The Smiley Smile Message Board

the people surrounding Brian that we know of, Lauren Daro, etc, who are telling Brian you don't need these other guys, you are THE MAN! How would you feel?

It'd be tough to quibble with his track record at that point. Mispelled Daro was right!

You'd tell Daro that in 50 years time he's going to make a total prick of himself on a certain msg board and that nobody gives a f uck what he thinks anyway.

+1. If the Caroline, No BW single had charted bigger,  you can bet Brian's confidence would have been in a different place, and who knows what fruits that might have yielded. A more self confident Brian in 1966 at the height of his powers? That's a good thing in my book. Mind you, I love, love, love The other Boys and don't discount what they brought to the recordings (and I love/cherish their material from the wilderness years), but I think Brian needed his artistic circle to be "yes men" around this time, more than he needed artistic opposition and cocky phone calls demanding lyrics to be explained.

I'd say quite the opposite, the other guys in the band were Brian's biggest fans but they weren't fanboys, giving constructive criticism is not a bad thing.

I agree that constructive criticism is not a bad thing, in theory. But somewhere along the way, some (not all, but some) of their constructive criticism became destructive criticism. I think the negatives of that criticism eventually outweighed the positives.

It never seems to get mentioned but do you think it's likely that others gave a difference of opinion to Brian before the Pet Sounds/Smile era?

+1

Wasn't there some resistance or questioning (despite Mike's cowriting credits) to the collection of ballads on Side B of Today? I though I recalled reading that. It is unfortunate that Brian wasn't especially good with handling criticism (up to a point yes, beyond a point he simply breaks), although that just makes him a very sensitive person, which is also what makes him capable of unparalleled sensitivity in his art.

I do "get" the idea that criticism and pushback is ordinarily simply "how bands work", but Brian was a special case. I do not think those criticisms were always handled with care, so to speak, and that was a problem.

Yes indeedy.

He had been producing talent outside of the BBs for years but none of it had caught on. He had co-authored a hit for outside the BBs.

My guess is since Brian seems to have been able to do whatever he wanted with whomever he wanted and when he wanted that he didn't want to leave the group or the guys and he let those suggesting it go instead.

Hal Blaine tells about how he saw Brian and Carl get into very serious and heated arguments regarding music. Arguments that would lead to fistfights in other cases, were they not loving brothers (BBFUN interview). So yes, he had to convince Carl sometimes; and probably Carl convinced him. Also his father, maybe Nik Venet, Usher and others offered criticism. Nothing wrong with that; it's life. There's no 100% yes men anywhere; and given Brian's condition, the things to come would not have been avoided had Mike Love kept from asking the lyrics to Ego be changed.

I believe the wrecking crew often questioned Brian on some of his arrangements as well. I'm curious about what songs Carl faught with Brian about.  It seems in an interview that Brian said that Carl usually had good ideas.  But he usually sites Mike as being the most vocal about Pet Sounds and Smile.  Yet Mike is usually positive about the music, it's mostly the lyrics he had issues with. I'm not even convinced Mike had issues with the drugs in 1966. 

I believe Brian has said Carl had issues with Good Vibrations.

Interesting.  I never heard that.  I new Carl had issues with a fuzz tone bass in an earlier song that he said sounded like sh*t. But later, Carl admitted it worked. The wrecking crew did a lot of the same.  But sometimes Brian would listen to others and agree that their ideas were better,  so he would change what he originally came up with. I don't have any way to prove this, but I truly feel that Mike was hurt by the fact that after he was pushed aside for other collaborators. I know others were used before,  but up until Summer Days, his credits increased. Maybe he wasn't willing to progress lyrically until he wrote the Good Vibrations lyrics. I don't know, but I completely understand being hurt by that.

My memory is Brian had said a few times that one of the Boys had a problem with GV and then there was one interview where he said it was Carl. However, it could be a senior moment, I can't find them, still looking.

Lewis Shiner you in here?  From the book Glimpses, how I enjoyed  "Estoy aqui por loco, no por pendejo" I think the next paragraph said It took Brian six days to finish Smile, like Jehovah in he old Testiment.  Glimpses was a good read.  Poor Mr. Love took some hots in it too.  Shiner covers what home from a tour was like.

Lewis Shiner probably has better things to do than fight off Kokomaoists.

I wonder what Mike's problem with it was - maybe he thought a whole side of ballads wouldn't work.  BTW, the second side of Today! for me is the pinnacle of Brian and Mike working together.

I'm sure it hurt his feelings. Every logical piece of evidence points to that, and I can empathize too. And we know that there are reprocessions when he gets his feelings hurt in this specific area, such as what happened after pushed aside decades later from the same cowriting position.  Mike must feel like he's living in the film Groundhog Day.

