The Smiley Smile Message Board

In my years as a Beach Boys/Brian Wilson fan I've devoured their history, anecdotes and any bits & pieces of information I can find around them. One of the reasons I read & participate in this board is precisely my insatiable hunger for knowledge; but the more I learn, the more I find stuff about the band and Brian that doesn't make any sense. And that drives me nuts  >:D

For example, how was Brian able to record 'Good Time' back in 1970? I don't mean in terms of vocal range, he was still a proficient singer then, but in terms of the song's mood and the expression of his singing. It's not a fav song of mine, but its awfully catchy and so over-the-top happy, poppy, cute that doesn't make any sense in the context of the supposed mental state of Brian in those years. How can someone so depressed, so bored & negative with life sing something like this? His vocals sound genuine, like something he would have sung in the early years of the band.

Am I crazy or anyone else feels the same way?

And one other thing I don't get. By all accounts, Brian did the falsetto vocals in 'Airplane'. Those vocals are really good, too good for someone who in a lower register sounds awful elsewhere in 'Love You' (for ex. 'Love is a Woman'). I'm not a singer, but I know that actually doing a decent falsetto requires technique and a capable range, something far more complex than singing in your normal tone. So...I don't understand why Brian singing in an easier lower tone sounds so bad, while sounding amazingly solid in the higher bits.

I just don't get it...or guess I'm dumb but I don't care   ;) No wait, actually I do care, this stuff really pisses the sh%$#t out of me!!!

I always felt that the Sunflower era was a good time for Brian. He had lost weight and started participating more in the studio after being MIA during the second half of the 20/20 sessions. It's not too much of a stretch to think that Brian was genuinely happy as he recorded a lot of the Sunflower songs.

You're right, he did loose weight & produce more music than in the late 60s...but his mental state was far from being one you could categorize as happy. He looked really, really sad back then:

(http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/279/1350088829_3.jpg)

I think when Sunflower failed it broke him yet again, just as had happened with Friends two years earlier. He put his heart into his songs and then when both the projects he was involved most in failed it shredded him and he got far more depressed than he had ever been pre-1970

But wasn't it during the Sunflower era that Brian tried to sabotage the signing of the new contract with Reprise? I read he painted his face green or something.

I know the original sessions for 'Good Time' where done for the Spring project. Maybe since it was a non Beach Boys project, he may have had a more positive attitude & that could explain his joyous singing. That could be in line with the theory of passive aggressiveness towards the band in the years after Smile.

Actually I saw the 'Beautiful Dreamer' doc this weekend (for the first time) and Brian did say he was angry for the boys objecting his Smile music when they came back from London in the fall of 1966. If you look at the doc in detail, his facial expression is very sincere, don't think it's a case of Brian answering whatever.

And that's another thing I don't get, if Brian was so angry with the band about Smile, why not just walk away and do his thing?

Anyways, thanks for the replies  :)

That was a photo session and a shot or two later he's smiling a huge smile. Look at the inner cover of Sunflower too. You must understand that Brian battled mental problems as early as 1963 (starting to gain weight having Al fill in for him when David was in the group) and his decline happened slowly. He had flare ups and in 1968 he had to be hospitalized briefly but he was making public apperences (Yellow Submarine premere showing up at Beach Boys shows to sign autographs) by the end of the year so it was more a blip that time. As late as 1970-71 he was fairly OK much of the time. Like he was very depressed when his dad sold his songs in late 1969 but by a month or so later he was as active as before.  

 Carl once said he first noticed Brian starting to have a real drug problem at the So Tough period. Others told me he was different when he came back from Holland. Then when Murry died in mid 1973 all bets were off yet even in 1974 you can hear things like Rolling Up To Heaven where he is having a blast. Though he was on tour a lot I see mid 1973 to early 1983 to be Brian at his worst. Yet even then he would have a year or so where he seemed better like mid 1976-mid 1977. The Brian you see today was caused by Landy's medication from 1983-91 which almost killed him. Yet Brian again and again has fought since then to regain some sense of normalacy. I wouldn't say his life is perfect but the work he has done since 1998 especally with Smile, That Lucky Old Sun, and TWGMTR and the reunion tour show him to be doing pretty damn good for all he has been through.
Spring didn't start until 1971 Good TIme was a Beach Boys song. Beautiful Dreamer is bull when it comes to about everything.

I totally agree.  Not only that but with the rest of the stuff you said as well. 

As someone diagnosed with all sorts of metal illness (tho NOWHERE to the degree that Brian has) I can tell you that no matter what state Brian was in a which point in his life, he had "good days and bad days".  That's dumbing it down but say before 1970, Brian was "at his worst" in 1968.  Even if we accept that as fact, he was still doing better the day of the Yellow Submarine premiere than he was on the day of the "airplane breakdown" in 1964.  Also, it's not just good DAYS.  People can go through entire periods of peaks and valleys, depending on many other factors in their life.  I truly think Brian thought he found the answer during the lead up to Sunflower.  He was "in charge" again (something the new contract probably stipulated) but was "backed" by a band who were all pulling their individual weight so all the pressure wasn't on him.  I think he was totally psyched and incredibly proud of the album and when it tanked, it was the final nail in the coffin, in terms of him "giving up" on himself. 

Other factors played into it but I honestly feel that Smile collapsed because Brian couldn't take the pressure of figuring out the "right" order of all the modular sections.  He tried and tried and wound up spinning his wheels at the end, getting no closer (at least to any noticeable degree) to finishing it when it was officially scrapped.  (I think the "Dada mystery" is solved by accepting the fact that it took Brian a few weeks to accept the decision that Derek and the boys had already made.)  Post-Smile he took the band in a completely different but fully chosen direction:  No more modular stuff, no more grandiose production, with an emphasis on vocals.  Back to square one; the VERY beginning.  As much as I (personally) don't enjoy the "music for Brian to cool out to" period, mainly because I feel it went on for too long (I understand WHY it went on for so long, it just wore thin with me by then), I kinda see that stuff as similar to what the band may have wound up sounding like if David hadn't replaced Al early on.  With Dave, Carl brought the rock and roll element to the band's music but compare "Surfin'" to "Surfin' Safari".  It's nearly unplugged.  With Smile, I think Brain gave up on the competition with the Beatles and did a stripped down 180 and not just in the studio.  He made a conscious decision to alter the band's entire style, if not image.   Listen to the Michigan shows in '66 and compare them to the Hawaii performances from the following summer.  That was his plan and the next few albums bore that out but after a while, it was clear that it didn't work on capturing the old magic.

Circa 1970, the band is done with Capitol and decide to reboot again.  I feel that Brian knew it was time for a change and more importantly, was ready to make that change; more than likely, excited by the prospect of a label willing to support the band the way Capitol used to.  Also, with 20/20 still fresh, the proof is in the pudding that everyone in the band is ready, willing, and able to pull their weight.  The time is now!  Then the album keeps getting rejected by his new "savior label" and fails upon its eventual release.  With that, Brian threw in the towel.  The guys probably figured he earned his rest and would go back to his "supervisory position".  He withdraws more and more, allowing Carl to pick up the slack again.  The next album (while more commercially successful) is another traumatic experience for Brian (to say the least) and the next thing you know, "Carl once said he first noticed Brian starting to have a real drug problem at the So Tough period."  The next time they manage to get Brian to participate it's post Endless Summer and he's literally a shadow of who he used to be.

