The Smiley Smile Message Board

If you had pick one single moment that is the most negative/devastating to the band's career, what would you choose?

Michael Love's baldness or choice of hats.








Seriously, though...Brian deciding not to release Smile combined with the non-appearance at Monterey.

Not booting myKe luHv out of the group in the late 60's. His days in the sun were over by then.  :tm

Ya know, while it may be a controversial opinion, I non-sarcastically and honestly do think that that more than one BB member might in fact agree with that.

I don't think firing the Lovester was ever in anyone's mind at any point in the band's active history.

The choice of an uncomfortable seat.

Nothing like being subjected to Keepin' the Summer Alive on an uncomfy chair.

Do It Again, Add Some Music, All I Wanna Do, Cool Cool Water, Don't Go Near The Water, He Come Down, All This is That, Big Sur, Only With You and Funky Pretty would suggest otherwise.

I'd say blowing the mid 70s 'comeback' album was the biggest misstep. Listen to POB, Blondie's S/T solo debut and Jack Rieley's Western Justice to get an idea of what a Holland follow up could have been.

That's definitely a major misstep...although given what exists, did we really miss much? The California Feelin' piano/vocal track aside, there isn't much worth writing about there unless there's leagues of unheard greatness from the period.

AGD's review of SiP

the deaths of Dennis and Carl

An unsightly blemish for sure.

The failure of SUNFLOWER.  

I'm by no means an expert, but after watching various documentaries over the years, it's clear that BDW was more engaged during the making of that record than any other one after SMILE (at least, up until LOVE YOU).  If SUNFLOWER had been a success and gotten the right publicity and right single, BDW might have charted a different course in the 1970s and not gone deeper into a shell, creatively.

No brainer there.

Um... Dennis' mind perhaps? Not saying anyone actually thought about finding any kind of practical way to do it, but I do think that various band members have probably found his various actions regrettable enough to a point to privately thinking that the benefits of his no longer being in the band past a certain point outweighed the alternative. Just IMHO.

I don't think anything on Sunflower was particularly single-worthy...but then again the band weren't really a singles band at that point. Add Some Music to Your Day was probably the most logical choice.

All speculative for sure...and I'm sure Dennis and Carl might have seen potential benefits in the late 70s if Michael was ousted.

This Whole World?...

Yep. Hell, it was in Love's mind (and actions) regarding Jardine; I don't think the flipside desire (from more than just Jardine's corner) is in any way unrealistic.

Possibly...but as great as the tune is, it doesn't scream "single," y'know? Being buried on the flip of Slip On Through probably didn't help either.

The above answers notwithstanding, I'll throw another into the mix...Al and Carl not forming an alliance twenty years earlier

Wouldn't Al as a member of BRI be at the mercy of the other voting members if he were to be dismissed from the band like he was in the early 90s for a few weeks?

That plus I've Got a Friend, Good Timin', River Song, Rainbows and Angel Come Home all hail from that period. I've never heard it but some have said Mike's Glow Cresent Glow is none too shabby. Plus if Chaplin had never left there'd be Hard Times and stuff from his solo debut. If Rieley was still managing them, there's plenty of quality stuff off Western Justice that could have been worked up into BB material.

Agreed on all counts. Imagine if POB had the band's voices on it. I can see Carl nailing What's Wrong and Al doing Rainbows.

1. The loss of Carl in the studio and on the road. The loss of Dennis in the studio and on the road.

2. Brian's retraction resulting in less productivity in the band starting in the late 60's and the loss of his clear voice in 1975.

3. After Jack Rieley left and Endless Summer was released, the loss of artsy fartsy avant-garde material regressing into oldies and Surf, Sand, and Sun.

the failure to complete and release SMiLE by the summer of '67. so many factors at play from Van Dyke jumping ship, to Mike and the band's reluctance to embrace and encourage Brian to finish it, and of course Brian's own mental instability and lack of confidence and clear-headedness to get the job done (fueled in large part by his reported amphetamine use, in my opinion).

failing to take part in Monterey was not as big a deal, but it's a huge shame they weren't up to it. 1967 was a pivotal year and The Beach Boys really missed the boat.

I also think Mike's dismissal around that time could have really helped the band's momentum and trajectory. Dennis could have stepped out front where he belonged and perhaps being given that sort of responsibility and recognition would have inspired him to take things a bit more seriously (and be taken more seriously) instead of being relegated to a rather minor supporting role where his contributions weren't really vital to the overall equation. a pipe dream I know, but it's fascinating to think about.

other horribly devastating moments:
-Murry selling the catalog
-Manson being connected to the band in any way, shape, or form
-Brian being committed to an institution where he was allegedly given electroshock therapy and thorazine
-the hiring of Landy
-the deterioration and death of Dennis

and last but certainly not least, Carl's premature death and the wretched situation we find ourselves in today: Mike Love controlling the rights to the band name where he would rather share the stage with Bruce Johnston and John Stamos instead of Brian Wilson and Al Jardine. truly devastating to the legacy and all that is fair and right.

 :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate :pirate

No Smile.
No Jack.
No Brian.
No Dennis.
No Brian.
No Carl.
No Brian.

No Wilsons...No Beach Boys.

Drugs.
The reasons for gettin' hooked on drugs.
No Smile.
Mr. Negativity.
No Smile

And that, my friends, is pretty much it in a nutshell.......

No Dennis, no Beach Boys.

The lack of understanding and or promotion of Pet Sounds in the US.

When Heroes and Villains was lukewarmly received by that LA radio station and while still a hit, not received in the way Brian needed to feel recognised and accomplished, a huge blow to his esteem considering he made a record that has almost no comparison...

The failure to release SMiLE in 1967. They never recovered from that.

In second place is the transfer of leadership from Carl to Mike during the 74 to 76 timeframe.

Posted on: Today at 12:00:18 AMPosted by: Bill30022 
Insert Quote
The failure to release SMiLE in 1967. They never recovered from that.
 
First Bill I really agree BIG TIME with your "second place" point which I didn't even include in the quote I copied. But you two got me to thinkin'...When Brian proclaimed that 'WE' weren't ready for Smile...and thusly he shelved it...is it maybe because Heroes and Villains didn't go through the popularity roof like Good Vibrations had?  A convenient excuse 'cause he just couldn't put the jigsaw puzzle together but...did he really think that back in '67?

Was he so bummed out by H and V only just hovering near the top 10 that he figured the whole album would not QUITE make it either?  Chart positions are and were important to Brian.  Validation for a job well done.  I know he was wrong...if in fact he thought that...back then.  We WERE ready for Smile.  HUGELY ready.  It would have changed everything...and "second place" never would have happened.

I think you hit the nail on the head there Add Some, I think Brian was shattered by H&V being shunned after the success of GV.

But...it wasn't shunned.  It just took him TOO dang long to finish it and release it.  Where I lived...Good Vibrations hit the charts on October 24 and stayed on the charts 'til mid January 1967.  So for 12 weeks...which was a HUGE period of time THEN as opposed to the 45-50 weeks that stuff hangs around in these awful days of so little available that they'll play on the top 30...there it was in ALL of its glory.

And then?  Nothing.  Pet Sounds had been out for 8 months.  What was coming next?  Sloop John B.  Caroline No.  Wouldn't It Be NNice/God Only Knows.  Good Vibrations and... ... ...crickets.

Feb.?  Nothing.  Mar.?  Nada  Apr.?  Uh uh.  May...surely May?  Dick-all.  June then?  Nope.  July?  Summertime...Beach Boys right?  Wrong.

August 7...almost 7 full months after all the good will which helped the Beach Boys nail 'it' as the group of the year in the UK...the music world had passed them by.  The top 10 when Good Vibrations left the charts?
The Monkees
The Royal Guardsmen
Mamas and Papas
Ronnie Dove
Paul Revere
4 Seasons
Jimmy Ruffin
Wilson Picket
Herman's Hermits
The Cyrcle.

When they finally made it back?
The Beatles
The Doors
The Rascals
Neil Diamond
Monkees
Lulu
Jefferson Airplane
Aretha Franklin
Bee Gees
Even Glen Campbell had beaten them to the airwaves...and the top 10.  Procul Harum had proven that the world was ready for something artistically unique.  Traffic was on the charts.  The Animals were singing about San Francisco.  The music world had changed...and the Beach Boys were [seemingly] asleep at the wheel.

Heroes and Villains spent 2 weeks in the top 10 in Toronto peaking at #5.By September 25 it was gone.

Then came Smiley Smile.  WHAT A DISAPPOINTMENT.  What a lousy album.  We waited almost a YEAR from the release of Good Vibration til Smiley Smile?  They rush released Wild Honey [Nov.6-top 40] both as an album and a single and quickly after that...Darlin [Dec. 18-top 40].

Too little.  Too late.  The damage had been done.  The boat had sailed.  The world wasn't ready for what didn't happen.

