The Smiley Smile Message Board

I published parts of this interview in The Beach Boys In Concert book but the book had so much stuff in it that it was never discussed.  But, I find this interview, from the August 25 1967 Honolulu Advertiser,  fascinating. 
          While rehearsing at the HIC Arena Brian explained to reporter Wayne Harada that he was appearing with the band because “We wanted to do another live album where the mood’s good.  And it’s great here.  We’re calling it Lei’d in Hawaii.”  Brian admitted, “I had a particular insecurity about traveling, so I stopped doing the live shows with the group.  Now that I’m back again, it’s a bit frightening... I think rock n’ roll-the pop scene- is happening. It’s great. But I think basically, the Beach Boys are squares. We’re not happening-but we’ve been so lucky in the past. It doesn’t hurt now. We get enjoyment in our recordings. I write most of the songs and I’ve taken some drugs, which have opened my mind to a wider range of musical creativity. I write anywhere, usually at home. I don’t write about drugs and those things, though. As I said, we’re not a hip group. We’re pretty square.”
            Only three months after the end of Smile, Brian expresses both love and, to my eyes, resentment towards the group.  In a 1966 interview that I included in the book told Peter Jones of Record Mirror, “I know that in some circles we’re not regarded as all that ‘hip’ or ‘in.’ This is maybe, because, we haven’t just arrived from nowhere with something new with a new label. But I don’t care too much what anyone says, so long as I know I’m staying ahead- right up to the limit of my present capabilities.  I don’t put out anything I don’t respect. And I know for sure that the Beach Boys brought something new into rock ‘n’ roll.” But a year later-he is adamant that the Beach Boys are "square" and "not happening."  Is this just plain speaking or is there resentment about the Beach Boys decision to question and ultimately move away from the more avant-garde direction he was going in with Van Dyke?  Hard to say.

I think these are all intriguing observations. Personally I feel that the stuff they did around that time was so great because it was somewhere in between downright square and playfully avant-garde without any of the music sounding forced. I adore the Surf's Up album they did a couple of years later but that one strikes me as a somewhat self-conscious (although very inspired!) attempt at being hip while trying to shake off the "square" thing.

Interesting. I'm not picking up resentment toward anyone or anything. It seems to me he is just recognizing that he and the Boys and what he writes are out of fashion or "not happening".

The comment "It doesn’t hurt now" sort of suggests that he still didn't care what other people thought at that point.

I don't know if I would call it out and out resentment, but it also doesn't sound like just an observation.  At this point Brian was still in the game (and contrary to some popular opinion, he would be for the next few years), but he had to be pretty frustrated with the direction things were going with the Boys.  A lot of drama was going down and clearly he had a lot on his mind.

Do you really not think he wasn't annoyed/embarrassed by the band's image/perception at the time? That he was perfectly okay with it, and that his attempts to make a groundbreaking, psychedelic album was not at least partially an attempt to change/evolve that image?

You guys are reading the whole things right. He's resigned to not being the new band and that they are thought of as square in some circles but THEY get enjoyment from their recordings of the songs Brian writes with his opened up mind with his wider range of creativity and his staying ahead right up to the limit of his capabilities.

Also "But I don’t care too much what anyone says, " and "I don’t put out anything I don’t respect". There is your answers to what happened with SMiLE and H&V and Smiley Smile.

Not a guy being regretful or compromising for anyone imo.

"It doesn't hurt now" - so it did hurt in the past?  Makes me think perhaps it does still hurt.  I assume he's referring to the Beach Boys getting grief for their out of date stage outfits and stage show, as related by Dennis whose comments inspired the final lyrics of Surf's Up.

Rock and roll and pop is happening and is great but the Beach Boys aren't happening they're square (and are not so great, by implication).  They enjoy their recordings Brian has used drugs and has wider musical creativity but he doesn't write about "drugs and those things" (the new drug inspired psychedelic avant garde rock music) because the Beach Boys aren't hip.  Sounds like theire is definitely regret and sadness but also resignation that he was not able to bring the Beach boys into the forefront of rock music as he had planned with Smile.

That little bit does put a bit of a different spin on it-"It doesn't hurt now". Maybe it did hurt quite a bit around the time that Pet Sounds was completed, SMiLE (as we all know) was going to be the big push towards getting the Boys to be viewed in a different light. Once it fell apart, during that time frame between SMiLE ending and Smiley beginning, Brian came to the conclusion that he talks about here, which is "screw it, we'll just be who we are, and if the people dig it, they dig it. If they don't, tough sh*t".

I've never read this before, good find!

"We’re not happening-but we’ve been so lucky in the past. It doesn’t hurt now. We get enjoyment in our recordings." Or does it mean them being square for his not writing drug songs doesn't hurt "now" because they had so much luck before and they still get enjoyment from their recordings?

Brian was trying to convince himself that everything was ok, that he could be cool with their stagnant image, etc. But it's pretty obvious he's trying to save face, and trying to create a reality which hurts less than the actual reality of the time. Brian's always been one for escapist behavior. It's not dissimilar to denial, much like the act of posters refusing to think he could possibly have harbored the tiniest ounce of resentment towards his bandmates, especially his cousin. And I'm sure the resentment went both ways, no matter if it wasn't always at surface level. To think this is hogwash is to be an ostrich with one's head in the proverbial sand, IMHO.

Ian - any more interviews you came across while working on the book that you didn't have room for reprinting?  I'd love to read more especially around the 1966-1969 time frame!

IMHO, he isn't even referring to himself in the "hurt" quote except as a member of the "we"/"Beach Boys", which is the context within which the "It doesn’t hurt now" sits in the middle. It doesn't hurt the group now, with being "square" the "it". WE'RE not happening but WE'VE had a lot of luck in the PAST, being square doesn't hurt the group NOW, and the WE get a lot of enjoyment in OUR recordings .

It doesn't hurt now  - to me is a very different meaning than it doesn't hurt us (the group) now - if he meant the latter he would have said it that way.  So I beg to differ.

I think I'm with Cam on this one. It doesn't hurt to be considered squares now - we've had an amazing run of success, much more than virtually any other rock and roll group has ever had, so we are now content to just make our albums and have less success with them, sales wise. Had our career always been the way it is now, we'd have been hurt by it - both emotionally and financially (maybe he means one or the other or both) but now it doesn't affect us as much (remember this was only 1967 -- just the beginning of the downward sales spiral).

Again this is just my interpretation. Now, that said, whether he is being honest or not is a whole other issue. Brian (as well as Dennis for that matter) was always walking the line between wanting to do things his way and wanting to please people and hear that he was doing a good job. It's hard to imagine these two seemingly opposite and competing feelings going on in one person but hey, people are complex, especially people like Brian Wilson. For such a long time, Brian could get away with doing things his way and being very, very successful at it, being told he was a genius, etc.  By 1967, things were starting to change.

They also had just had one of the most famous hippest hits of Pop history and had been voted hip above all others (including the Beatles) plus they had just recorded (arguably) but not released yet one of the most avant garde albums of all time and had had a #12 with a song in the style of their previous hippest hit. It seems to me Brian is, as he implies to me, not concerned with what some others think on the strength of their mentioned past and current accomplishments in which he seems to take pride.

Also, hadn't H&V just/was-about-to-have risen to number 12 on Billboard at the time of the interview and might have been still on its way higher as far as Brian knew at the time.

The most amazing thing for me is the short time span: i.e. how quickly (1 year) they developed a concioisness that they weren't hip anymore. Not too long before they had their last hit, but yet there is this unhip consciousness in mid 1967. Must have been heartbreaking.