Sad but true but that's my take.  Your mileage (as always) may vary.

Thanks Mike, appreciate your comments.

I definitely don't take most of 'Beautiful dreamer' at face value, but a few of the segments when Brian talks seem pretty genuine. One of those is when he expresses his anger to the band for objecting Smile. And he would be in all his right to be angry.

And about the picture, I meant the sadness in his eyes. The dark circles are really obvious, even if he'd be smiling. I believe there's a photo of him of the same year, wearing a white sweater, where those tired eyes are even more impressive.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to question Brian's difficult life nor to make his mental state topic a trivial one. I just don't understand how sometimes his music could be delivered in a way inconsequential with the overall social/personal context of the artist.

People with mental illnesses still vary in mood as much as (often more than) people who are well. If someone suffers from depression -- even the kind that can lead to suicide -- they still laugh at jokes, still get cheered up by good news, still have all the normal responses to situations that anyone else does. It's not like Brian sat around from 1967 to 1998 inclusive wearing black and saying "I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed".

Depression (and Brian has many other things, but just concentrating on that...) isn't a constant state of feeling down, it's more like the baseline is lowered, so it takes the same amount of mental energy, for want of a better term, to get up to 'normal' as it does for most people to get to 'very happy'.

But if you *are* going through a depressive phase, and do manage to come out of it -- you manage to have a day when it's *not* a struggle just to get out of bed and speak to other people -- then the blessed relief of that is close to ecstasy. "YES! I've managed to phone the bank! WOW! I've actually opened the post! Maybe it's all going to get better from now on!"

Exactly.

As somebody with bipolar disorder, I feel like I could chime in.

People with depression aren't depressed *all the time*. Yeah, they may generally be sadder, less attentive and friendly, and more negative, but it *really* is marked by depressive episodes, where you don't do sh*t. You lie around, cry a bit, see no future in sight, and even if you're not suicidal, there's a definite, almost constant thought of death. This lasts a few weeks (although on rare occasions may only happen for a day or so).

Like I said before, when you're not having an episode you might still feel like sh*t, but that can change very rapidly (note: if you're bipolar this isn't a manic episode, just an elevated mood), so you might start being funny, do some work, and feel pretty neutral.

Manic episodes are a whole 'nother thing I don't feel like writing about.

...

.

Ok, I sincerely don't want this thread to be just about Brian's mental health. I have a lot of respect for the man, this topic is private to him and although very relevant in the history of the band, it's not the only factor determining his/their legacy.

Anyways, back to the other thing that pisses me off: Brian's unknown singing capacity during the recording of 'Love You' (and even after). Again, 'Airplane' is one of my fav BBs song, especially because of his bridge falsetto. How was he able to do that?

I read once Foskett saying that Brian could still hit high notes and that once during a vocal rehearsal he did a falsetto bit. Apparently everyone was very impressed. Anyone knows if this is true?

If so, wouldn't this abide the theory of passive-aggressiveness after Smile? Meaning, Brian sang well whenever he wanted too or liked what he was doing ('Love You' is his fav album); and hence 'sabotaged' other less interesting BBs projects and live performances?

I know this is a bit of a stretch as a theory. In all honesty I think Brian is a great artist, great human being and a professional. Not sure if he would actually do this...

What do you guys think?

What I saw and heard of his performance at the two London shows this year blew me away – he wasn't just hitting notes, he was nailing them.  Okay, so he didn't go for everything, granted, but his occasional forays into Choirboy Land were great.  I know this isn't quite where you're going to with this, but I reckon it's important.

Hi John, I read the same comment from other people about the London shows. For Brian playing in the UK is always very special, he knows how much he's appreciated over there.

The Montreal show was very good, the band was amazing (specially Mike, in all fairness)...except for Brian. It was his birthday, the crowd sang to him, it was a party context (balloons, people with banners, etc) but Brian just sat on stage, barely singing his lines, once in a while doing some strange moves with his arms. Far cry from the guy I saw in 2004 playing Smile in Belgium.

One other thing to add to this discussion. Brian's solo performance on SNL, when he did 'Good Vibrations' in the sandbox. Does anyone else notice how good and effortlessly he reached the high parts and how awful the lower sections were? It's my favorite performance of the song, I love this version beyond any logic or rationale, but don't get how he was able to do one but not the other.

Plus there is (somewhat manipulated I guess) Brian falsetto on the latest album - parts of  Think About The Days and Pacific Coast Highway.

Good point EgoHanger! By the way, what's with your signature? Was that an actual conversation between Brian and Hal? If so, sounds really funny :)

I don't get (or maybe the interviewers ask him) Brians need to go on about knowing Paul McCartney! Take the DIA doco of late. Who gives a sh!t.

Brians up in that league himself so doesn't need to name-check IMO.

It's from the Vega-Tables arguments.

What's the story behind it? Do you know?

Recorded during the Smile sessions, a short skit to promo the upcoming Vegetables single. Available on Smile box, get yours today!

Actually I got mine when it came out, but haven't open it  :-[ I see it as a collector item to be kept untouched (for a while). But I also bought the cd version, so I got the basic tracks and stuff. The rest I've found on YouTube...and here :D

I think he has a sincere appreciation for Macca. Back in the days he was one of the biggest champions of Brian, always named 'Pet Sounds' as his favorite record and the source of inspiration for 'Pepper'. I think Brian acknowledges that and his way of expressing that gratitude is by name-checking Paul whenever he can -  a kind of unconscious need to let everyone know about their relationship.

I don't think he's doing it for low self-esteem reasons. Brian doesn't really care about how people 'rank' his music or his 'genius' status. But he knows that Paul is a genius in his own right, someone at his level and having that kind of peer approval is something he treasures.

IMO its an amazing display of love/respect/appreciation between the biggest musicians of the 20th century...and there's nothing wrong with that!

(http://www.omghub.com/Portals/238/images/mccartney-wilson.jpg)

I don't know if this pisses me off, but it has been one of the more frustrating things...

I'm sure we could list a dozen reasons why, but, after recording Friends in 1968, when Brian Wilson was only 26 years old, it is hard to believe that Brian never sat down specifically for an album project, and composed, arranged, and produced a 10-12 song album of new material.

It is hard to believe how prolific he was, and how reduced that output became. On 20/20, Sunflower, Surf's Up, CATP, and Holland, Brian recorded meerly a few short minutes of songs. That trend continued from L.A. Light Album to the present. The exceptions, of course, are Love You and MIU. Even as far as entirely new material is concerned, his solo albums only contained a handful of new songs, if that.

The frustrating period was 1969-1973, because IMO, everything that Brian was composing during that period was brilliant. I sometimes imagine a solo album around 1970-71 with songs like "This Whole World", "Til I Die", "A Day In The Life Of A Tree" and "Marcella". Musically, Brian was still in a cool place. And also, during the 1976-77 period, when he was back to composing, he also came up with some fascinating stuff. Look at how great Love You turned out when Brian re-dedicated himself to songwriting.

Why didn't Brian consistently record full albums, especially during a time when he was young, still had his voice, and his contemporaries were still around, churning out great music. It's not that he didn't have the time...

What's this talk of the premiere of Yellow Submarine come from? Is that a new story that has popped up somewhere online and I just haven't been on so long to hear about it. Is there footage or pictures?