+
"Riverboat Queen"  from Blondie's solo record would be worthy of a BB treatment, and I'd be curious what Brian's "Honeycomb" idea with Roy Wood would have sounded like if it was finished...

I'm gonna rank the instance where Denny essentially got told he couldn't tour for his solo album and then return to the Beach Boys, without losing his job within the Beach Boys, as pretty high up there in devastating moments with plenty of wide-ranging (and granted, some speculative) repercussions.  Awful, awful move by his bandmates.

I think Brian had already given up on SMiLE when he put all his focus on Heroes & Villains being a successful single. SMiLE was just too big to wrap his head around all by himself, but he still had hope and confidence that H&V could be as big as Good Vibrations. unfortunately it was just never as accessible or "commercial" as GV, no matter how great it was or could have been. In my opinion anyway.

I can't find the proof but wasn't "And Then I Kissed Her" released as a single in 1967, at least in the UK? a horrible move.

… in which case then surely the most devastating moment was VDP's exit from the creative process. Together, they might have been able to complete it for a '67 release.

It was hardly a moment, but dropping out of Monterey, giving up on Smile and Brian's gradual withdrawal from the group was the absolutely devastating chain of events. Nothing that happened in later years was even remotely as important to their career.

But nobody knows what would have happened if they'd done well at Monterey, and gotten in that movie, and released a great Smile album. For most people, the Beach Boys were only important from 1963 to 1966. Adding a successful 1967 might have yielded a lot of money and critical esteem and might have permanently changed their image, but given the times and who they were, everything could have easily fallen apart in 1968.

I think many of us fans assume that everything would have been great "if only" they'd gotten it right in 1967. Or "if only" some other scenario occurred. There's a really good probability that things would have gotten screwed up eventually, one way or another, regardless.

Yeah, I think the lack of support from the rest of the band for SMiLE was the very worst thing. Brian was their leader, they should have followed his lead. If they had backed him up, his confidence would have stayed strong and the album would have been finished.  The arrogance that it would take to question Brian Wilson's musical leadership in 1966-67 is just staggering. Denny and Carl should have backed Brian up and the rest of the band should have been told to either shut up and do as they were told or be fired.

It all goes back to the relative, perceived "failure" of Pet Sounds, if it went No1 he could afford more time, money and energy to SMiLE. But it didn't and he could not afford mentally to go through with it. It was the first of the one-two punch that floored him. The people that kicked him whilst he was down were all part of the exacerbation of the problem. 

Funnily enough Riverboat Queen was the first song that popped into my mind when I mentioned Blondie's solo record. Great song.

He didn`t belong out front and he realized it when forced into that role after injuring his hand. As Ed Roach has commented many times:

Absolute no-brainer: the non-release of Smile. Up to then, the trajectory was exponentially upwards. Thereafter, it was all aboard the Handbasket Express, non-stop to Hell.

You should have seen the original version. Here it is, in full:

"This sucks".

[sigh]

The legal right to tour as The Beach Boys resides with BRI. They license Mike to do so. As a voting member of BRI he controls exactly 25% of the band name. It's not people's hatred of any given band member that I find dispiriting (their prerogative: I would cheerfully throttle Morrissey with my bare hands, so I have no moral high ground here), rather that they permit those views to obscure established fact.

As my father often told me, "try harder":

http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/45uk60s.html (http://www.esquarterly.com/bellagio/45uk60s.html)

Yeah, and of ALL the songs, they chose THAT? I mean, even from the same album album, there would have been many more cutting-edge songs to choose from.

You have to remember that back in 1966-67, EMI could have put out a single of the band farting and it would have made the top ten.

2/66     Capitol CL 15432      Barbara Ann/Girl Don't Tell Me    3
4/66     Capitol CL 15441      Sloop John B/You're So Good To Me    2
5/66     Capitol EAP1-20781 Hits EP - Help Me Rhonda: California Girls/The Little Girl I Once Knew: Barbara Ann    [EP chart 1]
7/66     Capitol CL 15459      God Only Knows/Wouldn't It Be Nice    2
10/66 Capitol CL 15475      Good Vibrations/Wendy    1
11/66 Capitol EAP1-2458   God Only Knows EP - God Only Knows: Here Today/Sloop John B: Wouldn't It Be Nice    [EP chart 3]
4/67     Capitol CL 15502      Then I Kissed Her/Mountain Of Love    4
8/67     Capitol CL 15510      Heroes And Villains/You're Welcome    8

until...

11/67 Capitol CL 15521      Wild Honey/Wind Chimes    29

The most devastating moment to me is the breakdown / non-extension of the C50 reunion. For a brief moment I think the Beach Boys took back their rightful place as one of the greatest and biggest popular music groups of all time. Brian reclaimed his legacy as a Beach Boy, the world heard how incredible Al's voice is, the catalogue got a wider airing, Mike was winning people over with all of his best talents, they put out an album to rival anything they'd done since at least 1977, David was back in the fold etc, etc. The possibilities that could have followed that period were huge. And then? They chucked it all away. THAT was devastating.

To my mind, as much as I wish Smile had been completed and released, it's shelving led to some of my favourite Beach Boys records (the run from Smiley Smile to Love You is my favourite decade of Beach Boys music). So I find it hard to see Smile's abandonment as being as devastating as some others do. Dennis' decline and the all too early passing of both him and Carl are clearly devastating, but in terms things within the realms of control, the end of C50 seems to me to be the most devastating 'event' of any that I can think of.

Have to politely disagree - 2012 was twilight's last gleaming. Let's be honest, most of us expected something would happen. What happened in 1966-67 robbed the music world of not only possibly the best album ever released but also decades of music from one of the very, very few bona fide genii in the pop/rock field. Brian was never the same after Smile was scrapped. There were odd sparks and flarings of the flame, but compared to the upwards curve of 1963-66, it was dim stuff. Nothing compares. Nothing ever will.

That the band not only survived that but also came to produce music of genuine quality is hugely to their credit. But just imagine what could have been. The two saddest words in the English language: if only...

Fair enough. My opinion might be slightly coloured by the fact that I ended up missing the 2012 live shows entirely, with my son's birth coinciding with the RAH date. My only chance of ever seeing a full Beach Boys line-up gone, forever!

They played Wembley the next night. Really, some people just don't try hard enough.  ;D

The non release of Smile / lack of a worthy follow-up to Pet Sounds

Declining the invitation to play the Monterey Pop Festival 

Lack of support from Capitol in the late 60s when the band started to get on a creative roll again

The release of Endless Summer

The Brian's Back campaign

The death of Dennis Wilson

The infamous RNRHOF speech

The death of Carl Wilson

Post C50/TWGMTR fallout. 

Agree, without question with both.

All else can be fixed or mitigated.

This band (and every true fan) was hit by a bus, twice.

Same here, our sons must be pretty much the same age! I'd have loved to see them all together and would have made the trek to London (I might have JUST managed if they'd played in Manchester) but there was no way with the timings. And then they were gone...

Back to the original question, for me it's a tie between the abandonment of Smile, for the reasons AGD just mentioned, along with the mid-70s power shift to Mike after Endless Summer. Two times when they were making great music but were yanked backwards by cowardice/greed.

Nice sleeve, though.

Releasing Smiley Smile easily. That it wasn't Smile and is just too weird an album that sounds nothing like their previous output alienated a massive portion of the fanbase and doomed them commerically and critically. I really don't know what Brian was thinking with smiley smile releasing inferior versions of several basically completed songs like that version of wonderful instead of the smile version maybe he really was trying to spite his bandmates....

Smiley Smile, no doubt, is one of the great musical "f*** yous" of all time. That's why it's awesome.

Payback is a bitch.   :brow

Well OSD - those naysayers had to "eat their words with a fork and spoon!"  :lol

I could not resist!  ;)

Might it have been the misspelling in the title of this topic? ;D

Completely agree. This has always been so difficult. Had Smile been released, the band's career and Brian's endeavors would have probably continued on such an amazing trajectory.

Hahaha! Good catch. I'll fix.  ;D :P

It all started to turn bad for the BB after Smile was shelved and the Heroes single was released and was a relative failure and Smiley Smile tanked.  With the non appearance at Monterey and Jan Weiner (more appropriate than Wenner) trashing them in Rolling Stone, it was a confluence of badness and suddenly the hip Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys, creators of the groundbreaking psychedelic masterpiece Good Vibrations, were yesterday's news and decidedly unhip at a time when being accepted by the "counterculture" meant everything.  They didn't recover from that until. well, Endless Summer which resurrected their popularity and critical cachet (really the latter started with Surf's Up and the concert with the Grateful Dead) but had an adverse effect on their music.

*sigh*
thanks so much for the clarification. again.  ::)
we all know that Brian and Al wished to continue touring as Beach Boys in 2012 but Mike prevented it. Mike has somehow thwarted or bullied the other rightful members of BRI out of sharing the license, and if Carl were still with us... God rest his soul... we can all be fairly certain that would not be the current situation in which we find our favorite band.