I concur. It absolutely is the pinnacle. It's simply magnificent, and Mike's contributions are fantastic. I wonder if Mike ever later admitted that he was wrong in criticizing it, the way Carl admitted he was wrong about questioning that part in Good Vibrations.

I think Hang on to Your Ego is a very good example of Brian sometimes benefiting from a second opinion. The words on the chorus frankly suck, I Know There's an Answer was far better and fitted the underlying themes of the Pet Sounds album.

I actually completely agree with that statement. However, I do wonder if the original lyrics had stuck, if that would have gained them any hip counterculture cred. In and of itself, probably not a sizable dent, but if combined with a released and finished SMiLE, attendees at Monterey Pop might have been going back to seek out Pet Sounds, and perhaps a song like Ego would've been their gateway into their discovery. Ultimately, even if the released lyrics are admittedly better, I think it would have been a positive step in shattering their cheesy image.
Do you think the Ego song lyrics were directed at anyone in particular?

Who knows with those two? Looking at the lyrics throughout Today!, it does make me wonder why Brian felt Mike couldn't deliver introspective lyrics for the songs he had in mind on Pet Sounds? It does bug me no end when it's implied that one minute the band was singing about surfing and the next Pet Sounds appeared out of a vacuum.

I think Mike was too into early teenage love, while Brian had Tony Asher help him express what was really important, adult relationships.

Who knows? I wonder what Terry Sachen lyrical contribution was? I know this is the song Mike flat out refused to sing certain drug related lines for.

Mike had a lot of talent, and he could definitely write some great lyrics about deeper material. I think anyone who questions that is certainly off base.  But I think the reasons are quite clear. Brian wanted to push further, much further. How would a song like IJWMFTT have come to be with Mike? Brian most likely simply "had it up to here" with Today Side B type questions, but had a difficulty confronting that grievance directly; Brian probably viewed his cousin as an intellectual simpleton, relative to the depths that Brian wanted to go. Bottom line was that Brian knew that people questioning his decisions, as was what apparently happened with side B of Today (despite it still very fortunately coming to fruition), would and could be a problem and impediment, particularly if he could see that the line of questioning would become more and more ardent. As it eventually did in fact become.

I would be highly surprised if the ego references weren't in someway directed towards both Mike and Brian himself. Brian trying to get the people in his own life, including himself, to examine how ego plays a role in how they conduct themselves. I think it was an attempt at deep personal self reflection, as well as trying to get others to have that same type of experience.

You could be right there. Whatever Brian's motivations were, he clearly felt a fresh collaborator was needed.

Don't get me wrong, I love Tony Asher's lyrics, but I really don't see this "deepness" in some of the songs that Tony wrote. They are young love lyrics. Maybe a bit more mature where love is leading to marriage, but still young love. Brian was married and Mike at least twice by then. I can't see why Mike could not have written lyrics to songs like Wouldn't It Be Nice, That's Not Me or even Here Today? There is nothing in those lyrics that they themselves did not experience. I do agree that introspective songs like I Just Wasn't Made For These Times, God Only Knows, Don't Talk and You Still Believe In Me needed that touch that Tony's lyrics brought to them.

Brian was into early teenage love as much as Mike - Barbara Rovell anyone?  That Tony was able to translate Brian's frankly immature emotional outpourings into the lyrics that he did was a testament to Tony's lyrical skill and more developed psyche.

Don't forget Mike actually wrote the lyrics for I'm Waiting For the Day back in 1964.

Mike's lyrics on summer days are really bad and I can see why BW didn't work with him for a while. The music far exceeded the lyrics by then.

Summer Days all written by - Wilson - Love - except Then I Kissed Her (cover)

The Girl from NY City
Amusement Park USA
Salt Lake City
Girl Don't Tell Me, just Brian
Help Me Rhonda #1 - bad lyrics, of course

California Girls - more bad lyrics - radio plays 4 to 5 million likely biggest royalty earner and one of the best international (So Africa - number 1 for six weeks.

Let Him Run Wild
You're So Good To Me
Summer Means New Love
I'm Bugged at my old Man - just Brian
And you're Dreams Come True

Really bad lyrics? Interesting perspective...

Whether or not Mike could have written them (and perhaps he could have) doesn't strike me as especially relevant. Perhaps he could have. But maybe there would have been some subtle pushback in the air, not entirely dissimilar to what Brian had previously experienced on Today Side B, and he just didn't feel that it would be the optimal emotionally free vibe in the air for him to work with Mike on that project. And it would very likely have hindered songs like IJWMFTT from happening. And that just happens to be one of the best songs Brian ever wrote. Thank goodness Brian went with his instincts regarding who he should collaborate with on that entire project. It's not worth risking great material from even existing just because Mike could maybe have done a solid lyric job on some of the songs.