Depression and mental illness are difficult things to explain. Brian suffered from both. By the late 60s I think he felt stifled and trapped by the band to a large extent. Unable to really express himself fully anymore. He tried working outside the group with bands like Redwood and got berated. The sale of his publishing by Murry also did a lot of damage. And then there was the drug abuse.

Brian also grew insecure and lost his former confidence. He still had an amazing voice throughout the 70s but grew embarrassed by it. The lower gruff voice he employed on '15 Big Ones' was completely intentional and was his way of sounding more "macho." He could have sang in a clearer prettier voice but he chose not to. His vocal on Matchpoint Of Our Love is the best example I can think of that his voice was still in fine shape into the late 70s.

Apparently Brian is still unhappy with a lot of his old falsetto work. He has said he "sang like a girl" on more than one occasion and he kept Let Him Run Wild, one of his finest songs, off the box set in 1993 because he can't stand to listen to his singing on it. There's that hotel room video on youtube where he refers to the song Surf's Up as "p*ssy sh!t"

There's a lot of confounding and infuriating things about this band we all love so much. It continues to this day. What matters is that Brian has survived and is still making the music that only he can make.

Research conducted by guitarfool2002:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10870.msg204278.html#msg204278 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,10870.msg204278.html#msg204278)

Being someone who was a tenor in chorus, it sucks to hear Brian say this and berate his younger high voice. I absolutely love his high voice and it was one of the big things that grabbed me when I started getting into the Beach Boys. He had a great high voice and I love to sing his leads or even harmonies. It was amazing work and he shouldn't be ashamed, but it is what it is.

Agree with you, Sheriff. Brian's output was so inconsistent and spread in those years that it doesn't make sense. For someone who had lost his 'genius' he was writing pretty darn good songs then - all the ones you listed.

Could it be that actually Brian had more songs or, better, the intention to have more of his songs in 'Sunflower' for example, but the band vetoed him? Not necessarily an active dismiss, but a passive one that re-sounded larger in Brian's mind. I heard for example that 'Til I die' was actually pitched to the band way earlier (not sure if actually in 1969, 1970) and that someone said 'what a downer' and Brian just shelved the song for years.

Maybe there were more similar cases we are not aware of. Sad.

The reason probably lies in the band growing as songwriters at that time? The specific examples that comes to mind of the band spurning BW's material seems to be Old Man River, or possibly SOMS (two of the stupidest decisions made by them, if you ask me). I don't think 'Til I Die had THAT long of a gestation period, it might have been rejected once (for Sunflower, possibly) but when the paucity of BW material became evident during the SU sessions they would take anything to fulfil their contract (am I mixing up my record deals - was there a 'Brian Clause' in their Reprise contract?).

SWD also has mentioned that Brian was in the habit of recording tunes, then wiping the tapes or giving up on them in various stages of completion during these years. Which may just indicate he was feeling insecure about what he was writing and producing, or simply apathetic and letting the band carry some of the heavy lifting. The latter of which isn't quite borne out in the writing credits/production of some of those records. It could have definitely been the case in 1968 post Friends, which could have also coincided/peaked with his stint in the hospital.

The band also became 'a band' of several individuals contributing material in this period (as opposed to Brian + collaborator handling everything) and so maybe they did force out several Brian tunes. Which again, isn't quite borne out by credits by anyone except Dennis and Bruce - Brian cowrote a lot with the band. It's not like we had an influx of 'solo' Carl or Mike material until SU and beyond, give or take a negligible amount (All I Wanna Do, which apparently was Mike's to begin with?/if the melodic germ of Our Sweet Love came from Carl and/or Al). Those records - Friends to SU - are odd in a way because it seems that they were all learning to produce/write, the quickest of which was Dennis and Mike the slowest (STD being possibly his only 'solo' contribution in the period, despite it's obvious origin). You have a talented writer like Bruce getting some leg room, Carl and Al testing their mettle on covers (on 20/20 and the Cotton Fields single, but Al didn't ever quite get beyond that as a songwriter).

Again, the Cotton Fields single bears a strange angle - a band member openly expressing dissatisfaction with BW's production nous, which had gone unchallenged (his decision to scrap Smile natch) until that point, and recording his own version without him. If the single actually succeeded Stateside, that would have sucked for Brian.

But then by Sunflower, BW was also being seceded in the producer's chair by Carl & Dennis in spots, but then it's the classic artist 'it's my song, we'll do it how I want' thing which isn't necessarily bad (although it did break up The Beatles). Whether he was secretly resentful (I doubt it), or genuinely happy to let his little brothers try their hand at it and helpful in the process (his backing vox all over Sunflower back this up) or just didn't give a crap who was producing his three year old demos and was just good with singing (cynical possibility) we'll never quite know, as he never gets into this sort of detail anymore. Nor does he have to.

I certainly don't think the 'sabotage' theory has much weight wrt Brian's retreat (like we say, he was still contributing 85% great material). It may just be apathy, which Sunflower did a little bit to assuage until it tanked.

We are also forgetting BW's other 'big idea' during this period - Mt. Vernon. Dotty, yes, but he wanted it to be the centrepiece of Holland. Maybe with stuff like that, CWTL, and Old Man River, he was still thinking in the Smile widescreen mode. Little segments linked by a central narrative or musical idea. And yet these never got off the ground - either apathy or boredom (CWTL, a little bit for Mt Vernon) or outright band rejection (Ol Man, and again a bit of Mt. Vernon). Brian Wilson might  not have been wholly interested in a simple 12 track album in those days! Sunflower shook him out of it a bit, possibly.


I'm just spinning the wheels here, tbh.

Good points, bossaroo. There are two of them that I do respectfully question, though. You said that Brian was "unable to really express himself fully anymore". See, I think he could. I listen to "Do It Again", "Time To Get Alone", "This Whole World", "All I Wanna Do", "Til I Die", "My Solution", "A Day In The Life Of A Tree", "Marcella", and others - and I hear music that was very complex, emotional, and fulfilling. I don't know specifically what battles Brian had to fight to get those songs recorded, but he got them done. While Brian wasn't operating on the same level as Pet Sounds or SMiLE just a few short years earlier, he was pretty damn close. Maybe it's just a question of quantity versus quality. Brian demonstrated that he "still had it"; I am just questioning why he didn't dedicate himself to doing more, stringing 10-12 of those type songs together into a complete album. It's not that the others were so prolific. Mike wasn't contributing much. Or Al. Carl started to write and, of course, Dennis. But, I would've loved to see Brian doing whole albums.

You also wrote that "the lower gruff voice that he employed on 15 Big Ones was completely intentional". I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I just have a different opinion, which has been discussed on numerous threads. I agree that Brian had issues with his earlier higher voice. However, I don't think it would get to the point that he would actively alter it to the extent that he ruined it. I believe Brian's voice was irreparably damaged by his cocaine use. I believe his vocal chords were scorched through intense use of cocaine. I really don't think Brian was aware at just how much damage he was doing to his voice. Smoking, even intensely, would take years to have the effect that Brian experienced. Brian's damaged voice happened almost overnight, or at least in the course of a year (1974-75). Smoking, even intensely, would take years to ruin a voice as strong as Brian's. And, there is still some falsetto in the subsequent albums, so Brian wasn't totally adverse to his high singing. Just my take...

hypehat, you made your post while I was typing my response to bossaroo. I get what you're saying. While a lot of it would serve as an explanation, I can't get beyong the power that Brian still yielded. I'm from the school of "Brian did what he wanted to do, how he wanted to do it, when he wanted to do it". I believe that was true until after Love You. When Brian produced (or lack of) Love You, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Never again would Brian be allowed to embarrass himself or the group. Brian would, from that point on, be monitored and not be allowed to do whatever he pleased. He would no longer have the final say.