I'm also pretty certain that if the situation changed, and if the BRI setup were not what it currently is, and if Brian, Al, and Carl's estate resisted... and Mike still went through all legal wranglings to get use of the band name - and was successful, against everyone elses' wishes... that the same ardent defenders would still be defending his use of the band name. Is that an off-base assumption?

If Michael is out with Bruce and touring as the Beach Boys, then somewhere or another there was a vote in 2012 to allow Michael to continue usage of the name.

wrong. we don't know when/if there is a "set end date" for Mike's exclusive use of the license, or when/if the matter will be reviewed and voted on again.

There were a few bad ones, most notably the deaths of Dennis and especially Carl, because of what he meant to the authenticity of the band. But the one most devastating moment to me, at least performance wise, was the live broadcast from Long Beach in 1981. One of the worst performances, if not the absolute worst, by the band, or any band for that matter. I watched in horror, no Carl, Brian attempting lead vocals on Don't Worry Baby and God Only Knows, that were just so awful. I thought I was watching the end of the band.

Mike being allowed to use the name is such a farce. The Beach Boys will never achieve their rightful place in history in the minds of the masses until his jukebox touring band is put to rest.  

That's a very good point. Absolutely horrible and sad to watch.

I think their rightful place in history was assured in the mid-1970s - that of America's first and greatest rock band.

Obviously the death of a band member is the most devastating. I mean, how CAN something be worse or devastating than death? Don't answer that!

However, I'll go with what was mentioned several times above. I think the MOMENT Brian Wilson decided/committed to recording Smiley Smile, the peak or zenith of the group was now set (whatever that day/date was), and it would be downhill after that, regardless of the merits of Smiley Smile, which are debatable.

Sometimes I think of the Beach Boys' career in terms of a graph. I believe the line of the graph was going up, up, up - reached its zenith with SMiLE - and then turned the other way and went down, down, down - with a few upward spikes along the way.

Brian made it clear in an interview recently that this is not going to happen.


You may be disappointed. Didn`t Howie Edelson say that he believes it is an absolute certainty that the touring under The Beach Boys name will continue even when there are no original members left onstage? It that happens, then people will be looking back on any of the last 50+ years with nostalgic memories.

Not my point. My point is that IF it did happen (not whether it's likely to actually happen), there would still be the exact same people defending away. Do you dispute that?

Sounds like a loaded question; I wouldn't defend it. I neither support nor ridicule Michael's usage of the name in concert since that's what BRI voted on.

Sure. If Brian, Al and Carl`s estate all issued public statements saying that they were trying to take the licence away from Mike then I think that would change public perception among fans massively.

But as Brian has said the exact opposite, there`s nothing more that needs to be said.

The voting entities of BRI could easily put it up for a vote if they wanted to...well, how's that been going of late? In fact, since 1998 no less?

If people are so dead set against Mike using the Beach Boys name, petition Brian Wilson and the estate of Carl Wilson to revoke his license to do so; see how far that gets you.

The fans know how to govern the band's affairs better than the band, dontchasee.

Don't knock fan sentiment; if not for the (especially hardcore) fans lobbying for it, I highly, highly doubt TSS would have ever been released in the immensely rad way that it finally was.

I think once BWPS was released and did so well it was only a matter of time.

Failure to put TV mini series into production.

Originally slated for production in fall of 1977 is was an "Americanized" mini series remake based on The Godfather 1&2 and centered on no other than....  The Beach Boys.

Cast Line up:

Godfather:            Murry Wilson
Michael:                Carl Wilson
Sonny:                  Dennis Wilson
Fredo:                   Brian Wilson
Tom Hagen:           Van Dyke Parks
Mo Greene:            Mike Love
Pentageli:              Al Jardine
Clemenza:             Jack Riely
Carlo:                   Bruce Johnston
Tessio:                  David Marks
Luca Brasi:            Charles Manson
Barzini:                 Eugene Landy
Johnny Fontane:    John Stamos
Connie:                 Carnie Wilson
Kay Adams:           Marylin Wilson
Appolonia:             Wendy Wilson
Jack Woltz:            Phil Spector
Hyman Roth:         Capitol Records
Johnny Ola:           Stan Love
All 5 Families:        The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Four Seasons, Jan & Dean

Surprised this didn't get green lighted...

If the money is good I'm pretty sure the band will go with it. Releasing a Smile package was a commercially sound move. The 50th anniversary tour was a commercially sound move. Potentially spending a lot of time in court to wrestle the name back from the alleged usurper...probably not so much.

 ;D

You think without fans pushing for it the way they were, that we'd have seen the giant deluxe 5-disc set, with all the extensive trimmings?

I only bought the standard set, to be honest I'd forgot there was a deluxe package.

Single moment?   The loss of Carl Wilson.   Losing the soul has to be the most devastating thing for the band.   

To take 'ownership' of the Beach Boys away from Mike would be 100% the WRONG thing to do.  It would be disloyal to Mike, Bruce and the rest of the group.  It would be equally wrong and insulting to the more casual yet loyal fans.  And it would cost the 'shareholders' MONEY as Mike works the brand to the available MAX.

Brian and Al wouldn't vote against it.  And why would Catl's estate?  Does Al even have a BRI vote?

The Beach Boys are heading for 55 years.  BRIAN WILSON has been [way more often than not] an entity unto himself...a BRAND...for more than a 1/4 of a century.  For almost 1/2 as long as the Beach Boys have existed so too has a solo artist named Brian Wilson.  And for these past many years...almost 2 decades he's toured and supported his unique BRAND and actual NEW releases.

We get the best of both worlds and the Beach Boys maximize what it is they can do collectively on two distinct fronts.  For the most part it's how they decided to do it and they've pretty much stuck to it.  In doing so they have managed to double our pleasure in many an instance.

I think that many could agree that AL has a ton of talent and that it has been a mistake to leave him sitting high and dry.  No matter which 'contigent' he is included with...THEY [and WE] win.

It ain't perfect.  But...I'm going to see AND HEAR 2 distinctly great concerts this summer with real live Beach Boys...5 of 'em in total.  6 if David stays with Mike and Bruce after the UK tour.

As long as THE MUSIC DOES THE TALKING...It'll be great. :hat

Meanwhile...the most devastating moment has yet to occur.  Let's ALL hope that it stays so.

I personally don’t think Smile’s non-release was the worst thing.

I believe following Pepper it never would’ve gotten its due, and if we’re being honest, even if it hadn’t, it STILL wouldn’t have gotten its due. It would’ve progressed a whole lotta OTHER people's music, but it would be confusing to the shifting audience. Smile sinking did more damage to Brian than it did to the BB's public.

The worst things to me when assessing the “slump” (which incidentally created the greatest and most satisfying music next to The Beatles) was that the hits dried up. THAT was Brian’s medium. Brian was at his best when he reached the masses on a major scale with a thorough sweep. Undeniable hits. Unbelievable hooks. Music you fell in love with because it replaces pain with heaven. I love Smile -- but that music doesn’t do that. Pet Sounds does, but Smile is whole other road. Equally important -- but it's not social music. It's heavy. I'm not saying Brian needed to be "fun in the sun" to be commercial, but Smile is music for music people. Subtle difference between that and mailmen and jocks and kids and moms and dorky teens all loving the same song.

The worst thing was The Association hits, "Daydream Believer," and “Happy Together.”

“Never My Love” and “Happy Together” took the 1967 spot where The Beach Boys lived. Sunshine Romantic Pop found new tenants. That was the failure. Another failure that Stebbins and I always talk about was the total abandonment of the guitar as a lead instrument.

I agree that the failure of Sunflower is among them, but that’s no fault of their own. They handed WB their Abbey Road, and that label was too embarrassed to make good on it. I place a lot of fault with WB for a lot of things, actually. I also find fault with WB artists that supposedly adored The Beach Boys and didn’t demand they be treated with the respect -- by both the label and U.S. promoters. Those artists and WB should've paired them on the road with the instant legends suddenly driving the label -- and the "business."

But in MY opinion, regarding the band’s CAREER, the loss of momentum following such masterpieces as "WIBN" and "GV" with the lack of a definitive, undeniable, massive, universal Beach Boys 45 in 1967 is the single most devastating event in the band’s career.

 :woot

Well...except the last two sentences. I don't want to think about that.

Agree about the guitars and WB Howie...but The Association?  The Monkees?  The Turtles?  ... and the idea of the Beach Boys staying with sunshine songs?  Brian knew that THAT was finished.  So too in no time flat would be the Association, Monkees and Turtles.  The whole 'thing' was changing.  Brian KNEW that he and the Boys HAD to adapt and move on in order to survive.  Unfortunately...he got lost in the maze he made for himself and that dead time/down time left them sitting in limbo with no life preserver of ANY kind to hold on to.