Working with some people can simply become draining after awhile, even if some good results can be achieved.  

...a pointlessly stupid message board thread???

Geez, I really did not know that Mike wielded that much power. Good thing Mike was OK with how things went down or Pet Sounds would never exist. Sorry my post was so irrelevant to the thread.

 :thumbsup

I didn't say your entire post was irreverent to the thread. I pointed out that one particular line in your post was, IMO, irrelevant to a conversation that implies that perhaps, maybe Mike should have been given a shot write more Pet Sounds lyrics (that's the implication I'm getting, perhaps I'm mistaken). I'm just saying that there seem to be some pretty logical reasons why that didn't happen.

And regardless of how much power one yields... do you realize that someone who may have subtle resistance can affect a sensitive person in a significant way? Do you dispute that? It makes sense that Brian wanted some distance from Mike for this project; do you think that's an illogical assumption?

I don't think Pet Sounds has to do necessarily with "adult relationships". It still has that sense of young love and innocence, which is then broken by Caroline, No. The difference between Love and Asher is I think Asher was a more mature wordsmith. Ultimately, Brian had them writing similar types of themes, but they had vastly different levels of maturity.

The remarks about Mike had to do with that not every lyric that Tony Asher wrote for Pet Sounds was "Deep". Also, that in hindsight we know that Mike likes to be included in the songwriting. That his participation may have eased the emotional load Brian was under to get it completed. I totally understand why Brian went outside the confines and used Tony as a writing partner for most of the songs.

Wow, this really started a debate. After reading Leaf's book in the 70's, I was like screw those guys, your the true leader Brian. But as you get older, you start to realize that everybody has feelings and you have to take those into consideration as well.  This actually happened, I had a good friend who got caught up in local "politics" and was told that he needed to drop us, his UN-connected friends, in order to further himself. His new friends would tell us, you aren't good enough for him, you will hold him back." Well, long story short, we let him go, and when the political move didn't pan out, they dropped him and he came back to us, his real friends. I was mad, but I though he had to do this to find out who was real and who wasn't. I think the same could be said here with Brian. Aside from Anderle (who I always liked, really smart guy) and Van Dyke, the rest were fair weather at best.

Trying to understand what you mean by the bolded part. Are you saying that there would have been less of an emotional load for Brian to carry since if Mike got to write some additional songs on Pet Sounds, that then Brian wouldn't be dealing with as much emotional awkwardness in the air from a frustrated bandmate?

Who knows? I wonder what Terry Sachen lyrical contribution was? I know this is the song Mike flat out refused to sing certain drug related lines for.-Really there is  a version oft"Hang on to your ego"  on The Good Vibrations Box Set  , that has ,Mike singing lead using the same lyrics,Brian,sang on the first issued CD of Pet Sounds     

There is the HOTYE vocal session tape of he and Al and Brian where Mike volunteers to "sing the whole damn thing", or something like that, but does Mike actually sing the words "HOTYE" on those takes that are available?

Also, it seems to often get framed as a Mike v. Brian thing but really wasn't it a Mike v. Sachen thing. Wasn't it even more actually a Brian v. Sachen thing as I'm pretty sure Brian has said he didn't like the "ego" ref, he thought it was too...something? Egoey or something? Hasn't Al said Brian changed it because he thought it was too controversial but Al wasn't sure the rest of them even knew what ego meant?

So Mike and Brian v. Sachen since both Mike and Brian had their reasons and the rest of them possibly didn't care it seems to me.

I distinctly recall years ago reading that during one track session Chuck told Brian what he was doing wouldn't work and was told to wait until the overdub was added. That could be the same session where someone - Tommy Tedesco ? - voiced the same objection. When he heard the playback, allegedly he said something like "Brian, I take back everything I've ever said about you".

Not sure if it was Carl, but someone certainly had a problem with the fuzz bass on "Little Honda".

As for "IKTAA/HOTYE"...