Well,  the switch seems to be that Brian goes from commenting on others who think The Beach Boys are square to saying himself that they are square.

I'm also curious about the Good Vibrations single. Yes, it was a huge smash and to my ears it sounds as hip as any of the music really swings from that period does. But did it connect with the hip crowd totally? After all, the #1 songs from around that time included Cherish, Last Train to Clarksville, Poor Side of Town, Winchester Cathedral, and I'm a Believer. The Monkees were probably the biggest selling act during this period. Good Vibes was definitely a trippy piece of psych pop, but was it perceived that way by the hip community? I'm asking because I genuinely don't know. Heroes and Villains likewise, one would assume, would have been appealing to a hip crowd but Hendrix dismissed it as psychedelic barbershop, which may be indicative of how the hip crowd, particularly in America saw the band. In England, surely, (where they beat the Beatles in a poll) it was a somewhat different story but at that point at least it seemed to be the American audience that Brian was thinking about.

If Brian was just fine and dandy with being at the helm of a group that he now considered 'square' (rather than the object of his greatest aspirations), why take his name off the producer's credit when we know he still did the producing for Smiley Smile?    For me, the evidence that he was psychologically distancing himself from the other Beach Boys post-SMiLE was already evident; this only confirms it further. As others have said, the contrast with the way he had talked about his group only a year before is staggering.

This is a question that is maybe worthy of a separate discussion/thread entirely!  :)

I'll start by name-checking Tower Of Power and asking "What Is Hip?" For the whole discussion you need to relate it specifically to the time period, what had happened prior to Fall 1966 in popular culture and what immediately followed into 1967.

California Hip was different than New York Hip, which was different from London Hip, et cetera. There was an undercurrent common to each and every, yet what and who was considered hip and what comprised all of that was noticeably different in each of those regions which were at that time the epicenters of popular music and popular culture in general, minus a few notable examples like Motown, Stax, etc. But the trends which would become mainstream were bubbling under in each of those areas far before the mass media amplified them.

Look at Hendrix - The US had ignored him more or less, yet he was the toast of London among the elite young musicians. He was basically unknown until Monterey Pop, and even as word spread he wasn't a well-known name. The Monkees ironically invited him to tour with them that summer, a move which was eventually ill-fated but which also spoke to the scene in general.

Hendrix's comment on Heroes, I've said on this board in much more detail, was I believe a misnomer and perhaps taken too far out of the context in which he made the remark. He didn't dig the Heroes single and said so. Yet he would in the next few years go on to build up and use his own personal studio where he and Eddie Kramer could do to the guitar and studio production what Brian was trying to do with voices and studio production - totally redefine and reshape what was possible in a recording studio, and how many ways accepted sounds could be transformed into things no one had heard nor knew was possible outside perhaps avant garde circles.

They were chasing versions of the same goal. So what did Hendrix call Heroes, a "psychedelic barbershop quartet"...he also said of The Monkees "Oh God, I hate them. Dishwater." Yet the Monkees in summer of '67 essentially invited him on board to tour on a private jet with the band who was among the hottest and most successful that year, and by most accounts they had a good time together, hanging with Stephen Stills among others for the short-lived experience. The Monkees' crowd wasn't in tune with Hendrix, they parted ways, simple as that.

So was Hendrix's Monkees comment saying they were "dishwater" perhaps taken to mean more than what or why (or from where) he was making the comment? I think so. Plus, Hendrix's word didn't quite carry the weight it would among "hip" musicians later simply because outside of London, his name didn't carry much weight.

The Monkees - Great example. Their TV show was designed a certain way from the outset. It would look mainstream, it would look corny and hokey and "safe", yet there were scenes deliberately included to shatter the walls of convention and open up a bit of what was going on under the media radar to the mainstream "kids" watching (and their parents who quite possibly had no idea what was going on half the time).

Inside jokes about drugs, a group of young men living on their own in a beach house with no parents or Dad-Mom figures in sight to help them work through life's problems, long hair, scenes that would break the imaginary wall of sitcom writing where they'd totally interrupt the scene at random times to make comments or walk off the set...really unique and actually pretty subversive stuff for mid-60's network TV.

The hip folks watching I think were the ones who "got" what the show was doing under the surface. Those artists, musicians, writers, etc who went on the record prove that the message beyond the feel-good kids' TV comedy audience saw something between the lines, and perhaps recognized this show was trying to break down some of those walls of convention that were firmly in place for what could or could not be done on TV.

Now factor in Good Vibrations and when that record came out.

That, too, broke down walls for what could and could not be done on a pop record. The Beatles on Sullivan, 2/64, guys with long(er) hair singing and playing songs they wrote themselves, record audiences watched. Bob Dylan, "Like A Rolling Stone", put elements of Beat poetry and free verse into a single with a rock band backing and catchy chorus hook, and have it run a few minutes longer than what was conventional in a pop singles market. Rock music for the masses, yet with that undertone of kicking down the door so others could follow.

Once you have that mainstream success with something unconventional, or so new it can't be labeled, it opens the door wide enough for others to get the chance to do similar things in their own music. Beatles on Sullivan, record audiences watching, Dylan's "Rolling Stone" single, obscure poetry set to a rock backing with a radio-friendly hook...

...Good Vibrations making a pocket symphony with distinct movements that each had a sonic stamp of its own, using a half-dozen studios to record the song's in sections rather than a start-to-finish performance, using bizarre instruments and sounds, singing about the semi-psychedelic notion of vibrations, good vibes/bad vibes, etc...

It went to #1. There are quite a few comments already on the record from those we'd consider "hip" in the music business of 1966 where they said this was a pretty monumental record that opened up some doors via its success. Some of them also say the success may have trapped Brian in some ways, and Brian himself has said "how do you follow up something like Good Vibrations?".

But consider what records that came before Good Vibrations had used anything like the sounds and structure of that record. A pop single with distinct movements which developed and morphed section-to-section. It was psychedelic before mainstream media types could say what exactly that meant, and before many media types even had a clue what that meant.

Remember, 1966 - You still wore a coat and a tie to the office or the newsroom, if you were 22 or 52. By the end of 1967, there were kaftans, sandals, long hair and beards, paisley, Nehru jackets, whatever the case among journalists and media offices. The times changed that fast.

And like Dylan, like Beatles on Sullivan, someone had to kick down that door of convention to let others come in, and demonstrate that *we* (and I use that term deliberately) can get these things we're all talking about into the public mainstream and have it be *successful* commercially. Reach our audience, get it started so it grows and grows.

Unique to 1966 as a notion? Nah. But the timing was such that it all came together through various media to get what was being talked about if not planned in the major pop-culture opinion-shaping markets of Hip like NY, LA, London, etc into the mainstream discussion. What better than a hit TV show, a hit single, etc. Monkees, Dylan, Beatles, Hendrix...

...and Good Vibrations through the musical mind of Brian Wilson, who set to music that brief enough inkling of the scene which was spawning all of these mindsets and ideas to become a #1 record and have millions buying and singing along to a pop record that was actually more subversive and more packed with subliminal meanings (especially musical) than many singing along and buying realized at the time.

I think the hip people knew what they were hearing and appreciated it for what it was and what it was trying to do if not overtly than by design and sound. Many of them have said as much in interviews. It was that #1 record success that said "the door is being held open, we can do this too" and that's exactly what they did. "Good Vibrations" can have all kinds of weird-ass sounds and psychedelic undertones and become a #1 record? Let's do it too. Check 1967 for more proof of this.