They got 'bronzed'...and set...in stone.

What a pisser!!!

I think "Darlin'" was a damn strong song for 1967! On the heels of "Heroes & Villains", I don't think Brian (and Mike) could have done any better. It was a Pop song with a LOT of Rock thrown in. It still fit the times. It only went to #19 in the U.S., but I think it deserved much better than that. The following year was when their rep went into a nose dive.

But he DID stay with it -- "This Whole World" -- perhaps his most important and musically successful songs is nothing if not Sunshine Pop.
I believe that song -- above any other -- is what Brian Wilson does.

"I'd Love Just Once To See You," "Here Comes The Night," "Soulful Old Man Sunshine," "Breakaway," "Good Time," his production contributions to "Susie Cincinnati" -- even "Our Sweet Love" -- all sunshine pop.

Sunshine Pop doesn't have to be disposable -- and those Association and Turtles hits were all quality songs and records -- I bet if you heard Miles Davis playing "Never My Love" you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. The Monkees were the biggest sellers of '67 -- all killer s hit. But The Springfield is considered more "important" and more "real." There are now GENERATIONS of people who can't sing a note from Younger Than Yesterday or Forever Changes -- but know every inch of "Happy Together." That's what I'm talking about. Is it better -- not for me to say, but if I was, I'd take Headquarters over Forever Changes each and every day.

Most of the sunshine/romantic pop of that era was built on Brian's work. The genre morphed into bubblegum -- but that had nothing to do with Brian.
Brian would've been the guy to take sunshine pop and bring it to college, but losing '67 stubbed that out.

The Monkees, the Turtles, and the Association, post-Pepper, were themselves trying to move beyond sunshine pop. The Beach Boys equivalent of 'Happy Together' or 'Never My Love' would have bought them only a few months of commercial viability, perhaps at the cost of the early 70's revival of their reputation.

To use a word like "Devastating" , the only thing that comes to mind is Dennis' death.  Carl's death was equally tragic but Carl lived a good life, and was older when he passed.  Dennis died way too young, and was in a bad place when he died...

I disagree, Clack.

You think if "Do It Again" had gone Top Three or if some smart DJ flipped a single over and took to "This Whole World" that would've cost them anything in the early-'70s?
I think it would've bridged the gap that found the band playing with occasional hostile fans clamoring for the hits.

Reminds me of the review that Shark Sandwich by Spinal Tap got. But Shark Sandwich is a better album than SIP if you ask me.

Am I defending him using the franchise name (as voted by BRI) ? No. I'm pointing out that someone who should know better is once more making an incorrect statement about where the rights to the marquee name reside? Just as I'd point out if a similarly incorrect statement applied to any other band member.

Nope.

Just so. The absolute nadir.

I could probably have made Manchester or somewhere else on any day but the 27th. As much as I can look back at that with disappointment (regret would be the wrong word, I was exactly where I should have been), I'm pleased to say that with almost no intentional indoctrination, my son's favorite song is "Beach Boys" (by which he means "Do It Again").

More generally I do think it's a shame that they didn't fit in a few more dates in England, even within a fixed term reunion scenario.


You're right, of course. I could technically have made that and not missed the main event. Although my marriage might have then ended as messily as that tour did!

Yeah, it seemed odd to me that the reunion tour was so limited over here when the UK has been a big part of Brian's touring plans.

That's always puzzled me. More shows in Japan, Australia, Germany... same number as in Spain and Italy.

Exactly. The premature loss of human life is devastating. Anything else basically is "a pity".

The thing is though Howie...This Whole World had a very cool kind of Rock influenced feel to it too..  It wasn't just a Pop song.  Not in a traditional sense.  I don't dismiss those Association songs...or the Turtles.  I was [and am] a big fan.  But THAT material had a shelf life which is why those 2 vocal juggernauts also faded away.  The Monkees?  Their stuff, in my opinion, was 'just for the fun of it'.

Mikie mentioned Darlin'.  GREAT tune.  But...that was 11 months after Good Vibrations wrapped up it's stay on the Top 40...and it WASN'T the next logical progression.  The Wild Honey songs you mentioned are great tunes.  The other songs?  Not hits...although Breakaway tried.  1967 could have gone WAY better.  In fact it really should have.  We fans ultimately got lots more.  The general population?  They had little or no idea.  Along came free form FM radio as the 60s morphed into the 70s and only really smart show hosts gave us some Surf's Up, Carl and the Passions and Holland.

So...again discussing '67.  The missing ingredient was Smile.

You're absolutely right that we got more. I'm just talking in terms of "career."
What we got we got in spades -- and got for longer and better than most of the bands/artists gave.
AND we DID get Smile through the years as we could dig and find it.

I think the better title of this thread should be biggest REGRET: major hits and FM acceptance -- which history has somehow deemed was lost in connection with Monterrey. Not so: I never remember hearing Lou Rawls deep cuts on WNEW back in the day.

Checking the tour dates, there's a gap from the previous date (Perth, 6th September) to the RAH show (27th September).  I know they probably had to reschedule the UK shows because of the Olympics (which was lucky for me - my son was born the day of the opening ceremony, so I would've probably missed any Beach Boys shows around then), but does anyone know what was going on in that gap?  Did they just go back to the US for a break?

I think Mike was genuinely into the C50 celebrations, unlike it's been said by some insiders (i.e. that he was lukewarm about it). His comments in interviews, his teary introduction of Cal Saga, his top-notch performances... all point towards it. He was fully involved. He addressed issues candidly and embraced his band partners. Something broke his heart along the way, rightly or wrongly.

Back when the license was non-exclusive, Alan tried, and failed, to bypass having one for purely financial reasons, and Brian elected not to bother. Mike was awarded a license because he adhered to the terms therein. No-one was bullied into doing anything by anyone. No-one has been thwarted, except in some agenda-driven minds.  If Alan had been less greedy, the years since then would have been very different. Shortly thereafter, the voting members of BRI awarded Mike an exclusive license which, to the best of my knowledge, no-one has since challenged, although who knows what the future holds.

There are many ups and downs, Smile, Monterey, Jack Rieley, VDP, Endless Summer, 15 BOs.... there´s endless amounts of stuff that constitute their history, and I would never get rid of anything of it because that´s life! (OK the cover of Battlehymn of the Republic was really uneccessary  ;D)

No, the one most devastating point was when they lost Dennis


I´m not talking directly about Dennis´death, but when they actually lost him. Did it start in 1974? 1977? 1980? 1983? I have no idea, but at some point he was no longer fit and capable and the result was that the Beach Boys could no longer make good music and continue. After they lost Dennis, the band became a travesty, a summer juke box, a purely money making entity, a group which had lost its way; it had lost its soul .

With Dennis´demise died the soul of the Beach Boys and anything positive since has been an anecdotal exception to the general decline and irrelevancy of the group as a creative unit. We still got treated to lovely vocs by Carl, the WOTS w/ Willie Nelson and that great 1993 box set tour, but as stated these were the exceptions, and none of it broke new ground in any way. At least Brian survives, but as was mentioned earlier, the split and demise of the Beach Boys name, brand and legacy are utterly tragic.

Let's not forget a very critical piece of evidence... during his teary introduction of Cal Saga (which was indeed genuinely emotional - I witnessed it just feet away, in person), Mike went out of his way to state, to a crowd of fans and some journalists surely in attendance, that Cal Saga would be joining the BBs "next summer" on tour. There's just got to be something to that. I can't think he would have publicly said something like that if it wasn't at least being actually considered in some way, even if just preliminarily.

Which leads to the biggest question (which maybe only the Cal Saga members could answer): was there any remote consideration that this would be Cal Saga touring with M&B? I just would find that scenario very hard to believe; maybe I'm wrong.

Denny was the guy who seemed, by all accounts, to DEEPLY (and very much not quietly) resist and resent the quality degradation, and traveling jukebox trajectory that the band was headed down. Is it reasonable to assume that this was part (certainly not entirely, but part) of the reason for him and Mike having a deep falling out in the late 70s/early 80s?  Obviously Mike resenting Denny's drinking-related outbursts was a huge part of it... but was the falling out also in part because Denny resented what Denny may have viewed as Mike leading the charge to pull the band in a direction bereft of artistic integrity? Mind you, I'm not trying to start a debate about whether or not other bandmates went along with that direction too, or who is to "blame" for that... that's irrelevant to the question I'm asking.

Al trying to go out in as Family & Friends was a big clusterf*** and he should have had better managers and lawyers and advisors. But that whole timeframe, going back to when Carl was still around, and running up through the granting of Mike's exclusive license, is about FAR more than a greedy Al Jardine.