"I know so many people who think they can do it alone
They isolate their heads and stay in their saftey zones

Now what can you tell them
And what can you say that won't make them defensive

I know there's an answer
I know now but I have to find it by myself

They come on like they're peaceful
But inside they're so uptight
They trip through their day
And waste all their thoughts at night

Now how can I come on
And tell them the way that they live could be better

I know there's an answer
I know now but I have to find it by myself

Now how can I come on
And tell them the way that they live could be better

I know there's an answer
I know now but I have to find it by myself"


"I know so many people who think they can do it alone
They isolate their heads and stay in their saftey zones

Now what can you tell them
And what can you say that won't make them defensive

Hang on to your ego
Hang on, but I know that you're gonna lose the fight

They come on like their peaceful
But inside they're so uptight
They trip through the day
And waste all their thoughts at night

Now how can I say it
And how can I come on
When I know I'm guilty

Hang on to your ego
Hang on, but I know that you're gonna lose the fight

Now how can I say it
And how can I come on
When I know I'm guilty

So hang on to your ego
Hang on, but I know that you're gonna lose the fight"

You see any drug-related lyrics ? I don't see any drug-related lyrics. Anyone here see any drug-related lyrics ?

I´m not even sure Mike had issues with the drugs in 1966. And I don´t believe he necessarily was as concerned about the lyrics of PS and Smile, but more noticing Brian was changing, becoming less stable, surrounded by all the unfamiliar people and this made Mike worried. Easy to blame drugs, because to blame Brian becomes too personal. Brian 1965 and Brian 1967 were quite different and the substance abuse was only making it more clear that Brian´s mental health and stability were becoming more apparent. At the same time Brian was making really interesting new music, so it would be very confusing and hard to be Mike Love in 1966/67. We must try to emphasise with what he experienced.

Yes. Timothy Leary often said that taking LSD would enable the user to let go of your ego (as in the Freudian definition, not the common misuse of the word).  That is, to let go of your inhabitions and revert to the Id. It'actually kind of hard to miss.

Exactly.  It is the old 60's propaganda narrative...

Also, consider this: You're Mike Love and you've been working hard on a tour and you're looking forward to coming home and hearing all the new amazing Brian Wilson songs for the next album. Then Brian invites you to a party over at his place where a bunch of hippies are hanging out and you watch as he turns on a tape and just grooves to a bunch of dogs barking. I mean, what??? When you consider how it would only be a matter of time before you would be forced to sing while Brian made a bobble head doll dance in front of you, you can see why tensions were pretty high.

Not the quote I think I was remembering but Brian is quoted in "In Their Own Words" as saying:

"I remember Carl saying to me: 'We've been on this song for months and it doesn't sound like music! God knows what will happen if it doesn't work out. Every cent we've got is in it.'  I told him just trust me and it will work out OK, and it did."

I've seen some attempts to try reshaping-rewriting the history but this one with "Hang On To Your Ego" is pretty ham-fisted, to the point of not only taking the cake but maybe taking the bakery too. Mike objected to the drug references in the original, that's pretty much been established for decades. No parsing, no reading into it is necessary because it happened as reported. The title as well, as has been stated by others, is the reference to ego and the acid experience beyond Timothy Leary, although as his books and lectures were probably the most visible at that time in the early and mid 60's, it would be the easiest reference to make regarding ego related to LSD. It's just part of what went on, that's beyond opinions of it over all. People who never used LSD were reading leary and other similar books, and attending lectures on the subject. It was still a legal substance, what is also written out of the history of those times is that so-called "mainstream" publications such as Look magazine and others which were in millions of middle-American homes had been running stories on LSD since the late 50's. Back to the song: I've read more than one account of John Lennon, for one, losing his "ego" in both a Freudian and literal way in late '66 into 1967 due to the massive amount of acid he had been taking regularly. He took on a much less dominant role as leader of the group, and parts of his personality changed during this period. They didn't disappear, he was still Lennon, but the amount of LSD he was taking caused a noticeable shift in his personality which had previously been the dominant, Alpha leader in any group he was in.

Put it this way - If someone were to meditate deeply on a topic, any topic or point whether enhanced by chemical means or not, that topic will be the focus of the meditation to the point of becoming a fixation. If there was someone like John Lennon reading a book by Leary about letting go of your ego, and he meditates on it enhanced by Owsley acid, he's going to come out of that fixated on the ego thing...as he perceives it. If he had just read or heard that you need to drop the pretenses and let go of your ego, he's perhaps not thinking of the Freudian notion of ego versus Id versus super-ego...he'll fixate and meditate on his impressions and perceptions of the word ego as it relates to him and come out of the experience accordingly.

So there are references out there in 1965 telling people to drop their ego related to a psychedelic experience, here is a song whose title references that as well as people who trip through the day and waste their thoughts at night, and there is the reference to psychedelics and the psychedelic experience as many understood them in 1965, agree with the whole "scene" or not, it was out there and legal.

There was a trigger in the phrase "hang on to your ego" that would have been pegged as an LSD reference, beyond the actual verses and chorus of the song, beyond Leary and the "heads" since these topics were being reported in the mainstream since the 50's, and Mike objected to it. It wasn't "more" of a Brian versus Sachen thing, or more of a Brian versus anyone else thing because Mike was the one who didn't care for those lyrics, and wanted them changed.