Good Vibrations was cutting edge stuff in Oct 1966. But then the Doors, Jefferson Airplane, the Grateful Dead, Hendrix, Cream and the Velvet Underground put out lps in the 1st months of '67. And it wasn't just the sound of the records, it was the image and the attitudes of the bands.

Even dope-smoking folk rock acts like Donovan, the Mamas and the Papas and the Lovin' Spoonful started looking square...

As I wrote in the book, at that August 1967 appearance they were still wearing striped shirts and they were only just beginning to take control of album covers and packaging. Basically the substance (music) was still great but they didn't pay enough attention to image.  This was something the British bands were much more attuned to.

The main point I was making was that Brian seemed to lose all interest in the bbs by 1971 and even in 1968 and 69 he was trying to make something happen with other artists.  So I am wondering if that discontent wasn't already evident in that interview. In the 1993 documentary with don was he said the beach boys wanted to make different music from him and that it created a rift

I got sidetracked with the GV stuff, but this is what I also picked up in the interview and wanted to discuss a bit more.

I'd take it a step further and suggest we not only could detect some of the discontent in the interview, but we could all but see (and hear) it play out in the events of Fall 1967, in other words the 2-3 months of Brian's music-making activities that immediately followed this interview.

A sampling of some things he recorded or worked on that we have proof of via recordings and session sheets Fall '67: Cool Cool Water, Been Way Too Long, Darlin (Redwood), Time To Get Alone (Redwood), Surf's Up (solo Brian performance).

Of those particular 5 tracks, 4 of them have either direct Smile roots or a direct and unmistakeable Smile-era influence in sound or construction. Darlin was targeted for Danny Hutton.

After the Hawaii re-rerecords, a new Beach Boys single was needed. Thus, "Wild Honey" was recorded as the first major post-Hawaii song project that fall. R&B sound, "home studio" vibe with that piano, but the main hook was a Theremin - that was no coincidence. This was a single, go back to GV for another Theremin-based hook right out of the gate.

But after that, I'd argue the most musically complex recording and the song/session requiring the most effort from Brian as writer-producer-arranger was "Time To Get Alone", what I still consider one of the highlights of his entire career. There were the little sonic nods to Smile, like the discordant string arrangement that went from bizarre sweeps and whines to beautiful cohesion in the same section of music. A triumphant song and section featuring orchestral overdubs, and the usual "Brian chords" that made it unique. And a polished studio sound that didn't have the home-brew vibe that marked anything the Beach Boys released in the latter half of 1967.

It was "studio Brian" again, for lack of a better description, going for full arrangements and a developed, high-fidelity production, only it wasn't done for or with the Beach Boys.

Then it eventually turned into a debacle as The Beach Boys did not want Brian working with Redwood, they wanted him to produce their next album.

What exactly was that next album? Originally it was going to cull live tracks recorded in '66 and '67 (notably Hawaii which was re-recorded as soon as they got home from Hawaii), and have those live tracks mixed in with the new stuff. But wasn't that sort of a half-assed concept in some ways? Beach Boys old hits recorded (or re-recorded) 'live' padding the album of new material. A compromise? A masterplan all along? Topic for debate. But either way, that original concept of tacking on live material from several shows in the vaults shows perhaps less effort and enthusiasm than the few minutes of beauty and musical sophistication on a track like Time To Get Alone.

That was where Brian's efforts were focused, it would seem. That was, again, "studio Brian" doing up a full production rather than cutting corners, or delivering half-songs with more sparse band backing as heard on most of Wild Honey.

I'm glad they eventually scrapped the live-studio hybrid plan for Wild Honey, but doesn't it show you where the enthusiasm may have been to compare even Time To Get Alone to that original concept of Wild Honey to include vault material?

And take into consideration that solo recording of Surf's Up. One of the most poignant recordings I've ever heard, a total mind-blower...but where did that come from emotionally, practically, and even in the sense of what was it going to be used for if anything? That's Brian, Fall '67, revisiting the centerpiece of his scrapped masterpiece, as the Beach Boys were doing the white R&B sound, which no coincidence Brian also suggested as a new direction, according to Carl.

Surf's Up and Time To Get Alone on one side, and what become Wild Honey on the other...can't you see and hear a musician split between two worlds and two different musical outlooks as of Fall 1967?

Then factor in Been Way Too Long, Cool Cool Water - Those are from Smile, both of them. Maybe not in name, not in exact form and song structure, but those are Smile ideas getting recorded in Fall '67. Hardly R&B, hardly the "Wild Honey sound" if you will.

Factor in Darlin. This was a hit, a catchy hit with a mean hook and killer groove, reshaping and streamlining and earlier composition which was also given to an outside artist into something for Brian's pal Danny to sing with his group. It had that undefinable "oomph" that sounded more like a hit record than I'd suggest even Wild Honey. Grooved like a motherfucker, didn't it? And it was Brian doing a tune for another "outside" artist.

I'd say all of the above 5 examples I cited could be Brian making music for Brian. There is such a divide, to my ears at least, between those and what he was doing for the Beach Boys. Sometimes the two would intersect and produce terrific results, like Let The Wind Blow, Country Air...hints of "studio Brian" again. But still lacking the icing on top of the cake that I hear in TTGA or Darlin, or the Smile-era quirkiness in CCW and BWTL.

I hear the discontent coming to fruition in those recordings. Not only did Brian hint at it in the Aug '67 interview, but I think he also put it onto tape in the studio via those tracks and perhaps a few others that sound worlds away from what the Beach Boys were doing in Fall '67, song wise, which we'd hear on Wild Honey.

It's a musician torn between making music for himself and making music with and for his band. Not hard to tell which is which just by listening.

I'm not seeing discontent with the group in Brian's words. Brian defines what he means by hip/happening and square in the statement in this case and he includes himself as one of the squares and even the source of their then current squareness. The scene is happening but WE are squares and we are squares because I don't write songs about drugs.

To me this quote shows Brian is Brian because he doesn't think like everybody else and he isn't concerned with other people's ideas of hip. He puts them as content with their current work and beyond the current definition of hip/happening due to their past record of bringing something new to the scene.

Surely Brian was the one who was keeping them in matching striped shirts on stage. They all dressed hip privately and Dennis complained about their stagewear but they still kept wearing it. As I remember the shirts weren't the problem, they were still popular with most of the country, the matchy matchy stage uniform was what was passé.

They are working on live material because they want a live album with a particular feel according to Brian. Brian has had outside projects for years already and they all wanted BRI so they could all put out as a group and also do outside projects as individuals, it was the group's plan and something Brian had been doing and I believe Mike (and Bruce) had already done. Because of BRI and the home studio they were freer individually and freer and more unified as a group at the same time in my opinion.

Umm... A year earlier, Brian did write songs about drugs. And he got major blowback from a bandmember, and changed the lyrics to not be about drugs.   But I'm sure you will tell me that reason that change was entirely due to Brian, that you are absolutely certain that he was happy as can be to have made that decision,  and that he wasn't pressured/coerced into making the decision remotely in the slightest. 

Are we talking about Hang On To Your Ego?

Yep.

I think it was Mike who said it was about drugs.

Brian has said:

JV: I never quite understood "Hang On To Your Ego" to "I Know There's An Answer."
BW: It was an inappropriate lyric.
JV: How so?
BW: I just thought that to say "Hang on to your ego" was an ego statement in and of itself, which I wasn't going for, so I changed it. I gave it a lot of thought.
JV: So what was the answer you were looking for in "I Know There's An Answer"?
BW: Your self. There is an answer for you.