I would also disagree on why Mike was awarded the license. I would say the opposite. He adhered to the terms because he was granted the license. *Why* he was granted the license is not so simple as "Al was greedy, and everybody else thought Mike was the best guy for the job." Those things may have been true as well. But there was certainly political and corporate maneuvering, leverage, apathy, ill will, etc. involved as well. Nothing illegal. But far from a simple equation. Was any of it bullying? I guess it depends on one's definition. Does pursuing leverage in a corporate set-up ever constitute bullying? I dunno.

Sort of like a Supreme Court ruling of 7-2 may be a simple vote, but have a whole s***-ton of backstory and politics involved.

as I said, and as everyone here knows, Brian and Al wished to continue touring as Beach Boys beyond 2012 which as founding members they should have every right to do. Mike prevented it from happening. my dictionary defines thwart as: to prevent someone from accomplishing something; to oppose. Mike has exhibited bully-like behavior and tactics in the past. it wouldn't surprise me at all if Brian voted giving him the license indefinitely just to get Mike (and his legal team) off his back.

There are certainly some dichotomies. Mike's a good front man, and can put a good face on (and no, I don't mean that negatively at all). But if he hated the entire thing, I don't think he could have come across as "into" it as he seemed to be.

At the same time, I don't think he was 100% into it for the longhaul only to be upended by some hugely unexpected event.

I think he may have started out skeptical (and happy with how things were, doing his own thing his way), and then was convinced by a tasty offer to do the project, and then rather than some big epic thing "breaking his heart", his pre-tour skepticism was confirmed at some point during the tour.

These guys are good at directly contradicting themselves though. You have Mike talking about CalSaga opening "next year", when by that point Mike *probably* had already booked post-reunion shows for his own band. You have Al saying they're reuniting "one last time", yet also telling Charlie Rose he envisioned touring every other year (or whatever it was), while insiders (and fans for that matter) seem to feel Al naively thought the reunion would or could be permanent.

I don't think that Alan Jardine was being greedy in the least.
Al Jardine was treated like sh it and publicly humiliated at a tremendous professional and and personal cost and and with great malice.

It did take the band a lot longer to become the 'travelling jukebox' than many seem to think. In the 78/79 they were still playing stuff such as Feel Flows, Everyone's In Love With You and All This is That at concerts. Every new album got a healthy showing on the road but with fans not reacting much to new material very little lasted. I think they only really became a travelling jukebox after the fail of KTSA and stopped making new material for years. By that point Dennis was too far in the hole to make a positive difference anyways.

And after all that, he STILL came to Mike's ELLA Awards.
Al is a mensch. Would the reverse scenario would have happened in a million years?

And nobody here mentioned it, Lee. Howie is hung up on the Monkees and Turtles (justifiably so) but Darlin' was no slouch! It was a contenda!

The thing that kills me (and the band) was the release of the "Gettin' Hungry/Devoted To You" single after "Heroes & Villains". What the hell were they thinking?! If there was ever a singles momentum killer it was that one. Not only was Smiley Smile the momentum killer album in '67, "Gettin' Hungry" helped the band start into a downward spiral. Then the Darlin' and Wild Honey singles, but the damage was already done until Do It Again came along. Album Rock was already in vogue in 'late '67 and '68 anyway. Bad choices all around.

The secondary question to the WTF moment of that  "Gettin' Hungry/Devoted To You" single being released after "Heroes & Villains", is why it was credited as "Brian and Mike"? There had to be reason(s) for that.

When I met Al in 2005 before a little middle-of-nowhere benefit show, he seemed to be almost coming out of a tiny PTSD and into being happy about simply once again being allowed to legally say he was a "Beach Boy." He had clearly been beaten down, was still on the outs with the rest of the guys (wasn't even allowed to sing with Brian at the Hawthorne function), seemed so liberated as to sign some of the autographs he was doing (which were being done to auction off for charity) as "Beach Boy Al Jardine." And he was *still* talking about wanting to get "all the guys" back together. He had just been to an Eagles concert (I think they had even had him on stage maybe?), and the vibe he was giving was basically "if those guys can do it, then WE should be doing it."

The malice and vindictiveness issue is key, and I think most fans don't know about a lot of the backroom stuff and hassles that occur even when Al does rag-tag one-off gigs, and the local city chili cook-off organizing committee starts using too big of a font to mention his "Beach Boys" founding member status.

"Darlin'" is a miracle. I can't deny it. But if ANYTHING could be deemed "undersold" -- it's that single.
Nearly nonexistent backing vocals -- or at least signature BB's vocals and nothing near the production level of the '66 tracks.
Had the production values that went into "Time To Get Alone" -- mixed with some guitar and distinctive upfront group vocals, it definitely could've/would've/should've skimmed the (U.S.) Top 10.

What's funny is that Darlin' also has the fullest arrangement of any of the Wild Honey tunes vocally...but even by Beach Boys standards it was a slight one. That's not to knock the song; the song is fucking great. Sort of makes one wonder about how Smiley Smile is considered a piss take when it has MUCH more intricate vocal arrangements.

Carl was right with the "music for Brian to chill out with" comment with regard to Wild Honey.

With all due respect, How, the Darlin' instrumental track was just fine and the backing vocals were there. I don't think they could have improved the song much to sell better. It came in a bright orange picture sleeve with a Sun on it and I believe it didn't do better because it had the name "Beach Boys" on it. Capitol probably didn't promote the Hell out of it as the Capitol lawsuit was in progress. Like I said, they were not up high on a pedestal in '67 and they not only had steep competiton, but Heroes was not the strong single they had hoped for. And Good Vibrations helped Smiley Smile along. It was about momentum. And they just didn't have it. I love the song Wild Honey, but that single didn't exactly kick ass on the charts either. Singles were just about over for them at that point.

I disagree.

The only thing they really could have done with the tune short of a fuller vocal arrangement would be a faster tempo. The tempo seems a smidge tentative. Note how on Live in London the band seems to have sped it up a bit and then it cooks.

Darlin is a brilliant song, a favorite of Brian and many fans and for damn good reason. But it's still a rewrite of an early 60s song and it sounds like it. I realize a lot of groups were getting "back to basics" and back to their roots after all the psychedelics wore off, but anyone who was paying attention were hoping for something a little more forward-thinking and modern from the Beach Boys at that time.

let's face it, a lot of folks had probably already written the Boys off as square and irrelevant before Good Vibrations came out and blew everyone's mind. they still had the potential to make huge waves in the pop world, but not with a song like Darlin.

If they were looking to get a BIG single as far as production on the market, why they didn't release Loop de Loop in 1969 after Break Away is beyond my comprehension.

Call me nuts, I always dug the circa 1980 live arrangement of "Darlin'", where they made it sound more like a pop/rock song.

Totally agreed (not on the nuts part :)). And the "bum-bum-bum" backing vocals (which are missing on the studio version) help take the song into the stratosphere.

Loop de Loop is really kind of a dud!
It's just not too great, and I think that it would have sunk like a stone if released in its day.

It's not the best song in the world but the production makes up for whatever the song lacked. I don't think they could have gotten away with Sail Plane Song as the single on the other hand...it would have been laughed at.

Can anyone remember off the top of their head what the approximate date that Brother settled with Capitol around that time?
I wonder who at Capitol was "working" the '67 BB's singles to radio -- and what ELSE were they pushing at the same time.

I'm sure this article has appeared on here before as it's almost three years old.  But I find it interesting that this was posted June 29, 2012.  That's Why God Made the Radio wasn't even a month old.  The Beach Boys C50 Tour was in full swing, yet cracks were beginning to show. 

http://www.avclub.com/article/the-beach-boys-reunion-tour-may-not-be-all-surfing-81961

Yep, they took "Thinkin' 'Bout You Baby" from 1964 and made it into a fast Rock song three years later. In 1969 a kick-butt live version was released on "Live In London" and a year before that somebody named Carl Wilson thought the backing track was good interesting enough to include on Stack-O-Tracks.

Late June/early July 1967.

Thank you.
That's what I thought.

RE: "Darlin'" -- the '73 version should've been pulled as the IN CONCERT single.
Now, THAT had real U.S. hit potential -- and doesn't sound dissimilar to, guess what, a killer Three Dog Night cut.
One of CW's best recorded vocals (future '72/'73 mixes of the song should boost the backing vocs as well.).

'Do It Again' and 'This Whole World' are great pop records. But if there was no lost-masterpiece SMiLE legend, and all we had were a couple of early '67 top 5 singles instead -- then yes, the early 70's renaissance might not have happened. And one or 2 more 1967 pre-Pepper hit singles wouldn't have helped in '68 or '69 anyway.

'Never My Love' and 'Happy Together' didn't help either the Association nor the Turtles bridge the gap between 60's top 40 pop and early 70's 'progressive' rock.

And I think you're not entirely wrong about the staying power of Sunshine Pop vs. what music was considered hipper during that era, but I think 'Forever Changes', 'Younger Than Yesterday', and Buffalo Springfield are not good examples of the latter. The Byrds and Love are still highly influential among young rock musicians, certainly more so than the Association. Do young music fans really listen to 'Happy Together' more than they do 'So You Want to Be a Rock n' Roll Star'? No idea.