But, I believe Brian still had the power from 1969-1976. If Brian compiled a group of 10-12 songs that he wanted to make an album out of (supplemented by a song or two from Dennis or the others), I can't see how it would be disallowed. hypehat, you said, " it may just be apathy". Yeah, it probably was. The never ending debate is why. We're talking about Brian Wilson here, and his composing music for the Beach Boys. That's what he did. That was his life. How could that undergo such a change in such a short period of time? Where it dried up to virtually 5-6 minutes of released music per year?

...While Brian wasn't operating on the same level as Pet Sounds or SMiLE just a few short years earlier, he was pretty damn close. Maybe it's just a question of quantity versus quality. Brian demonstrated that he "still had it"...
[/quote]

I understand your position, but I have to respectfully disagree with you. My understanding of 'having it' its both in terms of the quality of the songs made, the quantity delivered and the 'market' reaction to it. I know it sounds too business-like, but music-recording is an industry as any other. To be a leader in a market you have to be not only producing quality products (songs) in a sufficient frequency, but those products have to fulfill the demand expectations of the consumers of the market.

Why were the Beatles so successful? Because their musical evolution captured not only the self-grown expectations of the youth of the 60s, but also drove innovation with creative techniques and meaningful lyrics. Brian had this same 'perfect' marketing mix in the early years of the band: quality songs/albums, coming out on a healthy basis and that captured the essence of the California life-style with innovative techniques (vocal harmonies + pure rock n' roll).

Within this successful mix (what Mike called the formula), Brian was growing and the market was responding. Although not a number one, 'Pet Sounds' pushed the boundaries and it was understood by the youth. It paved the way for 'Good Vibrations', in essence, an optimized version of the 'formula' - companies continuously optimize their marketing mix as new products are delivered, its just the way it is.

But at some point during the recording of 'Smile', Brian not only lost the ability to connect all the song sections but also lost the 'market' meaning of the project. How was 'Smile' going to drive innovation and tackle the needs of the listeners? No one in the band had an answer for this and the easy way out was to 'down-size' the market presence of the company 'Beach Boys' and dedicate themselves to a smaller market segment they thought they could handle.

But as years went by, even that market segment started to diminish.

So although Dennis, Carl, (somehow) Bruce grew as songwriters, the market for their products within the 'Beach Boys' branding was over. My conclusion then is that Brian did not 'have it' after Smile and no one else was business-wise enough to rock the boat.

Hope the above makes sense. I'm open to criticism  :)

He just didn't have it in him at that time on a number of levels and for a number of reasons. There was never going to be a Brian-dominated album in the late 60s or early 70s barring a completely different set of circumstances. When he was actually up for it every once in a while, he really made it count, but there was not going to be album after album of mostly songs of that quality as he'd done from '61-'67.

I speak from personal experience - he simply didn't have it in him at the time. Left to his own devices, we probably wouldn't have heard a damn thing from the guy during these years if not for the prodding (and encouragement) of the band and the people around him. He wasn't incapable of writing happy music or never happy as the original post implies (depression etc. does NOT work that way), but the guy was clearly burnt the fuck out from all the work he'd done in the past and more and more was likely beginning to feel like a failure as an artist and as a person.

The Beach Boys are almost entirely unique in wilfully, deliberately burying some of their greatest work, much of it still to this day. That's pretty bloody annoying.

There's some very long posts in this topic, and that's what annoys me about the beach Boys - they make a lot of reading! (Albeit, very good reading ;D)

I understand the argument you're trying to make here, but I think that you're making a mistake by making a direct correlation to music and marketing. If all it took to be successful in the music industry was a good song or innovation, things would be very different.

You mention The Beatles success coming from their music, lyrics and innovative/changing sound, but when it came to their popularity, The Beatles were just as much about image as they were about music. They have Brian Epstein and support from EMI to thank for the their huge success. That's what, in reality, really separates them from their peers, The Beach Boys included. Since the Epstein Marketing Machine and EMI were fully supportive of the band and properly promoted their changes, the music buying audience followed suit (or loss of suits in this case :) ).

If the Beach Boys would have had the same kind of continued support and marketing that The Beatles did from their management and record company they could have kept on the charts. I really believe that their popular decline has less to do with Brian's abilities or will than it does with the point sometime in '66 or '67 that Capitol started to distrust their direction. Unfortunately though, an already sensitive Brian took the decline in popularity personally and it did have an effect on his output. That's where the mental illness part of it all comes into play; a person with healthier coping skills and self-worth may have been able to have a better perspective on the situation and still remained productive.

One thing that is being overlooked is the change from mono to stereo...that had to limit Briana tad as well.

Thanks for your opinion, Amanda, you raise a good point. The support of the label is key for a band to maintain a leading position in a market and there is no doubt that this was a factor in The Beatles success (along with having Epstein & Martin - what a team!).

But in the summer/fall of 1966, The Beach Boys WERE at the top of their game with Capitol. They had just launched 'Good Vibrations', number one everywhere, selling millions of copies. The label was supportive of Brian and that's why they continued financing the recording of 'Smile', even way after the problems started to arise later that year.

Although I can't deny that Brian's musical direction was difficult for Capitol to swallow, the key factor in losing their label's favor was the lawsuit. From then on the band fell into a limbo, that most certainly affected the positioning of their music in the market. If you add to this the fact that the quality of the music produced, although good to us (fans), was not the kind of innovation/subject matter that the market was expecting, the consequences are inevitable. Someone said in another thread that the band started to slip into nostalgia with 'Do it again'...I think they started to become 'irrelevant' in terms of their understanding of the youth's zeitgeist and their role in driving culture already with 'Smiley Smile' (regardless of how much I like some of the songs there).

But in a way The Beatles were a team, the Beach Boys were not. Whatever pressures from the label/market, they had more balls to fight back  ;D

And they were better looking. And did funnier interviews. And, as Schiaffino said, they truly were a team. The reason the Beatles were so successful is not down to the music only, but the high quality of their music did help. :wink

The Beatles were better looking? I must respectfully disagree. 

The lawsuit really was the straw that broke the camel's back. There was no going back for band/label relations after that.

That's OK with me. But here's my point: Beatles - three handsome guys and one with a big nose who is the salt in the soup. The Beach Boys - a short guy, a chubby boy, a balding guy, a huge guy with a crooked mouth and slightly insane look - and a surfer who was the only one the girls were after.

Not sure if the Beatles were better looking, but for sure they were better in promoting their 'hip' image. Although they retired from touring, their public appearances were always cool: trendy 60s fashion, haircuts/facial hair, awesome cars (John's phantom!)...etc. Plus they mingled with the cream of Swinging-London's cultural/musical/fashion jetset - they were perceived as part of the trend-setting leadership.

The Beach Boys never enjoyed the same acceptance in the States, among others:

• Unlike London-centric England, the US is huge and with multiple cultural centers (what's hip in NY is not necessarily hip in LA)
• Although musically appreciated by some critics, their lyrics' social relevance in the context of the 60s revolution were minimal
• US musical output was more extreme than the British - In the charts you could find both Bob Dylan's acoustic moaning with Jimmy Hendrix's electric inferno. The Beach Boys music in 1967-68 ('Friends") didn't fit anywhere in between...