(Bittersweet Symphony. By Jonathan Valania  MAGNET, Aug/Sep 1999)


RC:  "On the "Pet Sounds'' boxed set and re-releases, fans got to see some behind-the-scenes making of the album, including finished versions of a song called "Hang on to Your Ego'' which was later changed to "I Know There's an Answer.''

BW: "I thought it was too much of a heavy statement to talk about ego. Ego is something I don't discuss with anyone.''


'Pet Sounds' As Symphony, July 09, 2000,  By ROGER CATLIN, Hartford Courant

Has Brian said more about the song?

I've asked this before but didn't get an answer. In a collection of CDs of not-the-boxset PS sessions (which I can't find at the mo, if I ever had them, which I'm not saying I did) I remember a vocal session tape for HOTYE where Al is struggling with his part of the lead and Mike volunteers to sing the whole song. After that in this alleged collection is a session tape for I Know There's An Answer with a lot of overlapping talk at the beginning. I may have dreamed this but I remember being able to hear someone say something like "the title's changed" or something like that and then someone I remember sounding like Brian says something like "I didn't like it" or "I changed it" or both. Did I dream this?

For the record, I prefer the I Know There's an Answer lyrics to Hang on to Your Ego lyrics myself. But finding quotes of Brian dismissing a song or idea he had as being "inappropriate" is par for the course, well beyond this one example. And I don't think he always means it.

Either way, what we have is Brian making numerous attempts (some more radical than others) to get the band into a more progressive, hip place, getting blowback from his bandmates (and one in particular), and then relenting and dismissing his own previous artistic desires as inappropriate and ill-conceived from the get go. I don't know why you would think it's absolutely, unquestionably impossible to think that this behavior could at least in part be a self-defense mechanism. People sometimes regress into earlier, comfort food type behaviors when the pressure is too great; self-deprecating dismissal of prior desires is an easy way to avoid confrontation or conflict - whether or not you want to admit (which I know you don't) that this could possibly in some way be the case here, you must surely admit that this is an act of human behavior that some people surely do. Or maybe you'll say that nobody, even beyond Brian, ever does this stuff.

Shades of grey, man. Shades of grey.

Agreed.

What is Brian supposed to say if he or a co-author writes something he ultimately finds inappropriate and he and scraps it?

If there were any avoidance, which I'm not saying there is, I would say the avoidance was in letting a co-author create something you find inappropriate and then scrapping their contribution later.

What is Brian supposed to say or do if a co-author named Mike Love writes something that Brian ultimately finds inappropriate, and Brian possibly feels unable to directly stand up to this person and say so? (Not that Brian ever had a history of any such similar avoiding behavior earlier in his life with his own father, or anything).
 
Of course, this is a ridiculous and impossible scenario, right? I'm sure it's never, ever happened.

Only co-authors not named Mike Love have ever written material that Brian ultimately finds inappropriate or undesirable for the group, and Brian has consistently never avoided being upfront with any of those co-authors about how he came to those conclusions without any peer pressure whatsoever.  ::)

CenturyDeprived, don't bother. Remember who you are dealing with. This is the same person who can not find a way to blame Mike Love for anything. He will twist any statement to support his insane theories.

Ladies and gentleman, Cam Mott...

(http://www.sacurrent.com/binary/e924/ted_cruz7.jpg)

With Cam Mott response....

"You're in love with me! That's what it is!"

I'm lost in the hypothetical.

Sachen and/or Brian wrote a lyric that Brian says was "inappropriate" and he had it changed. What are you disputing? Do we have something from those involved saying something to the contrary?

I'm throwing you a kiss my bashful admirer.

Disputing anybody's assertion that Brian saying a lyric was "inappropriate" could in no way, shape or form constitute a brush-off to avoid conflict on some level.  As though Brian doesn't say brush-off verbiage in general to avoid conflict.

The interview suggests a divide in the group that played out by 20/20 and BW not doing much for the BBs by that time period.

I read this interview this way too!
Let´s not forget IJWMFTT documentary where Marilyn Wilson states something like: "The guys just wore Brian down.." , and "If you think you can do better, let´s see it"..
Well we saw it..although there were some bright moments during late 60s nad early 70s...

He still did lots of writing and production work (as well as lead vocals) on Friends. Same goes for Sunflower if to a somewhat lesser extent.

I love both albums yet in terms of subject matter they could both be classified as pretty square.

Couldn't it show more solidarity with the group? These interviews show he wasn't distancing himself from the group or the majority of responsibility for the group's creative output and this just as Smiley Smile is finished and about to be released and after the SMiLE period when he "didn't put out anything I don’t respect".

I'm gonna say that I don't really disagree with you on this.

However, where does this fit in...?

IMO Brian seems bored of the Beach Boys.  He wants to express himself in a more efficient way since SMiLE just fell flat.  I think he tolerated 'square' music because of current events going on around him including: illness, band tensions, Vietnam War escalation, etc. 

I think he was tired and needed a mental break. 

I don't know, he knocked out 3 Beach Boys albums in the year after that interview. I think the prevailing ideas about how Brian was then have just been wrong.

I'm familiar but what is the whole quote?

I don't know. And I have zero interest in pulling out the DVD that has the I Just Wasn't Made For These Times documentary on it. However, Marilyn basically says that at some point (implied to probably be around the time after SMiLE) Brian basically said "you know what? You guys think you can do better? Well have at it!"

And sure, I know you'll say, "well, he himself never said it, it was just his wife at the time."

And maybe you're right. Maybe you know late '60s Brian then his own (then) wife. Now I'll say, I don't think Brian's giving up the control of the group was all about that whole "let's see if you guys can do better" thing. I think some of it was just being a little burnt out producing so much material, a little watching The Beatles more "democrat" approach working so well, and probably some other factors.

However, the fact that you chose to ignore Nile's post shows that perhaps Marilyn's assertions didn't really fit in with how you think things happened back then.

Isn't there an interview from the Sunflower era where Brian says he doesn't consider himself much of a leader anymore, with Bruce chiming in and expressing his dissatisfaction with the situation?

OK............?  Well maybe Nile will post up the whole quote. 

I think Mr. Desper has said (and it is archived on a board somewhere) something like there was no takeover or abandonment, he thought it was more a recognition or necessity that others in the group had skills to be used.

It's always been my impression that the Beach Boys were never considered hip by the masses, and the way that they were integrated into the Jefferson Airplane/Doors/Grateful Dead mold in the latter half of the '60s was kind of contrived by an esoteric few who never quite convinced everybody else.

It did reach a point in the late 60's where for reasons other than necessity Brian's ideas for the band were being pushed to the back burner more than ever before, and the notion I got was that they thought they could do just as well if not better making records with less and less input and even musical contributions from Brian Wilson. The proof is in both the released material and the unreleased music that never got out of the vaults, especially from the 1969-20/20 era when they were moving from Capitol to Warner/Reprise.

Yet it's also very telling as well that one of the main conditions of the new Warner/Reprise contract had a stipulation for how much Brian would be involved in making the music. It sort of contradicts how much the Beach Boys thought they could do without Brian's musical involvement and ideas versus what a record company thought could be done without Brian's involvement on a Beach Boys project, and what eventually came out on record. Sunflower without the songwriting of Brian and Dennis - what else would there have been?  No matter how much the group thought they could do without Brian or with far less involvement to the point of openly vetoing ideas and whatnot, they wouldn't have had much to offer at that time without him. Warner/Reprise seemed to recognize this.