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

So you're suggesting Mike didn't object to it, or did he? I don't see where you're going with that. As far as the other guys and what they thought, post some of what Tony Asher remembered from the PS vocal sessions after the band got back to start working on them in Feb '66, among the statements he heard from the BB's if memory serves were phrases like "what the f*** do these words mean?"

The main thing here is, I think, if changing the lyrics to Ego (at Mike's request as reported), was harmful to Brian or the group in any way. Or if changing those lyrics made the song any worse. The lyric change is seen in a negative light sometimes, as if Brian's genius song or vision is being compromised by a mediocre request. I think that the negativity that ubderlines the Ego discussions is unjustified.

I thought I had made it pretty clear that they both say they objected to Sachen's lyric (Brian and Mike v. Sachen). Unless it is Brian's lyric and he wrote a lyric he objected to.

Feel free to post Asher's actual comments but what does it have to do with HOTYE?

It plays into the topic at hand, and the first page of replies. Asher reports what he saw happen when the band came to work on the vocals, and what happened during the process. They were questioning and challenging what ultimately would become one of the most respected and beloved albums of the era, and lyrics which some fans would go so far as to have printed and framed to hang on their wall at home, or played and recited at weddings in the case of God Only Knows. And Brian in return would throw it back on them in order to get the process of recording the vocals done, short of doing the majority of parts himself when the band didn't do it. And that could explain a lot, including some sections of Pet Sounds where all the vocal overdubs are a "Wall Of Brians" rather than the band members. And it speaks to the kind of tensions that were reported from Feb 66 that transferred into early 1967 as reported by David Anderle among others who witnessed it.

Maybe some fans feel that there could have been a little more support and confidence shown in these early stages of the process (or processes) for the plans Brian had laid out, which included which lyricists to use and what the lyrics would be. Is it that cut and dry? Perhaps not, but it's also not as cut and dry as to suggest it was all-out positivity and agreement in 1966-67 and any doubt or tensions amounted to suggesting it was Brian arguing with himself or with those not in the band, because that's not how it was. And we need to also factor in the reports of Asher, Anderle, Vosse, etc...those who were involved but not directly in the family or studio dynamic, who saw as insiders yet outside observers too how f***ed up the situations could get and what (and who) could drive them to those points.

It's also a context where Mike, I think, was either hurt or resentful (or both) that he wasn't getting the gig to write the lyrics, and that too may have added more fuel to the fire in these disagreements and tensions. Perhaps due to the feelings over not being asked to add lyrics on a number of projects, he went beyond the usual squabbles to find fault or to point out issues with the songs that caused a different kind of tension in the process. It's fine to go over details, but trying to find every way to try to imply that the band was 100% behind the decision-making process regarding Brian's music for the band just isn't telling the true story.

I've heard numerous producers and engineers say something to the effect of the recording process is as much psychological as it is technical, nuts-and-bolts music making. Dealing with artists, bands, squabbles, issues beyond those on the studio floor...you need to referee sometimes and offer a sympathetic ear, whatever else is necessary to smooth the process. In Brian's situation, he had a band challenging him in Asher's case (and Parks later) over the lyrics. So the lyricist, then, gets in the middle wanted or not...and you need to keep peace enough to finish the process and make the records. Who do you keep happy? One group of people you need to keep happy has issues with the lyrics, what do they mean, that's not who we are, etc. The other group has been writing lyrics in close collaboration with you, ostensibly under your direction geared to music you've laid out for those lyrics and themes...now you have to keep everyone happy or else the record doesn't get made. What or who do you compromise or even risk jeopardizing as part of that task? And factor in the underlying theme that you, Brian, want people to accept and like your work, needing maybe that extra bit of support and validation from the people around you, then from the fans once the end result comes out.

Sound like a fun or productive place to be as a general rule? Ever hear the "Party!" full sessions? It's amazing these guys could get together long enough to record a single take, sometimes the distractions and little petty arguments are so silly, it could have derailed the whole project had it not been compromised, soothed, and smoothed out somehow. No wonder Brian got frustrated, I'd say. Now imagine trying to cut a record like Pet Sounds, complex as it is, with even a bit of that vibe going on.

Sounds like you don't believe Brian about HOTYE.

I'd say that after roughly 1980, you have to be quite careful and judicious with any Brian Wilson quote.

I hear you, so how will we judge? He has said this twice on two different occasions to two different people, does this pass?

Ah... but... the lyric urges one to "hang on to your ego", not let it go.

Almost certainly "GV", or possibly "H&V".

