The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.examiner.com/review/brian-wilson-s-musical-voices (http://www.examiner.com/review/brian-wilson-s-musical-voices)

Who in the world wrote that (guess I could check for myself)?  In addition to continually fluffing Mike Love out of nowhere every few lines, the article is horribly written.

EoL

LOL, it was another David Beard article - that explains the repeated Mike Love references for no apparent reason.  Anyone know what the deal is with that guy?  Is there a reason he is going out of his way lately to talk Mike up?

EoL

What lucky fifth grader got their story published?
Good for them!

Is he brain-damaged? Yes.

That was the real reason for the "article" -- right?
Journalism.

Talentless writing. Questionable intent.
As nutritious as an Easter-time peep.

He must be another one who's on the payroll.  ;)

I read the "article" last night. And I almost commented. But I'm glad you did first Howie. I have to say, I don't understand why on earth Mr. Beard would publish something like this. And then he wonders why he doesn't have the same access to Brian that he has to Mike.

Maybe we should start calling him brain damaged too.

What an odd agenda for an article. The writer seems more obsessed with Brian’s perceived deficits and potential unfavorable comparisons between Mike and Brian than Mike Love does at this stage.

This bit is particularly grating: “Fans buy tickets to see his cousin Mike, because they know they’ll get to see a tight band perform an entertaining set of the band’s well-known material. With Brian, we go to see the legend. He sits behind the piano, and on occasion, when he’s finds the inspiration, he will join in and sing along with his band”

Now, make no mistake, I’m not blind to how much Brian has or hasn’t participated in live shows over the years. But whatever can be said about how much he plays the piano uninterrupted or how *well* he always sings, this implication that he only “on occasion” actually sings along with his band is laughable. For better and worse, Brian has still sang on just about every song (barring instrumentals). Certainly, on the 2015 tour, he was even *more* involved in backing vocals than he has been in the past, singing prominent backing vocals when he wasn’t singing leads.

That excerpt above from the article is rather insulting I’d say, and the only thing more apparent than the insult is the clear agenda. The implication is simple: People go to see Mike for the music, but they go to see Brian to *see Brian*, and only “on occasion” does Brian actively take part vocally. It’s dead wrong. A nuanced point about how some fans cut Brian too much slack, or how some fans may be going as much to see Brian as to hear him is one thing (though what fan *doesn’t* also want to *see* the band in concert?), but implying Brian only “on occasion” joins in vocally is as wrong as saying Mike “only plays the hits” in concert.

Equally if not more troubling is the continued, POINTLESS lamenting of Brian’s long-since-passed mental problems (this was a theme in the writer’s recent piece on Mike Love’s tour). Doesn’t matter how much you tell us he’s still a genius if you come across as obsessed with needlessly pointing out what we or he *may* have lost due to years of various forms of abuse. Those things have already been lamented numerous times, by both Brian himself and all of the band members, and by more thorough, talented writers.

The writer also, surprise, seems to offer backhanded compliments (at best) about "Love & Mercy", noting it leaves a wealth of information out. Unfortunately, none of the countless interviews where the director explains why the film was designed that way are included in this piece.

The more I read this, the more I realize looking back on this writer’s previous interviews with Mike, that every time this guy interviews Mike, it is he more than Mike that is fanning a lot of these flames in terms of the acrimonious, snippy stuff he gets out of Mike in interviews. My advice to Mike Love (and the other BB’s for that matter) would be to decline any more interviews or features with this interviewer. I remember back when that Mike “interview” was published several months ago with this same interviewer (the one where Mike discusses NOT having heard “The Right Time”), I came away worried the interviewer had actually made Mike and Brian’s relationship worse if anything. I still wonder and worry about that. I worry that instead of seeing L&M for himself, someone like Mike is going to listen to this writer's impression of the movie. Bad idea all around in my opinion.

Great post Heyjude!

But a question needs to be asked, what if Beard is just doing Mike's dirty work with Mike's full support ?

I wonder if the purpose of the piece is to let us know that the author had a seat at the band's dinner table? To point out that he has "access"…? Much of the piece serves little real purpose, and other sections seem (un)subtly designed to undermine the fact that BW is, by all accounts, performing (and I don't mean just on stage or in the studio) stronger than he has for decades.

Curious.

Poor hobby writing for the wrong reasons.
Imagine a professional outlet ever publishing that?

David, is it possible for you to write one single article that doesn't obviously cater to the Mike Love apologist agenda? "Is he brain-damaged? Yes." - tactfully put. Sighhhh.

