroying their art.  They have not been relevent in years. 

The best messages are those that are vetween the lines.  Take "Wonderful" for example.  I have always interpret\ted that as a rejection of the counter culture, however, ten different people might get ten different meanings from it.

 that is cool - Lennon's "Sometime in New York City"is crap.

Regardless, your point was that politics and art couldn't be creatively melded by anyone other than Marvin Gaye. You said nothing about when they melded them.


What about Imagine which is far more political than anything on Sometime in New York City and so far one of the most enduring pop songs of the 20th century?


Given that Van Dyke Parks was a fairly vibrant member of the counter-culture movement and appears to agree with a great deal of their point, I would say that your interpretation is groundless. But, yes, it does have a great lyric.

No, they've just been on hiatus. The album they did before that was a massive hit and went to #1 and was released several years after they "went political."