"Hang onto your ego, but I know that you're going to lose the fight".  I always interpeted that line as meaning that the protagonist feels uptight or scared about the tripping experience. "Don't give in to your urges, but this is so overpowering, that avoiding it is impossible. " The singer could also be singing to himself.

It was GV, I left off that part.

Does anybody NOT have the Sea of Tunes Unsurpassed Masters Vol.13 (1966), The Alternate Pet Sounds Album Vol. 1 (or whichever one with the HOTYE and IKTAA vocal sessions on it) because it is WRONG?

OK I meant I can't find mine. I think I remember there is singing and discussion of HOTYE by the group on one or more of the tracks. Would somebody who does have Sea of Tunes Unsurpassed Masters Vol.13 (1966), The Alternate Pet Sounds Album Vol. 1 (or whichever one with the HOTYE and IKTAA vocal sessions on it) (for study purposes only of course) be willing to confirm or deny that please? I'm beginning to think I dreamed it or misheard it because no one else ever seems to mention it. 

Don't you think the "history" depends on too narrow a witness in this case? The witness is almost entirely from one non-group member who attended a few sessions of the group itself over a period of a few months. Should that impression alone be the history? My impression is that the group doesn't agree with that impression at all. Specific to PS, isn't there an interview with Dennis where he is asked about how much the group was resistant to PS and Dennis flat out tells the guy that notion is BS. Mike I believe has said the notion was not only bullocks but he even drove with Brian to deliver PS to Capitol. To my memory, at the very worst, Brian and Al have said they took a bit to get on the same page or something but the group got on that page together and knew it was something special while they were making it. So it wouldn't be a matter of rewriting history, it would be a matter of filling out the too narrow narrative about the history.

I think there's a paradox among us here. Most people are quick to praise Brian as a collaborator, how fast and effectively he's able to pick ideas from others, how he incorporates other people's input into his own vision, how he enhances other guys' ideas, etc. However, when it comes to the group, who were his partners, some guys have a hard time accepting that they collaborated too, and more rightfully so than anybody else. What's the big deal with the group giving some ideas, nixing others, adding arrangement bits, criticising lyrics or melody lines, or instrumental choices? It is as if anybody else, including some of the hired musicians, are made look like great collaborators of Brian's, while the group (doing precisely what any collaborator does) is seen as a hinder of his talent and its development. In that light (i.e. that people criticising Brian's ideas are detrimental to his artistic realization), perhaps Van Dyke was as much hinder in his own right, or Usher, or Thomas. Or perhaps collaborations in the realm of music are just that, and a big deal has been made historically about the group out of antipathy towards some of its members.*





*alright, one of its members.

I think it was in the twofer booklet that has the Carl quote about the fuzz bass on Little Honda.  I used to have those little snippets about each song practically memorized.

Re. HOTYE

"Brian was very concerned. He wanted to know what we thought about it. To be honest, I don't think we even knew what an ego was... Finally Brian decided, 'Forget it. I'm changing the lyrics. There's too much controversy."

Al Jardine  "Pet Sounds Track Notes",  Brad  Elliott

It seems the anti-BB's argument is often portrayed this way: Jeez, what a bunch of idiots the Beach Boys were. They'd just come back from touring Japan, where they'd successfully played the same old surf and turf stuff as they had everywhere else. No musical experimentation, don't take any chances, just silly songs about girls, cars and surfing. Now Brian wants them to suddenly take a radical left turn and sing this music that bears no relation to anything they'd done before. And the group, being the simple minded idiots they were, only concerned with having hit records and making money, gave Brian endless grief about this new music he wanted them to sing. Brian was a genius and should never have had his ideas challenged; the Beach Boys would've been pumping gas if not for the genius of Brian. Ungrateful, talentless hacks!

Thank Leaf and his acolytes for that viewpoint.

Seriously, what would you do if you were a member of the BB's, and you went into the studio to listen to what Brian was doing, and all you got were a bunch of segments of songs?

If I had the relationship I think they had I would do what I think they did: the usual guy goofing around and mild complaining and mocking each other (locker room stuff) and then getting down to doing what Brian told us to do the best we could do it because we trusted Brian and thought the work was beautiful even if we didn't understand a lyric or didn't think we could do it at first but Brian told us we could and even if we were humiliated by getting down on the floor and making animal noises.

That is if you accept the narrow narrative of a few guys from outside the group who were around some of the time for a few months and then widen the narrative with the Boys' (including Brian's) own witnesses about the work and the actual work by the group captured on the session tapes.

Brian encountered such resistance from those asshole Beach Boys...they didn't even have the g*ddamned common courtesy to refuse to sing their parts like real assholes.