In any case I don't want to focus too much in the comparison between both bands. This thread is about things we don't get about the Beach Boys and that really pisses us off...

For example, can anyone tell me who thought it was a great idea for them to look like this in the early 70s? Aside from a couple of very limited examples from 'Surf's Up', their musical output is not coherent with this rebel/post-hippie cool image...if at all...<sigh>....

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ghejKpHMtJI/SbD5G7nM1-I/AAAAAAAAAEo/IiIUvrTI4zQ/s400/beach+boys.jpg)

The pic you reference was from the Surf's Up era. For all of the people then who thought they were so un-hip, this pic along with the album, turned a lot of heads and made those hipsters take another look at the band. They finally looked "of the times".

That picture has Brian in his proto-bathrobe stage. ;D

That is a GREAT pic of the band! They look awesome (well, except for the weird bald guy at the back - who invited their dad along...?) Would you rather they were still wearing their striped shirts? And i think this look goes perfectly well with their '71-'73 output, don't really get the claims of discrepancy there.

I knew I was going to get in trouble with that pic... :P

First, a couple of clarifications: 'Surf's up' is in my top 5 BBs albums list. I think it was an amazing effort, a (for the first time) smart marketing move into getting the band (and Brian) to release the title song. And the tour to promote the album benefited from supporting acts like the Grateful Dead. So yes, it was the period they were the 'coolest' in years...but also proved to be the breaking point in their unity as a band. Let me explain that.

The previous post-'Smile' albums showed the individual growth of some of the band members in terms of musicianship and songwriting. But in a certain way the directions they were taking were still in alignment. Dennis made some amazing songs in 20/20, for example, and his style was the one (softly) challenging their overall approach. For all I love Carl, his songs/production were not departing drastically from the bands musical legacy. And needless to say, both Al and Bruce were playing it safe by all means.

But 'Surf's Up' began the cracking of this relative status-quo. Dennis had an impressive song inventory, that would fit perfectly with Jack's idea of the album...but his songs were not considered. Instead we got an extremely incoherent piece of recording, with stuff like 'Take a load of your feet' that...doesn't make sense....do you imagine this group of ragged wanna-be hippies playing that song live?

Or 'Disney Girls'?

-break- To be honest, this incredible ambiguity between musical direction & image, plus the incoherence in their songs' styles is what fascinates the most about the band -break end-

The follow-up albums showed the increasing division in song-writing unity. And even more increasing style ambiguities, with Mike looking like a cross-dresser whereas the rest looked like members of the Hell's Angels.

(http://i.ebayimg.com/t/2-german-clip-BEACH-BOYS-LIVE-70s-MIKE-LOVE-1-SHIRTLESS-LIVE-JARDINE-WILSON-/00/s/NjQwWDQ0Mw==/$%28KGrHqV,!qME88f7,I,+BPSiF-IGEQ~~60_35.JPG)



So, in a sense, that pic summarizes for me the different mentalities in the band members. If they wanted to make a social statement with 'Surf's Up', do it all the way! Everyone needs to look cool in the pic, hide Mike away and get Brian not to look like he came out of the shower.

And by the way, how this crazy bunch could still play 'Fun,Fun,Fun' during those days? Were their BBs greatest hits part of the setlists they played with the Grateful Dead? I mean...come on.... ::)

This is what I was driving at when I said 'apathy'. Runners, OnTheMoney

Well, when they played with the Dead at the Fillmore they did Good Vibrations and I Get Around and then performed Help Me, Rhonda with the Dead.  So the hits were still being played, but to look at setlists from that period, not nearly as many as before or later in the 70s (and forever more...)

Somebody hand Mike a baseball cap, please!!!

Thanks for the clarification! From the stuff they could have played from their back catalog, those songs are actually a cool choice...fitting nicely with the 'Surf's Up' mood IMO

Ok, here's come one big, big question that I've always had and that makes me really, really angry...

...how come it took sooooo long for Carl, Marilyn (or whomever) to press charges against Landy's 'management' of Brian? I know the trigger was the change in Brian's will back in the late 80s or early 90s, but come on, there was more evidence of negligence, illegal appropriation of work/financial resources, criticism of the given medical treatment, etc.

Was it because Carl was battling his own demons that it took so long for him to protect Brian? Was it because of the divorce and the long separation that Marilyn did not act? What about the rest of Brian's family (his Mother, his cousin - some Mike Love guy I believe)? No one cared?

Do you imagine how much more functional Brian would be today if he had been rescued earlier from that madman? If I see a picture of my brother/friend in a situation like this, damn it, I would react and get angryyyyy!!! >:(

(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/G-K-n5op9nI/0.jpg)

I know this post will stir 'heated' arguments, I would like it to be handled as respectfully as possible (in consideration to Brian!)

You're right, but keep in mind that these things are never easy. And for a while, I guess they were just happy to see Brian not trying to kill himself with drugs and alcohol. It took some time to see the ugly truth after the initial delight. And I'm sure Landy did his best to keep Brian's family from intervening. And Brian was a grown man, and if he didn't want out, it was hard to do anything about it. Luckily they finally did do something.

I mean, there are people joining creepy cults and abandoning their families every day. I'm sure their relatives aren't too happy about it, but whatcha gonna do?

Because Brian lost 130 lbs, was jogging 5 miles a day, was not abusing illegal drugs, released a critically acclaimed solo album (which many people on this board really like), was still occasionally working with The Beach Boys, appeared - appeared - to finally be living an adult, prosperous life, and, Brian's family didn't welcome the alternative which was having a conservator put in place, which is basically having Brian determined to be incompetent.

It took $$$$$$$$$$, changing the will and taking money away from family members to start legal proceedings.

Don't misunderstand my post. Landy caused irreversible damage to Brian which is a tragedy, a real tragedy.

I think Landy's secrecy around Brian 'helped' a lot - remember, Carl, Audree, Marilyn, Wendy and Carnie couldn't talk to Brian of their own accord during that period. Carl & Brian wouldn't have seen each other outside of a recording studio or a concert stage during choice moments in the second Landy era.

Yes, I agree with you. But its actually the family's inability to react to this secrecy that upsets me. But again, the Wilsons were a specially family and their relationships were equally non-standard.

Agree Sheriff! It all came down to the dirty money...once everyone saw Brian-generated money re-distributed to a third party, decisions were made.

Very, very sad  :(

Another thing I don't get and that although doesn't make me completely angry, it bugs me a lot...Dennis.

Like many other things with the Beach Boys, I have a love/hate relationship with Dennis & what he represents to the band. One thing I don't quite grasp is how his 'affairs with the wives' situation was handled. I know Mike's brother, Stan, got physical with Dennis over something related to this, but what about the rest of the band? Were they like 'oh, ok, sure, he's the hot guy in the BBs, he can do whatever he wants'?

I mean, for whatever liberal conceptions you may have of marriage/relationships/sex, a situation like this for Al, Carl, Brian gotta definitely suck.

Like I said before, I admire many things from Dennis, but this one particular element in his life...I don't understand. Was he an asshole? Should this affect my understanding of his legacy? Or was this just another of the many different dynamics in that big, weird family called The Beach Boys?

Oh Dennis...!

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7ddirexsk1qc88wyo1_500.jpg)

.

That's very exaggerated and I think they never doubted Brian in the sixties too much, it was more Van Dyke's lyrics. Mid seventies on if Brian was doubted that's understandable until Landy was gone.