Here's what I was thinking of, I think. Hope it is OK to post here.

By Cam Mott (Cam) on Thursday, February 7, 2002 - 10:06 am:
I'm hoping the board is fixed and I just wanted to re-posted my question about the Beach Boys and production.

If I remember right you had said that others, primarily Carl, were taking over those duties and described the process as the musical content being ripped from Brian's control. I hope I'm stating the gist accurately.

I remarked that some had the impression that Brian had requested that others take over those responsibilities and queried if the take over was actually more "hostile" then thought.

Thanks for the memories, when you have time.

Cam
By Stephenwdesper (Stephenwdesper) on Thursday, February 7, 2002 - 08:53 pm:

There has never been any “hostile” relationship between Carl and Brian Wilson. I cannot remember Brian showing anger at any time I have known him. Everyone who was ever associated with Carl came to know his demeanor as angelic.

To put things in perspective, always remember that everything you hear or read about any musical group, including the Beach Boys, must be taking within the framework of THE ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS. Every band member has a contract with (in BB case) Capitol Records. Also, the group collectively is under contract. Also, the group’s enterprise, Beach Boy Productions is under contract with each band member and with Capitol Records.

Of course, Brian worked closely with all the other members of The Beach Boys, however it was becoming very evident to him and to Capitol that he was not the only gifted one in the group. As each member composed and produced within the group, only two ways were available for this new material to be released and to generate income for the group, that being ether solo or group. Capitol would have nothing of each member going off to do their own stuff so the outlet for the new stuff was distend to be the group.

Capitol repeatedly saw two pathways developing. (1) Brian becoming experimental in the studio and his music taking an esoteric turn (that is out commercial acceptance), and (2) talent (good talent) developing within the group – already under contract to produce and perform.

Management, both Capitol and BBP, were advancing much money to the group’s members and this “loan” had to be repaid – it was in the contract. So, to answer your question Cam Mott, think of Carl’s takeover not as “hostile” but rather by necessity, and out of love for his brother, who was sluffing and staggering under the tremendous pressure of producing a new hit. Someone had to get a contractually required album recorded – or else go broke. If Brian was mentally spent, it seemed natural for the younger brother just step up to the plate and start to play ball. What could Brian say but good? Brian welcomed the help and certainly needed a pressure reduction just to get re-focused. Thank God, both brothers’ close association with Brian had familiarized them with his style and the task at hand.

If Carl had not assumed the role of leader at this time, you would not have seen any Beach Boy future develop. Capitol wanted its (already paid for) album – quick, somebody do something! – Carl did, and everyone was grateful.

I hope the above helps set the stage of understanding for you.
~Stephen W. Desper


By Cam Mott (Cam) on Friday, February 8, 2002 - 09:48 am:
Dear Stephen,

Thanks for your reply. I didn't think there was hostility between Brian and Carl and I'm glad to have it confirmed. We often hear that others in the group supposedly *were* working to take "control" from Brian during this period, would you be comfortable in illuminating those rumors?

I was lucky enough to have met Jim Lockert last Fall, he remembered your acquaintance and spoke kindly of you. I'm sorry to tell you, if you didn't already know, that Jim passed away just before Thanksgiving last year but is survived by his wife.

Thanks,
Cam

By Stephenwdesper (Stephenwdesper) on Saturday, February 9, 2002 - 11:35 am:
REPLY CAM MOTT's COMMENTS: No hostal nor friendly take-over of the musical aspect of BB was ever planned. In hindsight it may seem that control was "taken" from Brian, but it was not taken, it was assumed. It was a natural thing, given the events of the time. On the business level, Brian gave control (as chairman of the board of American Productions and Beach Boy Enterprises) over to professional managers. This was necessary to maintain financial success for the group. All the in-fighting you read about happens with most musical acts and even between business type partners too. It's just part of life. ~Stephen W. Desper

Sorry guys bur cannot find my dvd, but that is what MW said in that documentary, and it looked pretty honest, no corporate bullshit..just looked honest..
and I think that Brian maybe never said those words but I strongly feel that was his view of the whole post Smile situation, when Boys rejected his greatest work, or should I say made him give up on it..got tired of conflicts like Anderle said in that two-piece lengthy interview that can be found in Priroe LLVS.

Just one correction..that what she said , maybe not in those exatly word, but that was basically that..

Well, pull up a chair and get comfortable.........(deeeeeeeeeeep breath)..................

Sorry to nitpick such a great post, but - Didn't Carl produce TTGA?

I have never really bought the line that the Beach Boys rejected what Brian was doing with SMiLE. It's true that Mike had some objections to the lyrics Van Dyke Parks wrote; the Lovester himself has said that he had no objections to progressing musically; Carl said in the IJWMFTT film that Mike did not find the lyrics relatable. And yet the guys sang those weird lyrics, as we can clearly hear on TSS. Now, i do think one valid objection they may have possibly had is that, if the music came out and was popular, how were the 5 guys going to replicate that onstage? In the end, i don't think Brian or the others should have worried themselves about whether the music was going to be 'hip' or not; I mean, just exactly WHAT IS HIP? Tell me, tell me, if you think you know.  ::)

No worries! Listen to the Redwood version of TTGA and that is 100% Brian producing. Mike and Carl took those reels when they showed up at Wally Heider's as Brian was there producing Redwood, and what you hear on the 20/20 album version is the same backing track Brian recorded with Redwood, but with the Beach Boys' voices singing basically the same Redwood vocal arrangement, and a different break.

Not to take away from Carl, but he basically put the bride and groom on the top of a wedding cake that had already been baked, iced, and decorated by Brian through the Redwood sessions.

Listening to the two versions, Redwood and BB's, pretty much proves it by ear alone. It's the same track more or less, and Brian produced the original.

Ahh, I see! Thank you for clarifying for me! It wasn't until recently that I even noticed that Carl got the production credit on the track. But, no offense to Carl, it seemed way too advanced to be produced by anyone but Brian.

Now I'm off to listen to the Redwood version somewhere.
Thanks again!

Does Nile have to post the whole quote? Are you saying you never saw I Just Wasn't Made For These Times? I find that hard to believe. Regardless of whether Nile (or anybody else) posts a transcript, you've been oddly quiet on the fact that Brian's own then-wife basically said he withdrew because he was worn down by the band giving him trouble. But you for to even give an inch and admit that maybe did scale back his workload because of the rest of the group would just be beyond the pale. Not gonna happen.

I do understand that I am arguing with the guy who has such a hard-on for Mike Love that he even defended Mike when Mike was saying they would celebrate their 50th anniversary by having Justin Timberlake do "Good Vibrations" and Kenny Chesney do "Kokomo." You actually stood up for that. So I'm not surprised you won't give an inch here.

You're so adorable. When we have the quote we can discuss it.

Re. 50th anniversary: Not only do I not remember having the opinion you say I did, I don't remember ever hearing anything about this. Maybe my memory is more gone than I think. Do you have a quote?

This is kinda funny, but to satisfy your needs I will try to put a quote later today...but I think it will be close to what I said...

Marilyn:  he would slowly just stay in the bedroom, and let the guys record in the studio, since The Beach Boys paid for the studio, and it became more and more he would stay in bed – let them do their thing. He had a real hard time with the guys, after Pet Sounds and after Smile, because he felt guilty that he got all the attention, he was the one who was called the genius, and he felt the guys really resented that, and I think they did. I think it was very hard for them to understand ‘why is Brian Wilson singled out?’. But anyone with a brain would know why.And it was very tough for him because he thought that they all hated him…I think it was like ‘OK you assholes, you think you can do as good as me or whatever – go ahead – YOU do it. You think it’s so easy? You do it’.