But the BBs were/are a group. That's like telling george martin after revolver to replace the beatles with different dudes. Esp when the BBs proved they could write individually I.e. sunflower.

Found that CD with HOTYE vocal takes on it. I know everyone was on the edge of their seat or furiously digging through their collection to find it.

(thousand yard stare)

Just a quick listen so far but it sounds like "history" might be in for a semi-rewriting.

I guess my point is, (and one which I didn't explain ), is that I don't really blame them if they were like 'WTF'.

Re: You're The Beach Boys, it's 1966, and come home from a tour to find the people surrounding Brian that we know of, Lauren Daro, etc, who are telling Brian you don't need these other guys, you are THE MAN! How would you feel?

I'd feel like saying to him, wow that's some pretty far out music Brian.  I'll tell you what, let's go to Western Studios right now ( I'll bring my reel to reel too ). Can you sit at the piano there and play the sections how they fit together and talk us through the backing vocals so we can practice at home and get them real good. While we're there make sure you put a lead vocal on those last few , you know that Worms one, Child Is The Father, Holidays, er...what was that one with the Good Vibes riff, yeah Look coz it'll really help us work out how our backing lines fit in. I'm not sure what we can add to Fire but talk us through that Elements cut phew that one's crazy....oh yeah get Van to copy out some lyric sheets for all of us too and make sure you send lead vocal charts to the copyright office. We're gonna need acetates of this tape reel too, make sure you give one to Capitol and keep a couple for our tape library. Also make sure you give an acetate to Mrs Linnett's kid Mark. I don't know why but i've just got a gut feeling about this, go with me on that one Brian. 
Man we should have this finished in a week. If you can put all those different versions of Heroes on the tape too maybe we can decide which one works best but don't chuck any of them, maybe we could put different versions on the single and album.
Man, i'm not sure our fans are ready for this yet but i'll tell you what Brian , John and Paul will crap their collarless suits when they hear this. sh*t, Dylan's gonna crash his motorbike when he hears this album.
If we cant get it right in time for Christmas maybe we could make it a light up box set some time in the future.
OK, Bri, i'll go and get my reel to reel. Bruce, get Chuck on the phone tell him we're coming over to Western in 1 hour. Denny can you sort Bri out with some hash joints till i get back. This record is gonna be so good it'll make Pet Sounds stink. Mike, call Van, we're gonna need his help on this session, we're gonna need  help with the chicken noises on that Heroes fade. It's gotta be perfect....

or something like that.

"that tune's a muthaf---er, Brian!"

Re. HOTYE/IKTAA vocal takes on SOT: Mike offered to sing the "whole" thing at least three times and even started singing "Hang on to your e" before muffing it. 

I don't have the vocal tracks on that disc figured out yet but from track 6 on it might all be from a single session for IKTAA which is sometimes using the Brian vocal for HOTYE as a reference. Maybe?

Anyways the IKTAA lyric rerecord parts must have been done sometime between Feb 9 and March 10, possibly closer to the March 10 tracking for GOK than the Feb 9 tracking for HOYTE.  So early in the project I guess but I don't hear any inter-group tension on those takes. In fact I hear exactly the opposite, very relaxed with lots of easy humor and banter.

Is there anything like anything supposedly described by Asher, Anderle, and Vosse on any of the vocal tapes available so far? 

Hey Mike! You're like Gilligan, you got hit on the head and you're talkin like the professor!

But the Beach Boys didn't exist in a vacuum. Presumably they listened to what other bands such as The Beatles were doing and if they had any sense whatsoever could have realised that fashions change and that what is popular in 1963 is not necessarily going to remain popular in 1966, 1967 and so on. Some of the fans were able to see how great Pet Sounds was at the time so is it too much to hope that some of the other Beach Boys could have realised it too? Of course from their point of view it was risky but it may be true sometimes if not always in music as in other aspects of life that one must speculate to accumulate.

 :lol Perfect! /thread

Also on that SOT Unsurpassed Masters Vol. 13 (1966) The Alternate Pet Sounds Album Vol.1 Disc 4, during the takes of the recording of the new words "I know there's an answer" for IKTAA, at about 6:05 you hear Bruce say "I said 'hang on'. The first time but i think it will cover it up." and Brian reassures him it is "alright" and then you hear Brian saying to someone:

"It's really great. So happy we did this because it's -- now I'm happy.
Oh fuckin' I hated the whole thing, man. Now it's good. It's one of the best cuts on the album. It's -- classical"

Someone is responding to Brian but I can't make out what they say or who they are. Then Brian goes on to talking about how he has just written GOK and will be cutting the track "Sunday".

Has anyone else put ears on this?