But you're right, the Monkees for instance were considered a joke, but their records have held up while those of Country Joe and the Fish ( a better example than the Byrds, imo), say, have not.

You'd be surprised how many musicians and writers today are influenced by groups like The Association and the SONGS -- not the bands, not frontmen, not the sideburns, not the crushed velvet -- or even the tracks, but the SONGS by groups of that ilk. I don't know what you do Clack, but I work in the industry and see "what's floating" in 2015 -- I've found to my surprise that nobody behind the scenes gives a s  hit about the things music fans think music makers / labels /publishers give a sh*t about. I absolutely love the Byrds, I wish that catalogue was worked better, but a band like Love, or the Springfield is on nobody's radar (that I've found) other than their fans.

Once you've been to the Songwriters Hall of Fame inductions a few times, and meet publishers, and label heads, you see what's green and growing.
"Evergreens" are growing. Mojo articles on fetish bands are printed on dead wood. The songs don't sell themselves let alone a movie or a product -- which is where LIFE for this music now is.

My ultimate point is that Smile is believed to have been the failure that robbed them of FM standing. I don't believe it's so. I think that the fact that it wasn't rock and was played by adult session players in an era when orchestration was used ON TOP of existing band tracks (Beatles, Moodies, etc.) would cause the hipper-than-thous to feel it was "uptight" music (e.g. "Where's the BAND?!"). As gorgeous and timeless as Smile is, it's very dark sh*t. I know tons of people through the years, who've been tripping and tried to play Smile and ripped it off because it was terrifying. I think that Smile wouldn't have had much of a place on FM going into, say 1969. Brian's strongest move forward was through pop, because his POP was always more "rock" than Smile.

He WAS on the right course though -- the Redwood tracks were that direction. Unfortunately he was tortured into giving them up so that one could be an all-but unrecognizable minor BB hit and the other buried on an LP that 463 people bought.  

(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/150x100q90/661/ImeKYD.jpg) (http://imageshack.com/f/idImeKYDj)  where is Mike Love in this picture?     http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,20778.25.html

Don't you know? Mike and Bruce were the lucky test recipients of an invisibility spray that allowed them to invisibly attend that all-important and heartfelt C50 Set End Date Dinner Celebration (or C50SEDDC for short). M&B are both still there in that pic! You just can't see them. There's a Get Smart episode about that very invisibility spray... but it turns out that it's actually real.

I feel sorry for Al and I don't know his motives during the license troubles but the court record seemed to show that Al pretty much shot himself in the foot in spite of BRI trying to cut him slack.

I agree that SMiLE probably wouldn't have been the great thing for the band that we like to imagine.

It took years for the BBs to build a counterculture following , by the time they did it was dying out. They had a solid pop following and Smile could have just as easily alienated it as Smiley did.

The issue of Al and the licence is all pretty well explained here again for anyone who hasn`t seen it.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html

The key finding:

`Jardine's promotional materials display “The Beach Boys” more prominently and boldly than “Family and Friends,” suggesting sponsorship by the Beach Boys. Cf. Kassbaum v. Steppenwolf Prods., Inc., 236 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir.2000) (reasoning that promotional materials reduced likelihood of confusion by minimizing references to trademarked name “Steppenwolf”).   Also, there is evidence that Jardine uses “The Beach Boys” trademark to suggest that his band is in fact sponsored by the Beach Boys, as Jardine's management testified that they recommended including the trademark “The Beach Boys” in the name of Jardine's band in order to create or enhance marquee value.   Finally, Jardine's use of the trademark caused actual consumer confusion, as both event organizers that booked Jardine's band and people who attended Jardine's shows submitted declarations expressing confusion about who was performing. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1213400.html#sthash.HmtTDIGF.dpuf`

That is the (correct) legal explanation for why (duh) one can't use a trademark without permission.

The court rulings, while providing an occasional inadvertent insight, do not however get into any of the background of how Al ended up in the position he was in in the first place, nor does it provide any insight into the inner-workings of their corporation. Nor should it, of course.

But when we're talking about anything beyond the fact that Al wasn't cleared to use the BB trademark within his own band's name, it goes far beyond court rulings into all of that corporate murk that we'll probably never fully understand.

Al appears to have sought out a lot of wonky advice. (Let us not forget at one point he sued one of his lawyers for malpractice in the 2000's).

But people like Cam over the last 16-17 YEARS! have continued to paint a picture of malice on the part of Al, and that's where all credibility is lost with me. A guy so marginalized, so impotent within the group power structure, who was essentially phased out of the group unwillingly in 97/98 (see the David Marks book for more on that; yes, Howie's right, he was essentially s***canned), and continued to be harangued as his bookings dwindled in the 2000's to the odd Pork Rind Festival here and there, for him to be painted as the big bad guy is laughably ridiculous and ignorant as to how the band is known to function, not to mention common sense.

It doesn't mean Al has never been an a-hole or a pain in the ass over the years (same goes for all of them). Unlike a few Mike defenders, I'm fine acknowledging unequivocally negative things about Al (or whoever).

But on the whole post-1998 fall-out/lawsuit/trademark think, Al was, at absolute worst, poorly advised and didn't seek out better counsel (legal and otherwise). But it's a tragic thing really, not a case of him being greedy or evil or villainous.  

I just said I feel sorry for him.  I suggest those interested go to the link Nicko1234 provided and read the whole document.

"But on the whole post-1998 fall-out/lawsuit/trademark think, Al was, at absolute worst, poorly advised and didn't seek out better counsel (legal and otherwise)." 

Sure. Let's blame it on somebody else.

Hey Jude - that case summary kindly provided by Nicko 1234 should provide lots of contemporaneous info. The background section provides the history and the terms, which generally called for a list of "conditions precedent" prior to touring. Monies to be paid, agents and managers to be used.  It wasn't based on personalities, but conditions to be fulfilled to get the license. Second was the trademark issue and marketplace confusion.

"By 1998, Carl Wilson had died, Love and Jardine no longer wanted to tour together and, Brian Wilson didn't want to tour at all." Sentence 4, Paragraph 2, under Background.

The court was specific. Please don't muddy the waters. Why would you expect the "inner workings" of the company to be fodder for discussion?

The BRI corp. discusses, votes and that is it.  It was contract language that had to be fulfilled.  Our opinion is of no consequence.

And no one is calling Al a villain, greedy or anything else.  He is a great singer and BB. But the court found that the use of the name, and not using the prescribed agents and managers didn't conform to what BRI wanted. The court didn't allow him to tour "as The BB Family and Friends," but, he could still "refer to his past membership in the band 'in a descriptive fashion.'"

Please don't create a fairy tale here.   

Murry's death, Dennis' death, Carl's death.

I don't think you're familiar with Cam's 16-plus-year history of speaking on the matter.

When I was thinking of a *long-term* pattern of language and statements that were laughably inflammatory as it pertains to Al, I was probably thinking about posts like these:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,2550.msg48918.html#msg48918

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,2550.msg48967.html#msg48967

These sort of posts go *far* beyond simply pointing out that Al lost a lawsuit. Do you support the characterization of Al "putting hatchets into the backs of his bandmate and (Carl's) heirs", or of Al "screwing" his bandmates?

I will also add that the characterization by the court that "Love and Jardine no longer wanted to tour together" is far from accurate if you choose to believe the Marks/Stebbins book. The court's background information was just that, *background* information. That was my point. The court didn't need to go further into it and talk about how Al was kinda forced out of the group, but kinda didn't want to play with Mike, but maybe he would have if he hadn't been forced out, etc. But if *we're* going to discuss that stuff, then we need more than the court rulings.

At no point in this thread did anyone say "The court was wrong, Al wasn't touring with a trademark he didn't have the right to."

We got, instead, subjective characterizations of greed and the like.

At the end of the day, I enjoy reading and trust Howie Edelson's point of view on this more than yours. That's all.

Hey Jude - I looked at the court decision and compared it to your post.  I didn't look at anything else.   The court had the necessary info to make a decision.  It was "affirmed," on appeal.  That is enough for me.

I wasn't aware I had submitted a competing court ruling to compare or contrast.....

I didn't comment on the court ruling other than to say it existed and was correct. What is there to compare? My whole point was about information, consideration, and subjective discussion outside of or beyond that court ruling, things that would speak to inflammatory accusations of "greed" and the like.

Man. Reading those posts of Cam's from 2006 really take me back. Sometimes I forget the bullshit he's spewed over the years.

Of course, those were two devastating moments, so that really doesn't qualify as a proper answer.

While the death of both Wilson brothers was devastating to family members and fans, Carl Wilson's death absolutely had the most devastating effect on the Beach Boys as a band.  Like another poster (Lonely Summer, maybe) stated in a recent post, the Beach Boys have never really sounded quite like the Beach Boys since that day in early 1998 when Carl was called home.