OK, thank you Mr. V and Nile.

Sweetdudejim, did you want to start?

Getting back to Leid in Hawaii was there a reason why Bruce wasn't there. I'm just going off memory here but I seem to remember something along the lines of "it wasn't my scene"

Well as we've discussed in the past Bruce was awol much of that summer of love. He didn't take much part in the smiley smile album sessions.

You can use the search function if you don't believe me. Or look through you're own post history, Ted.

And regardless, I assume you no longer have that same opinion about Mike getting today's most popular country and pop artists onboard to re-record old Beach Boys hits? If you don't then that's fine. But what do you think of that idea anyways? Do you think it woulda done better than That's Why God Made The Radio?

Ted?

I literally don't know what you are talking about, I'm as sure as I can be that you have me mixed up with someone else. Perhaps this "Ted" you keep mentioning.

What about that Marilyn quote? Do you remember it? It is on this page.

Settle down, Mr. Cruz. Don't get upset. And feel free to expound on the Marilyn quote. It's been posted. You said you were waiting for it to be posted before you responded. So, since you seem to be waiting for it, you now have my permission to go back a page and respond to those of us who were trying to engage in discussion with you.

Thanks for your time.

This crap again between you two? Please stop.

You're so cute when you get all "Hey, Mr. Cruz!". Whoops, your obsession is showing.

First her observation she seems to agree with Mr. Desper that it was a case of withdrawal and filling the gap and not Brian or the Boys staging some sort of coup from or against each other.

Second, she seems to not know or have forgotten that Derek Taylor took credit for the "genius" campaign as their press agent. Presumably the whole group signed off on that campaign and paid for it.

Third, some of it seems to be speculation of Marilyn (and Brian as told by Marilyn). She "thinks" some of these things.

Fourth, do moderators ever read your posts?

I guess they do.

Regardless if the whole group initially signed off on Taylor being the PR guy, do you really think they had any say in when the genius comment began bring propagated?  If anybody had any objections to that, and I'm not saying that anyone initially did, what were they going to say? "Stop the presses, that's too extreme a statement?"

Resentment usually builds up and leaks out in much more subtle ways than that.

Sounds like Cam will do anything to defend Mike Love. ::)

Not attempting to answer on Cam's behalf but Brian using pop and country stars on NPP hasn't seem to done him any harm, saleswise.

So you know more than Brian's ex-wife, the person who laid next to him at the end of the day nearly every night from probably 1964 through 1977. The person he probably spoke unfiltered with the most in that time period. Nah, she don't know sh*t. Some person on the internet knows better because they spoke with Jim Lockert once.


I'm glad you enjoy it! You are just so interesting I can't help myself.


Whoops, apparently it is bothering you after all. Seems like you're probably contacting the mods because you can't handle it. Sorry to see this. Feel better soon bud!


Brian also brought in *new material* which is something Mike's seemed incapable of recently. And while we're at it, yeah, Brian bringing in flavor of the months for any reason but artistic ones would be just as lame as Mike crassly trying to round up today's stars to in a pathetic attempt at becoming relevant again. So if indeed Brian and his team brought those people in for that reason, shame on them. But I will say it takes more guts to have the new big thing sing on something new rather than trying to rope in Toby Keith to sing "Be True to Your School."

I think that it'd be nice if you guys would just sort of, you know, grow up a little bit.

Ted Cruz

Cam may be relentless, granted, but he is respectful. He doesn't deserve to be chased by another poster. It'd be nice if the same energy and tone utilized a few days ago to defend certain opinions regarding voice processing on an album were used now to defend posters from being bullied.

Bullied? That's supposed to be bullying?

"Chasing" would work for you, Ontor? Let me know and I'll change the wording.

No. What with the lack of chasing going on. It's two guys posting on a discussion board and butting heads, neither of whom have a drop of respect for the other.

I don't "know" better than "Marilyn", I just "know" that on many points she said she "thinks" instead of "knows".

Exactly. This isn't new between them, either.  The moment either one of them gets put of hand, it will be handled.

And calling out bullshit when it's being thrown around as being as a "sensible" reading of events.


So, you're still saying that what you "think" is worth more than what she "thinks". I'd have to put more weight on the side of the woman who is the mother of both of Brian's biological children, who likely was the closest confidant of Brian's during the period in question. For some reason I take her opinions on how her husband was feeling over some guy who contacts companies about original SMiLE cover slicks. I listen to what she has to say and take that into others account of this period, instead of dismissing it because it doesn't fit my preconceived notion of how things happened back then. But then again, I'm not an ideologue. I'm just a fan on a message board trying to wade through the sh*t be propagated by some.

Marilyn said "think" instead of "know", not me.

Soooooooo are you saying that Marilyn is mistaken? 

At what point can anything be considered "known"? If there was high-definition video of every single BB member's daily actions from 1961-present, would that constitute that certain events are "known", and in the absence of that, everything else is just interpretation with no person's statements more valuable than others?

We're getting into Flat Earth Society territory here.

If Marilyn said "know" and didn't say "think", you'd say she'd still be mistaken, right?  

You didn't answer though. Are you saying that what you "think" about this topic is worth more than what she thinks? Because you spoke once or twice with people she probably had numerous conversations with? Or because you've read books about people she saw day-in, day-out for around a decade and a half?

http://youtu.be/GiPe1OiKQuk

Do you take at face value everything people associated with the BB organization say? Why should C Mott?

If Brian says that Murry hurt his feelings, do we really "know" this? Or is it ok to accept what he says in that specific circumstance, but not others?

I surely don't. But I do take the differing words of all involved into account. For instance, like many I thought it was big, bad Mike Love who was the ringleader of the bullies who killed SMiLE. Then after more and more information came to light, my mind changed and now I see it as a combination of things....Brian being burnt out doing the big production things and keeping up in that "race", chasing the new "vibe" he was after (Smiley Smile, Wild Honey) and sure, as Brian said in the documentary, a little bit of trouble from Mike, which probably just put him in a not-so-great head space. So my mind changed. I realized that unlike what David Leaf wrote, The Beach Boys were five (or six....or even nine) guys who all brought something important to the table that made the music great. My mind changed due to both research by scholars, the words from those who were actually there, and yes, good discussion on this here board and it's predecessor, The Smile Shop.

So yeah, unlike certain others, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong to better understand the group and their history.

The first half she says as a fact.

I am saying that in the last half when she says * she thought they * or * she thought that he thought that they thought * that she means it the way I presume most of us do. It is informed but to some extent a perception, or presumption, or opinion, or guess which might be true or untrue or a mix of both.

Wow.  :thud

So you think she misunderstood the situation that she was basically right in the middle of for around a decade and a half? Interesting that it's hard for you to take what she has to say as much more than opinion, but if a certain bald, paunchy old man says something it's gospel.

Cam - Would you question Brian for Brian saying that Murry hurt his feelings? Would this be subject for debate?

I'd like to know what reasoning would make you either question or not question such a statement that I'm sure Brian's made over the years. I'm trying to understand where and why the line is drawn.

Been trying to stay neutral,  but this is a valid statement,  and I am interested in the answer.

I'm running out of ways to say it.