Hi Mike, what exactly do you find exaggerated? Sorry, cant find the quote to your comment.

I guess they edited it out. Just a comment that the others didn't support Brian which is by and large not true. No band is going to agree 100 percent on every song, but The Beach Boys did overall go along with his wishes until the use of Surf's Up.

In the Brian Wilson Songwriter dvd (first period) there's an interesting comment from Bruce. He says that back in the day (pre-Smile), they didn't question Brian 'cause he was always right. He said it in a very sincere, nostalgic way.

Now after Smile was scrapped in 67, the rest of the bands had something to reference when 'questioning' Brian's decisions. Although to be honest, I think Brian's tight leading of the band was not the same post Smile - meaning, the challenging from the others was not met by fierce opposition from Brian. Just a thought, I sometimes think he just didn't care (that much) anymore.

If you look at the musical choices post Smile, who most likely drove the decisions:

• Smiley Smile: driven mainly by the need to fulfill contractual obligation, market need. Brian took the group into a less complex production, not necessarily out of conviction, but maybe because of need (fast recording sessions, reduce costs from session musicians) and Brian's lost of interest.
• Wild Honey: more 'bluesy'/'funkier' musical direction, opposite to the 'raw' sounds in Smiley. IMO this is the result of a band with no direction, where everyone was pulling different sides.
• Friends: It's a more coherent album in the sense of the waltz-feeling in so many songs. I believe Brian was in better shape then, but completely out of synch with market expectations. And I guess the rest of the band was as lost as Brian, so no case for opposition there.
• 20/20: If Wild Honey was everyone starting to pull in different directions, My God this is one of their most incoherent works ever. You got the nostalgic camp (Do it Again), the folky advocates (Cotton-Fields), the pseudo-rockers (Bluebirds) and the desperate recycling of Smile songs. Do you think Brian led this project? And if so, there was opposition to his musical direction? Wouldn't see how, since there was no musical direction at all.
• Sunflower: a group production, according to many in this board, and (coincidentally) their worst performing album charts-wise. I guess the band saw they needed a leader urgently and Brian was not the man - unfortunately.
• Surf's Up

: So the band got a leader, not one of their own, but someone from the outside - their new manager Jack R. I guess his decisions might have the begining of opposition, breaking of the band in different camps afterwards ('progressive' vs nostalgia) but in any case Brian was not the questioned leader.
[/list]

And anything after Surf's Up is a different story.

What do you think, Mike?

Brian did contend with second-guessing by his bandmates and received much less support in the late 60s and early 70s.

We know that songs like We're Together Again and Old Man River were not included on any official release in those days. Til I Die was certainly not embraced by the rest of the band. Songs like Mess Of Help and Sail On Sailor were completely overhauled lyrically. Mt. Vernon and Fairway was also rejected outright initially. He was shamed out of writing and producing for outside projects like Redwood.

Regardless of the reasons: erratic behavior, questionable material, or the group coming into their own as songwriters, the fact is that Brian did receive much more resistance in those days... something he had never had to deal with before.

One last thing is that Brian couldn't do stereo mixes without some sort of help. By 1968 mono was gone for LPs so that alone meant Carl had to get behind the boards more.

My book has a lot on this period. I can't reveal it all but the late sixties and early seventies were a much more up period for the band in the studio than the myth has it. Brian had problems, Brian sometimes lost interest, but the group offered him a hell of a lot of support which did help him. There wasn't this big move to take the band away or make Brian feel bad. By 1972 he was just in too bad a place to lead. The group did fight a lot, some opposed Brian's stuff , but most of that occurred from the mid seventies on. Even when Al did Cotton Fields again Brian sang on it so there wasn't this big us against Brian movement. The worst fights were caused directly from Landy and in the aftermath of those periods.

Again everyone dropped anything for Brian. They wanted him to work-very much so. They didn't creatively fight with Brian to any huge extent until the use of Surf's Up. Mike didn't like some of Parks lyrics but he didn't end the Smile LP, he didn't refuse to work on it, and he frankly did some excellent work for it. Brian Wilson was in a band, one that suppored him as much as any other band would have. Maybe more as they were family. Look what happened to Syd Barrett or Brian Jones. Brian Wilson in the late sixties and early seventies was still held in some form of awe, but he wasn't unassailable and it wasn't an atmosphere where he made the others feel like they couldn't say their opinion. All bands are going to disagree sometimes but Brian led the direction on all the albums through Friends and had a lot to do with how Sunflower came out too along with Carl and Dennis. The fights later on were bad enough, why do people need to see Brian as this victim as a Beach Boy? That didn't happen until 1976 when he was put back out on the road and in the studio when he was obviously not well. Also he did have to deal with dissention before Pet Sounds, Carl for one was very against the fuzzy tone Brian wanted him to use on Little Honda. Just because Brian was in better health in 1964 doesn't mean that he didn't sometimes have to stand up for his ideas.

Mike I really want your book to come out!!

So do I. I am planning to write an addition about this year and will start sending it around again early next year.

Yes Mike, really looking forward to reading your book.

Thanks for all the comments, Mike, I've learned a lot about Brian from you. To be honest I've based my previous posts on my own personal analysis, on how I believe things may have happened back then. So any lights into the actual events is always very, very enriching.

I have one point thought that I want to share with you & ask your opinion.

The Beach Boys were the greatest band in the world in the summer/early fall of 1966 - when 'Good Vibrations' hit the #1 spot in both sides of the Atlantic. They were bigger at that time than The Beatles, Stones, Birds, whatever. The band got to know what being top-of-the-world meant: money, girls, drugs, the works. Brian was the one who made that possible, Dennis once said something along those lines.

You got very competitive commercial people like Mike Love in the band. You have also people like Dennis who don't want loose the perks from being a rock star. Meaning you have a band accustomed to success, being great and respected.

Then 'Smile' is scrapped, the band falls from grace. Regardless of how much we like some of the songs after 1967, none was ever regarded as highly both commercially and artistically as 'Good Vibrations'. Even 1971's version of 'Surf's Up', although the most attractive thing the band had put out by then, didn't bring them back the momentum they once had in the mid sixties.

So, in that context, I find it hard to believe the band was so cohesively behind Brian. The fall was very, very steep - by late 1967 the band was no longer relevant charts-wise. 'Friends' which you said was personally led by Brian, failed miserably in the charts; 'Sunflower' did even worst. Brian was not delivering the goods required for them to have that position of power again.

And power, once you've felt it, had it, it's very difficult to let go.

The rest of the band did attempt in writing, none to the level of Brian's heyday. That was a desperate attempt to get things back in track. So they chose to play live intensively, change their image - all things without Brian's involvement. This was in the early 70s, gained some respect, had some sell-out concerts and eventually via nostalgia got their only #1 album.

They gave the reigns back to Brian...what happens? Everything blows up in flames again.

I sincerely admire Brian Wilson. I think he should have been left alone, not forced to record/produce/tour after 'Smile'. He was pushed, coerced, blackmailed, fired from the band, bullied in so many emotional ways. That pisses me off.

The Beach Boys weren't bigger than The Beatles. I personally think his stepping down from his position as leader of the band is due to his own mental problems, and no one else is to blame for it.

If we take music critics as a point of reference in evaluating the relevance of a particular band at any given time in history, then British media (Melody Maker?) considered The Beach Boys bigger than The Beatles in late 1966.