I like Howie too.

And still I feel sorry for Al.

Please read the whole threads, if you can stand it, not just the cherry picked posts.

Subjective discussion and a court decision don't mix.  It goes under "coulda, woulda, shoulda."

Not everyone reads every thread.  And, I think Al is great.  

I haven't read either mentioned book.  You can rely on anyone's point of view you want.  

This is America!   ;)

The point of the thread was "devastating moments." I listed two; the deaths of Dennis and Carl.

Any disputes that end up in court would not ever come close for me.

The new agenda is hiding Mike's actions behind the BRI corporate lingo to shield the true meaning of what he did. He kicked Al from the BBs and made his life miserable even afterwards when AL tried to make a separate band.

Again, *that* was my point: Court rulings and subjective discussion DON'T mix. We were *not* having a discussion about court rulings, but rather decidedly SUBJECTIVE  things like calling Al "greedy." So, to continue to cite the court case as the final say regarding that SUBJECTIVE conversation is, well, entirely missing the point.

I do appreciate letting us know you haven't read Stebbins' *invaluable* David Marks book. I'll weigh posts accordingly now.

And you know Mike has an "agenda?"

How do you know the workings of BRI?

He has a 25% share, as I've read.  That is one of four.

Seriously.  Read the decision.  Line by line.  And I recommend that you read the precedent cases the court based its decision upon.   It is very interesting reading.  You'll learn a lot about the entertainment business.

And, have you ever seen Al's band? I have.  They are great!  :thewilsons

Well, I didn't call anyone greedy.  The discussion is "devastating moments in the band's career." 

I feel sorry for Al and am glad he's been let back in from the cold, so to speak, but he DID dig his own grave with his exit from the band after Carl's death and the Beach Boys Family & Friends fiasco.

I kind of used to think that. I suppose my thinking hasn't changed so much as how I would term things. I'd say Al's main faults were: 1. Being part of allowing the BRI corporate setup (and band attitude) going all the back to the 70's and 80's to develop the way it did; 2. Perhaps being too naïve about what was going on around him (that insane, Spinal Tap-esque moment in the Stebbins/Marks books when Al all of a sudden realizes he hasn't been told someone else has joined the band, is evidence both that he was totally out of the loop, and also evidence (based on what he tells Marks during that face-to-face) that Al knew *exactly* what was going to happen); and 3. Not having better agents/managers/advisors/lawyers that could have either kept the power-shift from happening in the late 90s, and/or could have better advised him how to go about the "Family & Friends" fiasco.

He kind of seemed to to indirectly help dig his own grave, or at least let people setup the grave digging equipment over the years, yes.

But what was put upon him in the late 90's came about because of, in my opinion, a lot of vengefulness and ugliness. He doesn't just f-up what was otherwise a totally perfect thing.

A few posts back you said this: "And no one is calling Al a villain, greedy or anything else."

But we've had people in fact refer to him as greedy, and a history on the part of a few folks of calling him some pretty inflammatory (and laughably unfounded) things. I suppose my unsolicited advice would be to not suggest that "no one" is saying stuff about Al (implying my suggestion that such things *are* being said is, as you put it a "fairy tale") without knowing the history of some of the posters, especially posters within the thread, who have a history of saying some of this stuff about Al.

Please read the decision. And let that inform your discussion. Not speculation. Or wishful thinking.

A reading of the court ruling (and other related documents) supports the idea that Al was ill-advised to do most of what he did (not all of it; there was a period of time in 1999 when Al was *not* neccesarily breaking any rules touring as BBFF). But it also is not impossible to read the docs and also come away feeling like Al was also totally f***ed over by some of his fellow shareholders as well, to the letter of the law no less. He did himself no favors along the way. He got himself all full of piss and vinegar about the group's legacy way too late in the game.  

But having read those court docs numerous times over the years, I've always felt like one would have to be kind of a masochist to read all of that and come away with the feeling that Al deserved just what he got, that he was the root of all the problems, etc.

What are you talking about?

Is this the new thing now, to ignore what everybody else is asking or talking about? Or are some posters just seeing a version of the board with random blocks of posts missing?

Please read the actual posts in this thread. I'm pretty sure you're not doing that and are posting after skimming or ignoring posts. You made reference to one of my posts citing two books when I only cited one. I've also said NUMEROUS times that I've read the court decision NUMEROUS times, and that this has been an ongoing debate/discussion with Cam for 16-17 years.

Surely, you jest.  What on earth do you think law students, lawyers and judges do? "One would have to be a kind of masochist to read all of that." - There isn't an easy way around it.  Or, any way around it.  It isn't guesswork.

Who suggests that "Al deserved just what he got?"

It merely appears that the court found that Al didn't adhere to the terms set forth by BRI.  

It appears that whatever another person's opposing opinion is a problem.

Please read the actual posts in this thread. I'm pretty sure you're not doing that and are posting after skimming or ignoring posts.

I didn't say you'd have to be a masochist to simply *read* the document. I said that in reference to a SPECIFIC reaction I've seen a few people have after reading the document.

Sorry, don't understand that whatsoever.

I still have this feeling the posts aren't actually being read.

Well, I read the case decision.  Any reaction is personal as to each person.  

And yes that was my impression, that your comment created the impression that anyone who would do that kind of reading is a "masochist."

Guilty, as charged.

Thank you for clarifying. Your impression of what I wrote is  indeed 100% incorrect.  

Sorry you feel that way.  That post created that inference.  This is a message board.  This thread is for "devastating moments" and the case is long settled. 

The BRI board hasn't changed, as far as I know.  It's not worth losing sleep or getting upset over it.  And, I'm certainly not going to.   ;)

Thank you for pointing out the filledtheplagessf likely doesn't read others posts. She will pick out a certain phrase or word and elaborate upon that. For instance, recently, I mentioned John Stamos in one of my posts, and rather than responding to the what the basis of the post was about, she picked out the Stamos thing and absolutely avoided the rest. So it leads me to believe she either does not read the posts or as Mrs. Mott, she just chooses not to the respond to things using this half-assed notion of "liberty" or "freedom" saying "hey, in an Amuurrrican, I don't have to reply to you, even if this is a message board and if it made sense people would actually reply to the topics listed."

This is, I hope, the last round for me, as I've taken far too much of the bait. I will only add that this is what I posted:

"...one would have to be kind of a masochist to read all of that and come away with the feeling that Al deserved just what he got, that he was the root of all the problems, etc."

The only way you could read that and come away with the impression that one would be a masochist for simply reading the document is if you *didn't actually read the entire post*, as if you literally stopped reading the sentence half-way through.  

You have no idea what anyone reads or not.  It is amazing that because a person randomly might agree with a point of view they become "spouses."

I'm asking the mods to make note of your screaming bold print, in multiple posts and your attempts to derail a thread on "devastating moments in the band's career."

Bold print was only meant for emphasis, not screaming. Apologies if using bold print is against forum rules. I've used it many times as have others for emphasis.

As I alluded to in my previous post, I think the back and forth has hit a dead end. Apologies for contributing to derailing the thread.

who are the most people? The beach boys were still huge after 67, just not in the US, but american music consumers were into other music and not rock in 68-73,...the BBs always maintained commercial viability even if it wasn't so much in America.

Nah, you don't need to do that. That's what we have PM's for. No use pissing someone off worse by notifying the Moderators.

Besides, someone might get banned for no real good reason, and you don't want that to happen because it creates even more animosity. Trust me, it happened to me and three others recently.

We're all adults here. Deal with it one on one, preferably behind closed doors. Deal with it like you would in person sitting at a table having a coupla beers. DON'T get the Mods involved!!

Thanks for the wise advice Mikie. By the way, I'm always happy to do PM's with anyone, whether we're agreeing or disagreeing. Few do write, but please feel free!

All of this is filledeplage-bustering to deflect blame from Mike Love as usual. Same lady thinks Mike's solo group is the Beach Boys and Christian Love gave a sh*t.

SmileBrian - Mike (and Bruce's) group is the Touring Beach Boys Band, by agreement of BRI.  It isn't the C50 arrangement, nor is it the band from the 1960's. 

We aren't here to apportion "blame" but to discuss music.  Do I think Christian Love cared about his work? YouTube - GOK in DC, December, 2011 singing for the military. It speaks for itself.

Looking at each group's merit is very easy for me, whether Brian's, Mike's or Al's. 

After the success of Endless Summer and 15 Big Ones they shoulda never made another album. Love you shoulda been "Brian loves you" as orig intended and they just stuck to touring, then abominations like miu, the ligh album and ktsa woulda never happened to tarnish everything they worked for.

They ultimately mostly *did* just stick to touring, especially post-1980, and there are enough good bits on the 1977-1980 albums that I wouldn't want to give those up. (Nor some tracks on '85 and "Still Cruisin'").