She is saying what she thinks people think and even what she thinks people think other people think and she says "she thinks" (when she does) because it is to some degree speculative. Think as in have an opinion about what people think about what other people think.  No one else means it this way when they are discussing what they think other people are thinking?

You are quite good at not answering. Perhaps politics really is your profession?

She is saying what she thinks "people" think? No, not quite. She was saying what her HUSBAND thought. The guy who probably confided a whole heck of a lot to her in their time together.

It astounds me that you're minimizing Marilyn's take on the subject. Why is that? Maybe because she was "only" his wife? I don't see why her opinion on this would be any less valid that Mr. Desper or anybody else who's spoken on the subject.

For whatever it is worth, this is how I see Marilyn's meaning; when she is reporting what she means as fact and what she is qualifying as her opinion.

Fact: He would slowly just stay in the bedroom, and let the guys record in the studio, since The Beach Boys paid for the studio, and it became more and more he would stay in bed – let them do their thing. He had a real hard time with the guys, after Pet Sounds and after Smile, because he felt guilty that he got all the attention, he was the one who was called the genius, and he felt the guys really resented that,

Opinion: and I think they did. I think it was very hard for them to understand ‘why is Brian Wilson singled out?’. But anyone with a brain would know why.

Fact: And it was very tough for him because he thought that they all hated him…

Opinion: I think it was like ‘OK you assholes, you think you can do as good as me or whatever – go ahead – YOU do it. You think it’s so easy? You do it’.

Maybe Marilyn will drop by here and correct or clarify.

If we go strictly by what anybody SAYS, and not what they mean, then:

Brian: I'll tell you from my heart, the reasons that I didn't finish SMiLE in 1967 was Mike didn't like it, I thought it was too experimental, I thought the Fire tape was too scary, I didn't think people would understand where my head was at, at that time.

Do you believe that Mike was really one of the main reasons that the album was scrapped? I don't, I think that all of the BB's (except for Dennis) played a part,  but Brian SAYS that he did. So, since Brian SAID it, it must be true.

Like when he said the fire tapes were destroyed or SMiLE was destroyed?  Absolute truth...   ::)

And it's even more interesting that you bring up that quote from Brian, because Cam totally dismisses it, because it doesn't fit in with the version of events he likes to pretend happened.

The gospel of Cam.... ;)

It's true. He's taken pinders place as he board fillibusterer

What is it you want me to answer?

On the topic of Brian on "happening", here are some other quotes from slightly earlier.


“Something is happening but I don’t know what it is. The whole thing is there hasn’t been much happening for a long time and somebody is trying to make it happen. The radio is the medium at this time, and a long way from where it could be. You won’t have to wait another ten years for another Beatles, we need it too much. In about six months there’s going to be an explosion. Wait and see.” 
Brian Wilson; Tiger Beat, Aug. 1966, p. 39; on newstands July 15 1966


“I just try and be current, not exactly go along with what’s happening, but do my version of what’s happening. I like also to try and create something and make something happen as well as to do something that’s happening.
I have some things in mind for the future which are my own things. They aren’t exactly in step with what’s going on now, but I’d like to make a few things happen. I’m not speaking about lyrics, but record techniques.
I’d just call it, at this point, Contemporary American Music. Not rock ‘n’ roll. Rock ‘n’ roll is such a worn out phrase, it’s just Contemporary American…creative.
I worked for about four or five months on that album, writing and planning the overall sound for it.
We’re excited about the album because it means a lot to us to produce an LP throughout, to work hard on every track more or less like each one was a single.
The inner strength it’s given me. The strength it’s given me in all areas of life - it stimulates everything. I have lately become very aware of the spiritual side of life - all kinds of things like that.
Oh yeah! It’s hard to tell what kind of happiness you bring - say a young girl. But I’m thinking of the future when I’ll be in a position to really bring happiness to people.
The size of the industry alone - there’s so many people, so many stars, so many artists, I don’t think in terms of ‘I’m making kids happy at the moment.’ “
 
Brian Wilson; NME; published August 5, 1966


Brian Wilson: “Psychedelic music will cover the face of the world and color the whole popular music scene. Anybody happening is psychedelic.”

NME:  “He coined the word ‘phychedelicate’ during our conversation because it sounded cool.”
 
NME; published Oct 22, 1966

 

Cam, you still haven't answered my question.

Would you question Brian for Brian saying that Murry hurt his feelings? Would this be subject for debate?

Not quite. Cam was Pinder before Pinder was even a twinkle in his father's eye. He's been throwing bullshit out there for years. Ask Dan Lega. Or Ian W. Or any of those guys.

That would be Brian speaking about his own feelings, so no.

But if Brian had never actually spoken those words, never directly addressed his feelings an interview to say that his father had hurt his feelings deeply, and the same goes for all three Wilson brothers, then would it to you still be honestly, truly worthy of debate as to whether any of their feelings were actually hurt by Murry or not?  

Would you then legitimately question and ponder whether or not they felt hurt, and would you then actually entertain the possibility that maybe, perhaps they weren't?

If Brian never said it there wouldn't be anything to comment on.

You're not answering my question. If Brian never said it, would you still feel as though that subject would be something that is worthy of debate? Yay or nay?

Nay, I guess. If Brian never said it what is there to debate?

Pinder. I am your father!  (sshhh-kuuuhhhh) (sshhh-kuuuhhhh)

So if Brian says 'Mike is one of the main reasons that SMiLE was cancelled', then it must be so, right?

Look, I'm not a Lovester or a Brianasta. I don't take one side or the other, no matter what. This whole deal of 'if he didn't come right out and say it, then he didn't mean it', is silly. People say 'I think' all the time. Marilyn Wilson can say 'I think Brian thought they were assholes', and it can mean the same thing as 'Brian told me they were assholes'. Maybe she didn't want to come out and say that Brian actually said that, call Brian out like that.  Now, maybe she really did mean 'I think', literally; that she didn't know for sure, but she was pretty sure. It isn't that far of a reach to say one or the other. You can't, every single time, say 'well, he didn't SAY exactly this', just to fit whatever it is you want it to fit. If that's the case, Mike is the main reason SMiLE got cancelled, because Brian said so and he said it first in a list of things, so it must be the most important.

Great post Mr. Verlander. First name Justin?!?  ;D

Also keep in mind this is how the mind of the poster you're addressing works....

"...by definition the Pop songs with Love's lyrics are the greatest of the Beach Boys catalog and no other single lyricist or all other lyricist of BBs' songs combined even come close to Mike's mark I believe it is accurate to say.  If the BBs are one of the greatest Pop groups of all time and their songs are among the best Pop songs of all time and most of their best have lyrics by Mike then it seems to me he is certifiably [not subjectively] one of the greatest Pop lyricists [not to mention vocalists] of all time."

Yes, that quote was seriously written by a thinking person.

To Cam, Milli Vanilli's entire catalogue is better than Sunflower or the entire catalogue of Big Star simply because MV was "more popular" with the masses.

And yes, I do remember him  giving a variation on that argument once.

Pop is short for Popular right? Popular Music?

I did say her opinions, her "I think", could be right or wrong or a whole range in between.

 :woot :woot :woot :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :h5 :h5

Yeah, the whole think / know distinction being drawn here -- especially when looking at the quote in question -- is ludicrous.

And the notion that Marilyn should show up and explain herself is insulting. It's perfectly clear what she means.

Listen, some folks don't want to acknowledge the truth of these things. But when you have direct sources, people who know these folks, people who have worked with them and lived with them, and they all agree that Mike is a jerk, I listen.