In my very own, personal opinion, I think Brian Wilson was the most amazing musician of the 20th century - even more due to the impact of his work in such a short period of time. He made the band relevant in the 60s, his decline led to the band's irrelevance.

We shouldn't


This was not a case of music critics deciding it - it was a reader poll in NME that happened to be taken while Good Vibrations was a monster smash single and The Beatles hadn't had a new single out in months. It was more of a measure of what happened to be really popular that month, but Beach Boys fans love to make great hay out of it, despite the fact that it doesn't really tell us anything about the overall popularity of either band for anything other than a month in 1966. Furthermore, The Beatles won the poll for Best British Vocal Group while The Beach Boys won for Best World Vocal Group, so it's hardly a case of the Beach Boys beating out the Beatles.

If you go back to some of the pop music press in fall 1966, there was a sense that the Beatles had in fact broken up. Short of anything official, in fall 1966 John was off filming a movie, Paul was padding around London's art circles, and they had stopped touring.

In those times when information took longer to reach the masses of fans, many fans saw more signs pointing to a fractured Beatles than to a group which would be back with new material.

Brian's timing, then, was *perfect* to release Good Vibrations. There was a void among fans looking for new music that his record filled. Unfortunately one cannot control such things, as The Beatles proved by hitting the US just as the US was coming out of its mourning period after JFK and looking for that something to fill the void.

Brian has said that Good Vibrations was the top - and that he felt he couldn't top it. And he never did. But I also think part of what he implied which no one seems to read in between the lines is that he just happened to be lucky enough in a cosmic/fate kind of way to put that record out at exactly the right time in history, when he was smack-dab in the middle of an artistic Renaissance happening in Los Angeles months before the rest of the nation(s) caught on, he was surrounded by the right people, and he could release a record that 6 months prior may not have had the same impact or success.

And that uncontrolled cosmic/fate thing just happened to shine on the Beatles in June 1967 when their newest release just happened to coincide with the beginning of summer, a summer that through no intent or fault of their own would come to be known as "The Summer Of Love" and where their album Sgt. Pepper would be considered one of the primary soundtracks of that time.

The Beatles did what Brian had done with his revolutionary single in Fall 1966 - they filled the void and provided the audience exactly what they were looking for to fill it. And things like that are pure luck, or some form of fate stepping in and deciding history.

So the Beatles vs. Beach Boys and who-bettered-who polls perhaps only exist as a snapshot of a very active time in pop culture. I don't give them much weight in the long term, only to say this is the effect timing had on both bands/artists who were creating music which perfectly fit that time.

Reviving this thread to accommodate for things that also disturb me from the band - didn't know where else to put them.

Ok, someone help me out here. The more I try to understand it, the less I get it and the more disturbed I become. The song 'Little Tomboy'...first, who wrote those lyrics? second, what in the name of the Lord was he thinking of? third, who thought this was a good idea to be recorded and released in a BB album? and fourth, who let Brian 'promote' this song on a live interview? see link below, starting on 0:32 mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_n0ITu2qJU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_n0ITu2qJU)

I know some will say its part of where Brian's mind was at the time. My question then, was his mind in a completely sexually deranged state? If so, whatever, he was sick and had a doctor's note. But why, why no one else in the band vetoed this song???

Its not even a good song. It doesn't add a thing to the band's catalog. Its not experimental, nor part of a grandeur oeuvre - as 'Pick you up" was in 'Love you', although I have my reservations about that song too. Was it composed around the same time? It makes the whole thing even more disturbing.

Can someone help me understand this?

Brian wrote the lyrics. Clearly not checking his privilege.  :lol

I've always wondered why no one vetoed the song either. However, I personally think its crazy catchy and though I'm not fond of the lyrics I am fond of the way Brian sings, "Heyyy little tomboy, I've had my eye on you thinking what a girl you could be.." gosh, I love that gruff 70's Brian voice so much!! I often like to pretend they were just taking the piss and the song is deliberately supposed to piss people off, so if I approach the song like that (it helps a lot that I'm a fan of the band/duo Ween haha) it's easier to digest.

Though, on a much more sober note, I do have a FtM transgender friend who I've shared a lot of Beach Boys music with and I hope to god he never hears that song. :/

Not that I was expecting such things but I was a bit disappointed that The Beach Boys did not work with any or all of the following directors when it came to music videos from TWGMTR: Spike Jonze, Mark Romanek, Michel Gondry. I'm crossing my fingers that if they do another album that they'll get one of those guys or someone with equal talent. Beach Boys music videos are kind of 'meh' so it would be nice if a band that has put out so many great & memorable albums as they have might put out at least one great & memorable music video.

I've always wondered if the lyrics to "Hey Little Tomboy" were just straight-up misogynistic, or Brian satirizing gender roles and identity. But knowing his state of mind in late 1977...

Oddly enough, I have a MtF transgendered friend who actually loves the song, so who knows?

Life is too short.  If one goes back to where the Boys were from an inspirational standpoint, you'll probably find thematic stuff, taken in a temporal (time) context.  In the 1940's, pre and post, up to the later 60's and 70's gender roles were pretty fixed.  There was little harm in being a "tomboy" climbing trees, playing baseball, and engaging in sports and activities that we now regard as gender-free.  I think of Women's Hockey, Basketball, etc., which "have come a long way, baby."

Behaviors that might be construed as inappropriate now, as well as concepts of parenting have evolved and changed, but, that "rear view mirror" when we think the "grass was greener" and discussed recently with Disney Girls and Patti Page, is merely a time chunk that is like a rite of passage from yesteryear, and my impression is that Brian is not misogynistic, nor sexist, but looking in a retro rear view mirror with a sort of nostalgia, to a "goddess in the making," and not some evil values-based negative connotation of young women.  There is a sort of timidity, I find endearing, even, in his approach, and his enamorment towards this young lady.  I like "The Waltz" as well, which is also a look back, and whose lyrics are, also, "fixed-in-the-moment." (Gettin' in Over My Head) They represent the artist's point of view. 

There is always a danger in analyzing a point of view from a context of time that no longer exists.  Young girls are encouraged to fully participate in sports and other activities which renders a term such as "tomboy" a nullity and no more threatening, but that "dance" among the genders remains but just with an updated terminology.  I like that song a lot, and I'm a feminist, and, don't find it insulting or demeaning whatever.  And find it a sincere reflection on that era's "Art of Courtly Love." (from the Middle Ages).   ;)

That was a fantastic read and gives me quite a bit to think on. Well done, filledeplage.

I agree that "Tomboy" is catchy as heck.

The song isn't really that creepy on it's own, it's the fact that a bunch of hairy dudes in their late 30s are singing it. If the song had been sung by David Cassidy or another much younger performer it wouldn't seem so strange. Brian never lost the mentality of writing for a teenage audience. Phil Spector was called the "Tycoon of Teen" and depended on that demographic to buy his records. It's a songwriting formula.

"Let Us Go On This Way" and "Roller Skating Child" are both sung from the perspective of a teenaged high school student, and sound just as odd coming from the mouths of men pushing 40.

Thanks for those kind words.   ;)

I believe the terms FtM and MtF are considered offensive by many trans* people now, because they imply that at one point they 'were' one gender and 'are' now the other, and the non-offensive terms are AFAB and AMAB (Assigned Female/Male At Birth).