Mind you, I prefer the IKTAA lyrics to the Ego ones myself. But if, for example, Brian had been pushed a bit more to keep the changed "positive" lyrics for Til I Die, and he relented and changed them (and the only version that got released had the positive "spin")... do you think it's possible that Brian would have said a similar thing, that he hated the old lyrics? Or such is not a possible scenario in your mind?

Mujan is back! And yeah, agreed - that is a rad scenario. If only.

almost snorted soup all over my screen.

Till I Die is one of my favourite BB songs and easily the best solely composed Brian track but again I can't see how a few minor lyrical revisions would have harmed the song in any way. No ammont of positive spin was going to make that song sound any less haunting than it does. At the most it would offer a tiny glint of light at the end of a dark tunnel. Anyhooo, as Brian rolled over on IKTAA but stuck to his guns on 'Till I Die, I think if he had been forced to comply with Mike's suggestions for it, it's doubtfull he'd tell people he hated the old lyrics. To flip the question somewhat, I wonder how he feels about the song today seeing that it came from such a bleak point in his life?

Hmm... I disagree. I think that even "little" Til I Die lyric changes like that make a big difference. I'll ask you again, since I'm not sure you replied previously: Would a lyric change to "I surely always love you" at the beginning of GOK have "harmed" that song in any way? What say you?

Many people talk about the original "I may not always love you" GOK lyrical line as being out of left field (in a good way), and particularly unusual for a song to start off with, and it makes a notable tonal/mood difference to a good chunk of listeners, or at least the ones who are paying close attention to lyrics and themes - not to say that everyone will feel the same way, but a sizable chunk would, I'm sure. The vibe of the song is dramatically changed by just a minor change like that. It shouldn't just be easily dismissible solely because it's "just" one word or two.

The fact that there's NO perceptible light at the end of the tunnel in Til I Die is something that the artist wanted and intended, not dissimilar to what the probable intention was with Summer's Gone. It's not a minor or nearly negligible difference. Til I Die, especially, has very few lyrics throughout the song. There are not many words, which make the few words that are present all the more important.

But back to IKTAA... Brian may have indeed hated the "ego" lyrics, and I don't necessarily doubt that that was in fact the case. But he also hated confrontation. Ultimately, as I've previously stated, I would agree that the lyric change to IKTAA was the best move for that song. I think it's less clunky and better with the revised lyrics. I do, however, wonder what potential original lyrics (had they been kept in) might have done for the band's reputation and image on the whole, if the "ego" lyrics were part of the beginnings of making more radical (if indirect) drug statements in their tunes.

Not an instance where I mourn the loss of the "ego" lyric; only that I mourn what might have been a small, yet possibly notable overall step in shifting the band away from its early image. If combined with a released Smile, I think that released "ego" lyrics would have perhaps had a greater historical significance on the whole, and might have help remove a bit of the stale cheese that unfortunately crusted over their image at the time.

Now that I listen again, it sounds like:

Brian: "It's really great. So happy we did this because it's -- now I'm happy.

Somebody 1 (Al?): ? "No, I didn't think about that ... *something* ?

Maybe Brian or a Somebody 2: "Oh fuckin' I hated the whole thing, man."

Somebody 1: *something* "... some bad"... *something*

Brian: "Now it's good. It's one of the best cuts on the album. It's -- classical"

Need more and younger ears on it.

Another line would have to be changed for it to make sense.
I surely always love you
And long as there are stars above you.

Granted it's not as effective but it's impact on the song would be minimal.

Yeah, and I also think that a lot of the media's turn on the Beach Boys can be traced back to the Mike/Al/Bruce group not being into the entire hippie, drug, counterculture thing. One of the many things I always hated about Jann Wenner and Rolling Stone magazine is how they glorify drug use to such an absurd degree. I think the fact that half the band was straight and in Mike's case was pretty outspoken about it really turned the hipster media against them. It's such garbage...music should be judged solely on the quality of the music, and doing a bunch of dope does not make someone cool no matter what the idiots at RS say.

I guess I side more with Mike/Al/Bruce on that issue partially because I've never gotten high.

Minimal is inaccurate. Especially since I've heard (beyond my own feelings on it) many reviews and musicians talking about the impact of that one specific lyric. It made a difference. But you're entitled to your opinion, even if it s wrong  ;)

And many of those that did suffered long term effects from it - including Brian and Dennis (and maybe even Carl to a lesser degree). On the other hand, Keith Richards probably did more dope than Dennis and Carl combined...and yet he is (apparently) still alive.

Technically Keith is undead.

Only two things will be left alive on Earth after the Nuclear holocaust: cockroaches, and Keith Richards.