Where are all the people through the years who have said (or even thought) that Mike is an unrecognized, gentle genius?

well...................    There's Cam

Is "Macarena" four times better a song then "Kokomo" because it sold four times the copies?

Guess so, right?

So then that means "Who Let the Dogs Out?" is quantifiably a better song than "Getcha Back"?

Do you agree with that?

Lastly, do you agree that Summer In Paradise is by far the worst Beach Boys album since it hasn't sold anywhere close to the numbers of any of their other albums?

Since I don't judge music that way, those kinda calculations don't matter to me. But to a Mike fellator like Cam, I'd assume that all the above statements ring true.

The music of Mike is seminal.

It took a couple of pages discussing the semantics of 'think/know' being used in a quote before we reached the conclusion that Mike is a talentless jerk, but congrats folks we got there in the end.

Marilyn: I don’t think he ever had the need…he was just torn down, he really was. They slowly tore him down. I hate to say it, but they did.

She doesn't need to drop by here to correct or clarify what she already said.  Her quote was one that was included in a documentary that was approved and released by BriMel.  If Marilyn's thoughts were not accurate or valid, then why would Brian Wilson and the team that produced Beautiful Dreamer choose to include that part of her interview in the documentary?      

My part in all of this is not to discredit Mike, as much as it is to say that you can't always take people literally, on every thing that they say. I don't hate Mike, at times I think he gets a bad rap, and at times it's deserved. It's just that you can't pick and choose how you want to look at things, to fit the agenda that you have in mind.

My post wasn't aimed at you and I agree with all of your points. However, Brian has been quoted as saying 'the guys hated it (Smile)" and from most accounts this wasn't true. Ask Brian why he scrapped Smile on two different days and you'll get two different answers.

I agree.

I should have explained better. I meant we have had some amazing unexpected guests to the board recently and it doesn't seem as unlikely as it once did that someone like Marilyn might show up here.  To correct or clarify our various understandings of her comments, not to correct or clarify herself.

Wasn't there more to that opinion? I seem to remember more?

1] There is a strong argument to be made that Mike was indeed one of the top lyricists in pop circa 1963-65.
2] There is an argument to be made that VDP's SMiLE lyrics were misbegotten.
3] There is an argument to be made that Mike and the other members of the group were right about the SMiLE project as that project stood near the end : that Brian was lost trying to assemble all the fragments into a coherent whole, and that in order to salvage their career, the Boys had to move on and get an actual record out.

Maybe you reached that conclusion about Mike. I sure didn't. Within the last month I've listened to "Spring Vacation", "Beaches In Mind" and some stuff from the Mike/Bruce Summertime Cruisin' album. I've also been pushing for Mike to man up and finally release a lot of the pretty decent solo material he has been storing up for the past few decades. So I think I'm pretty far from reaching that conclusion. In fact, it might be fair to say that I give Mike a bit more "creative" leeway than most other posters on here.

So yeah, anyways the conclusion has nothing to do with Mike. It has more to do with the fact that we have a poster on here who seems incapable of admitting he has ever done wrong. And who recently I'm pretty sure admitted that he can't think of any wrong that Dr. Love has done. The poster in question has been spreading this crap for over a decade and I think his insane observations deserve to be called out.


I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the the quote in question was actually from the I Just Wasn't Made For These Times documentary. Which I'm pretty sure was commissioned by Don Was, and not BriMel. So it might not have been directly approved by Brian and Melinda. However, I still think it's valid to say your basic point still stands.

Oops.  I stand corrected.  Carry on.

You do know my post was sarcastic, right?

On another note, at some point during the Smile sessions the band must have asked Brian "How the Hell are we expected to play this stuff live on stage?"
In my mind this must have been a much bigger concern then the odd Van Dyke lyric. The live band was in danger of becoming a relic, unable to progress because so much of the new material couldn't be performed by the basic 5 man line-up. The Beach Boys were not a Brian Wilson studio art project, they were a group. The 1967 interview sounds like Brian has accepted that he was making music not 100% feasable for a working band and had got hung up on chasing an audience that wasn't interested in hearing the Beach Boys go 'hip'.

I often wonder about that "play it live" thing. What in SMiLE would have been more challenging than the songs from PS or GV, which they were already doing? As I remember they had planned to take an expanded band to Europe/England in October 66 but dropped the idea to save expenses when their shows sold out. Then they actually did take an extended band in May 67.  Seems to me they were already handling it quit successfully, with or without an extended band.

+1

And as is the case with Mike himself, the very, very small handful of posters who behave in that unwavering, unwilling to budge an inch, and unable to admit being wrong ever type of manner,  do not help their cause; on the contrary, they wind up hurting their case, and their point of view is not legitimized. Extremism never helped any cause, and that goes well beyond the subject were talking about here.

I agree and if you add in the quotes through 1966 it seems to me that Brian knew what was happening/hip in the scene but was going for his independent ideas of happening/hip with his eye on the long game but confident in what he was releasing and had released in the past. Maybe it is just me.

You still never answered these questions Cammy....

Deleted by Cam.  Sorry bgas.

WOW! Somebody deleted Cam.
Will he be back?

Yeah, I too am greatly disappointed to not hear what the answers to those questions would be.

I'd like to but the whole thing wasn't posted and I can't remember the whole hypothetical.

Yeah, WOW!

You should have seen what he wrote about you before he deleted it! Daaaaamn!

I'm not asking hypothetically. You never said that "hypothetically" that Mike Love is one of the greatest pop lyricists of all time. You just straight up said it. If you'd like to take that back that's fine with me. Might gain you some sanity points from the other posters on the board.

I'm just asking by your standards, which you apply to say that Mike Love is one of the greatest pop lyricists of all time. Maybe now you're copping to saying that this was hypothetical, but I don't recall you ever saying that. So, are you now saying that Doctor Love is not one of the greatest pop lyricists after all?

So is there a reason that you can't answer these. Once more I will pose these three questions to you. And I'm even bolding them just in case you're having trouble seeing them. If you refuse to answer, I suppose that I will show us that you only apply your supposed "beliefs" when they benefit a certain cause you're trying to pu

Is "Macarena" four times better a song then "Kokomo" because it sold four times the copies?

Do you believe that "Who Let the Dogs Out?" is quantifiably a better song than "Getcha Back" as it's sold many more copies?

Lastly, do you agree that Summer In Paradise is by far the worst Beach Boys album since it hasn't sold anywhere close to the numbers of any of their other albums?

By definition the Pop songs with Wilson's music are the greatest of the Beach Boys catalog and no other single composer or all other composers of BBs' songs combined even come close to Brian's mark I believe it is accurate to say. If the BBs are one of the greatest Pop groups of all time and their songs are among the best Pop songs of all time and most of their best have music by Brian then it seems to me he is certifiably [not subjectively] one of the greatest Pop composers [not to mention vocalists] of all time.

Right. So the "Macarena" is four times better than "Kokomo" by that standard, right? You forgot to answer, Cam.

Call me crazy, but I don't think the questions are going to be answered. Puzzled as to why, seeing as he seemed to be on his way to making such a strong logical argument; I figured his direct answers would have been right around the corner... Avoid the Noid... And sweetdudejim's questions too.

I know Century, sure seems weird that Cam decided to duck out of this thread once it came time for him to defend his own argument on the quality of "pop" music. Seems like he hasn't figured out a way to weasel out of saying that "Kokomo" is only a quarter as good as the "Macarena." It was his own argument so I don't know what scared him off.