I think by the early 80's that they stopped being a recording act that also toured and became a touring band that occasionally did studio work.

Maybe I should apologize for linking to the court documents. I thought they would show a factual account of what happened and certainly didn`t expect Cam`s 9 year old posts on the board to be dredged up because of it.

There seems to be something of an obsession with wanting to pound Cam down right now though. In a recent thread, completely off topic, we had him being harangued over his opinions on Smile, Kokomo and the correct way to treat any and all mental illnesses for example!?!  ::)

Nick1234 - thank you for linking them.  I re-read them and attempted to "distill" the decision, and pull out the facts, since I've read hundreds of cases and thought that might be helpful, to those without that background.

But, those who already have a strong position against the info those documents may hold, may not be receptive to that.  Not my problem. 

Where the "Cam" nonsense came, I don't know.  How I ended up "married" to Cam, warrants notice. It is abusive.  Cam is entitled to his opinions as am I, and everyone else. 

Facts debunk fiction, and add something worthwhile.  Thanks, Nicko and ... :beer for you!

I guess they are all entitled to their opinions as am I, and everyone else. Or maybe he just made an incredibly weak set of arguments that look pretty laughable and perhaps he needs to recharge his batteries by staring silently at a picture of a smiling Al Jardine.

(http://www.bmi.com/images/musicworld/j/jardine_a_1_500.jpg)

You are an obsession
I cannot sleep
I am your possession
Unopened at your feet
There's no balance
No equality
Be still I will not accept defeat

Nobody is saying they should agree with Cam on anything...

But in another thread you have people mocking him for making a spelling error and bringing up the Macarena again when it is off topic.

It doesn`t seem to be about discussion or debate anymore but only about haranguing one poster.

Oh, I know! Let's steer this back on topic. The most devastating moment in the band's career... say, filledeplage... coughSTUDENTDEMONSTRATIONTIMEcoughcoughcough. There. All better and back on topic.

Nicko1234, you seriously think petty internet snipping at spelling and grammar somehow only applies to Cam Mott? C'mon. It's the beloved past-time of some of this board's greatest pedants with rich, near-Biblical beards. The weak complaints about personal attacks DO neatly change the subject from Mr. Love's boneheaded moves, tho. If you're really concerned about balance and protecting the integrity of Cam Mott's paper mache arguments, do feel free to post on topic and blame other members of the band for devastating moments so some weird equality is achieved in your minds.

There's a riot goin' on!

Well ontor, now, we have opinion-based insults.  Now, that is against board rule #2.

Opinion-based insults? Good name for a band. Sorry if you're offended, I was expressing my laughable opinions totally devoid of all logic and not backed up by court documents... which is my gawd-given right as a 'Merican or something. It's the latest thing, all the kids are doing it. How dare you question my opinions! I feel so offended and picked on. I think I'm gonna go put on a baseball cap and point at someone, feel free to take this thread in exciting new directions in the meantime if you want to raise the tone.

We're counting on you. I'll bow out here, thanks.

You are talking about an alternative reality America here I take it?

I've often thought about going out on the street and doing this, maybe shouting out 'Wheeeeeeeeeeen!' as I do so, see how long it takes for the cops to show up.

 Wait a sec...did two posters get married? Why wasn't I invited?  :lol

Sounds like filledeplage is not that into me.

Did you have an opinion on the topic or are you just in it for the insults?

please videotape this and wear ML circa 1992 clothes. :lol :lol :lol

It would be a youtube sensation.

The success of Endless Summer and Spirit of America to me is the most devastating moment in the Beach Boys career.

  In a word, that is crazy. Trust me, as someone who was there, the success of these comps made The Beach Boys a superstar band again, this time with the younger set, a demographic that included me. ENDLESS SUMMER passed on the music to the next generation of fans.

  What was devastating was the band's reaction to this second generation success. They were given a golden opportunity to make contemporary recordings that built on the past, while being rooted in the present, that looked toward the future. We know that the right assembly of songs may have achieved this, but of course it didn't happen. That's down to The Beach Boys, not the wonderful success of ENDLESS SUMMER and SPIRIT OF AMERICA. Seriously, there was nothing "devastating" when these two comps resonated throughout the world 1974-76 - it was all pretty cool.

 

  The most devastating moment in the band's career, professionally and spiritually (to Brian at least) was obviously the collapse of SMiLE.

  I can't speak for the guys, but the deaths of Dennis and Carl were likely the most devastating personal setbacks.

Yeah, calling Endless Summer and Spirit of America "devastating" is a reach. Maybe devastatingly awesome for the band, though. Who's gonna argue with packed houses in stadiums all over the world as opposed to college campuses and small halls?

Endless Summer and Spirit of America can also be pegged to fortunate timing - In 1974 and up to maybe 1977 after disco replaced it, there was a full-blown revival of 50's and early 60's music and culture in general, across America at least. Did it start with George Lucas and American Graffitti? Perhaps it did, also maybe fueled by a combination of a post-60's lingering hangover and the Watergate era, but it seemed like a chunk of popular culture was focusing on the "Fabulous 50's" and the music started to sell again. The Beatles had a similar revival in 76-77 driven by reunion rumors and numerous repackaging and re-releases of Beatles songs and singles by Capitol. Happy Days after its first seasons - inspired some would say by American Graffitti's popularity and theme - became a national cultural phenom, full of 50's records just like Lucas did in his film. There was a desire to return to that era, and kids once again ate it up for a brief period.

Repackages of Beach Boys classics at this exact time just seemed to fit in perfectly with everything else that was going on, then factor in the "Spirit Of '76" vibe that was happening for the Bi-Centennial celebrations in the US, and the timing was right.

I don't think calling these hits packages "Endless Summer" or "Spirit Of America" instead of Greatest Hits vols. 3 and 4 or whatever was a stroke of marketing genius or devastation for the band (although Spirit Of America was a more direct appeal to a certain mindset of the era when it appeared), I just think these repackages hit the stores at just the right time given the way things were going in the 50's pop culture revival during those years. And it did remind people of how great these records made by a young producer/writer/arranger who could only hear out of one ear, his brothers, cousin, and high school friend and various other musicians still sounded a decade later. The records themselves were and are timeless, releasing them in the mid 70's was just a fluke of good timing and great luck since people were hungry for it.

All of that came with a price.

Oh wait, only a guy like Mike Love would see nothing wrong with that.

A price, perhaps...but to call it devastating? Nah, not really. I fail to see how Michael would have anything to do with that. Care to elaborate?

I find Wipe Out with the Fat Boys pretty devastating...

Especially galling as Mike Love then went on and did Celebration.

With the emphasis on vast... ;D

And, Carl Wilson then went on and did two solo albums and some solo shows. And, Brian Wilson then went on and did solo shows in the mid-1980's and a solo album in 1988. Was that "galling" too?

According to Mike the band wasn't consulted at all about ES, it was already decided by Capitol just shown to them. They weren't even consulting about a title, it was just a suggestion that he made.

According to Mike, "Endless Summer" is "Mike Love concept album".

I definitely think he did more harm than good post-67 or so.

For my answer...not finishing SMiLE. Hands down. Whether it took another month or 6 months, whether it would still have been the album Brian originally envisioned, whether it had been a #1 hit or a flop...the other guys should have sat Brian down and forced him to either divulge his grand plan or admit he didnt have one. And then they should have all worked together round the clock to record the missing vocals, finish either the elements or Tones to fill in the missing space on the album, and get SOMETHING out under the SMiLE name.

There's been other bad moments, but this is when their reputation really sank. I love Smiley Smile, and Id hope something done in that style could still be released in this alternate timeline, but it just wasnt what the public wanted in place of the much hyped psychedelic followup to Good Vibes and Pet Sounds. Had it come out after SMiLE rather than in place of it, I think it would have been seen as Brian intentionally going against the trends. As a willful act of defiance to the production race he himself started and perfected, instead of a band of has-beens out of touch with the times, which is how it came off in real life.

I think it was Mike trying to undo what Brian did by crediting Caroline No to himself. I think Brian was testing the waters to see how successful he could be going solo, at least here and there. And Mike and the others beat him down and reinforced the fact that he was a beach boy, he had to keep making "beach boy music" and then the Brian + Mike credit was like a statement to the record buying public. "Brian going solo? No. He just put his name on that single because he wrote it. But WE wrote this one again. So it's credited to us. See. We do that sometimes. See."

Perhaps, since the Caroline No single didnt do quite so well comparitevly, it was a reaffirmation to the fans that they were back to using the "winning formula" of Brian and Mike?

I would be quite surprised if the true answer deviated significantly from what you've theorized. It was a "CONTROL + Z" undo type of situation for the individuality that Brian had been building towards just one year prior.

Brian sure picked a real winner of a track to get that unique GH crediting distinction  ;D