As for the song... well, one can argue that it was intended innocently, but the fact remains that it's one of a whole bunch of songs around the same themes from the band in the mid-70s (Schoolgirl, Lazy Lizzie and possibly others) and the impression given is creepy as hell, at least to me.

FTLOG! What next?

(For the love of god)

All of the transgender people I know use FtM/MtF, I've never even heard of the AF/MAB label. Nearly all of them are younger than their mid-20s, so maybe that has something to do with it?

Brian was obsessed with youth to a disturbing degree, it's a theme that underlies his entire career. The lyrics of "When I Grow Up" are case in point. Or the pied piper talking about wanting to "know kids", which is something Brian seemed to say routinely in interviews, such as the one on Ready Steady Go where he says he wants to see as many kids as possible while in England.

I think he was just afraid of losing touch with his muse. It's a fear that a lot of artists have worn on their sleeves going back hundreds of years, the fear of being abandoned by genius, of not being able to accomplish still greater things due to the onset of middle age. The "tomboy" has appeared as a motif in literary works to that end, notably Goethe's Mignon, whose influence on writers of the 19th and 20th centuries was traced in a book on that subject called "Mignon's Afterlives" I believe if you're interested.

Brian wrote a song about a tomboy because the psychological type of the tomboy mattered to him in his understanding and interpretation of his own life. He called that type by the name he understood it to have, tomboy, but I think the figure behind that name goes much deeper than the cloistered world of contemporary gender politics, to the idea of the androgonyte in alchemy and various esoteric traditions.

What you said is interesting. And I have not read Goethe, unfortunately.  But I just pulled the lyrics and find them more in the Pygmalion/My Fair Lady in the context of a more chivalrous approach.  No more skateboards...baseball mitt...and the need to "prove oneself"as it were.  Girls don't need to prove themselves as they have in the past.  The suffragettes of yesteryear, the girls who ran marathons in baseball caps to hide their gender, and women who entered politics, in a man's world. (off my soapbox!)  ;)

It appears more the context of the "provider" - and not denying the obvious skill sets that a young lady would need to master; the skateboard (sidewalk surfing as it was often called) and baseball mitt, perhaps with the young lady as a pitcher, catcher or metaphorically playing the field (the outfield!)

If your market and formula is youth, no less than teachers, you need to stay in touch with what young people are interested in, how they view world events, etc., and I tend to look more straight forwardly at the lyrics say, rather than reading into a subtext of 40 layers, and affix a 2013 lens to a 1970's song.  Brian would be prudent to seek out the opinions and chatter of young people.

It is more than great that young people have discovered the timelessness of this music, whether it's a product of parental brainwashing (my instance) or in a music theory course, that has finally caught up to the 50 year quality product and cultural phenomenon it always has been, in the context of the Sleeping Giant.

The other factor is that Brian was writing after the end of the Vietnam war, and, in post war euphoria, and the rediscovery of America's Band, and was maybe looking to offer more light-hearted fare after the decade of serious, often depressing, and multi-purpose protest music.  My take is that this is being over-analyzed.   But I always thought of MIU predominantly, as a "goddess" ode album. JMHO

Only Brian knows what his vision was for the song.  ;)

sorry for not replying back guys, all your comments are really interesting. cant really comment myself now - busy at work.

but so far I still dont understand why no one vetoed that awful song.

'Hey Little Tomboy' would have been a fine addition to the 'Surfer Girl' or 'Little Deuce Coup' lps. It's not the song itself -- it's the context (BB now being in their mid- thirties, and 1978 being far from the more innocent days of, say, 'Be True to Your School').

I'm just talking here about the MIU version of the song -- the Adult Child version is completely indefensible  and outrageous ( so outrageous that it makes me laugh -- am I evil for doing so?) :tiptoe

Or Love You. Could you imagine this trio:

Roller Skating Child -> Hey Little Tomboy -> I Wanna Pick You Up

Dear God... :o

Someone call 911  :lol

Hey Little Tomboy is a retro song.  And maybe anachronistic for the late 1970's. 

Does a songwriter have to write in a politically correct formula?  That would chill creativity.  Brian is telling a story of courtship from a bygone era. 

The audience seems to love the bygone era songs.   ;)

Although I respect your opinion, I have to disagree. I don't think this is a retro courtship song, I sincerely believe its a lyrical manifestation of some strange sexual repression existing in Brian's child-like mindset at the time. Just read these words:

Hey, little tomboy, I've had my eyes on you
Thinkin' what a girl you could be
Mmm, I smell perfume, let's try some cut-off jeans
Look at all the changes I see

This is clearly about a desire for making someone change into a sexual fantasy that the writer is having.

I'm gonna teach you to kiss
You're gonna feel just like this
They're doin' it all over the world

I don't interpret this as 'romancing' a lady in any way. This is about a very young girl, who acts boyish-like and that our 35-yr-old writer sees as an object of desire. More in line with 'Lolita', but certainly with less lyrical sophistication.

In Brian's defense, he was out of it. He could have written/produced music about any nonsense (cooking bread, for ex) and he'd be understood. What baffles me  is how this was published and released to the general public. No lawyer raised the concern 'eh, guys, don't you think this might be interpreted the wrong way? you know, late 30s bearded fellows talking about turning a girl into a woman...no? no one?'.

Maybe I'm making too much of it. Maybe no one cared about this song when it was released (no one cared for the band much back then). But looking back into their legacy, for me this is a dark, utterly disturbing moment.

.

Reasonable minds can differ.  I agree with that.  But, first, my credentials are not in psychology or psychiatry.  I would not try to take "a trip through someone's cranium" as a fan, with absolutely limited info. 

Why would a lawyer have to raise a concern?  Brian's work is protected under copyright and intellectual property, and it does not "shock the conscience," I don't think.  If you are suggesting that it is pornographic, the US Supreme Court cannot define what it is, but, they have said in the past, that, "one knows it when one sees it."

Now, a step further.  It seemed in those post 1970's war years 15 Big Ones era, etc., that there was a retro look back in an attempt at nostalgia.  Hey Little Tomboy has always reminded me of a more orchestrated structure, similar to work from the early 60's.  It seems immaterial that they had beards, any more than an analogy to what the Rolling Stones were doing as compared to the Boys.  Attempts were made to censor lyrics during the early days of rock and roll. 

Writers can often close their eyes and mentally step back in time, to re-experience an event, in order to use it for some creative purpose. 

Imagine if you will, looking at someone 's picture of a relative, now old, when they were young, and saying, how "hot" they must have been back-in-the-day.  Or, looking at an awkward 12 year old who looks at the tomboy next door, looking forward (not backwards, as in the vintage photo) and projecting what a "doll" she will be when she is a few years older. 

This guy doesn't impress me with any untoward behavior, and may have something to look forward to, wait for, etc., and I guess I'm not reading predatory aspirations into that song. Having seen Brian in that video, it impresses me as very innocuous. 

^
I agree that minus the leching and leering bits in the Adult Child version of the song, the singer-persona of the MIU version can be interpreted not as the 35-year old Brian Wilson perving after an underage girl, but rather as a teenage boy addressing a girl his own age. In fact, that's how I interpret the song.

Hey, Chuck Berry recorded 'Sweet Little 16' when he was 31. I assume folks in 1958 heard it as a teenage boy addressing a teenage girl...

Re-read the "Sweet Little 16" lyrics. the age of the song's narrator is irrelevant.

But not to, say, Little Queenie. "She's too cute to be a minute over seventeen..."