Also, when you get the chance, could you please answer this question regarding your last 'article':

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,22559.msg531004.html#msg531004


You seem hellbent on mentioning his mental illness in your articles lately. It's like reading a Mike Love interview anymore where the same sh*t is mentioned and all of it a compliment wrapped in a dig at his cousin. Is his mental illness an important part of his life? Yes. Should it be mentioned in every article? God no.

In one of your articles you yourself even mentioned at one point how "the music is the story" and basically told us fans to focus on the music. Well, here you are getting a chance to talk about the music being played at a Brian show and instead we get wonderful snippets like "on occasion, when he’s finds the inspiration, he will join in and sing along with his band" and more talk about how he is "brain-damaged".

Absolutely. The Brian I saw in Philly last June was a man in complete control, who didn't just sing when he was inspired but sang when he needed to - and he sang beautifully.

Yes, that was a great show.  Brian really seemed to be into every song. 

David's most probably on the payroll. Look at the cover page of his personal Facebook account.

Regarding the article, I would have expected some of those hamfisted observations from a civilian...a regular journo who was selected to scribe a cliff notes summary of a concert. But not an insider. Not a guy who made his bones & credibility from ESQ. A feller such as Beard should already know the forest from the trees and comment on his surroundings with tact and credibility.

Overall, it wasn't the hackjob I expected when I read some of the comments above, but it seemed like it was written by either a civilian or someone with an agenda. Sadly, it's probably the later (hence the smooch, smooch for all things Love on his Facebook page).

I didn't like this either but because of it and a response to it elsewhere, I learned a new word. Asteism: "a polite and ingenious manner of deriding another".

So thank you to the person who improved my vocabulary.

I feel bad for David. For the author this piece is pathetic, humiliating, embarrassing...etc.

The "payroll" talk on this board is getting tedious.

You think he was not at the very least paid for the tour booklet he designed?

Hes on the payroll.

The latest missile published in the Kokomo Gazette, formerly known as ESQ, is just another passive aggressive hit piece on Brian Wilson - another attempt at extolling the glory and wonders of Mike Love and the touring Beach Boys.

"he sits behind his piano and on occasion when he finds the inspiration he will join in and sing along with his band".
"Is he brain damaged ? Yes"

It is plain to see that these articles are being proof read and approved by the Tahoe Bunker - either that, or the editor and writer of this garbage is nothing more than the greatest fluffer Mike Love ever had.

Perfectly possible it's all for free and just the usual sucking up for "access," it's really vital to get those warmed over stories about how the Wilsons were once on drugs and stuff.

No. This is tedious:

"We don't wait for new Brian Wilson music because of who Brian is today, we wait because of the amazing music Wilson created between 1962-1970 as a member of The Beach Boys. That's the truth..."
"Is he brain-damaged? Yes."
"Mike was praising his cousin and waxing nostalgic on the music they created together. He misses the young man he created those songs with, and wishes he was the same. Unfortunately, Brian isn’t the same."
"With Brian, we go to see the legend. He sits behind the piano, and on occasion, when he’s finds the inspiration, he will join in and sing along with his band"

All from David Beard articles written in the last year. And frankly I could care less that these quotes are surrounded with high praise for Brian....these are some pretty tactless statements no matter how you look at it.

All this crap in the Kokomo gazette is pushing the TM superman agenda of Mike Love. For a man with little heavy drug use, he sure acts like a brain damaged guy from too much BW hatred.

...

So for those keeping score, yes he was paid by Mike Love and yes he went a bit too far and edited stuff out of the piece. There's some other stuff too, and also bgas now has to enter the witness protection program.

...

  I post as Bgas, you post as esq editor; so what's that you say about  posting  anonymously??  and YOU'RE an Honored Guest?  I can see how that could have been extended to Lee Dempsey, but you? Not for anything that I've seen in the last ten years
I suppose that was a shot for me not to post?  Here's something good to say:  I'm glad you came on, once again to try and defend your ludicrously written articles, because it demonstrates how full of sh*t you really are.
 You believe Brian is "brain damaged" because you've heard stories (1990 is only 25 years ago, after all) and that was your takeaway from the movie? For a supposed BBs fan/historian/writer you have got to be one of the dumbest folks in the world. Evidently, in Brian's case the past over-rides the present.  
Perhaps it's time for you to take a break  from the BBs/Brian world.  
  From where I sit the only shots taken at you were for lousy writing/ understanding of the facts of Brian( and yeah, you don't seem to have any problems constantly pumping up Mike to Brian's detriment).  Most everyone on here isn't a "writer" per se, and with every article you publish on Examiner, it becomes more and more clear that neither are you. I've the feeling that won't stop you from posting more.
  Somehow I think there are very very few people that care whether you come here and see something you deem worthwhile to read.  OH!  That ESQ EDITOR saw something he liked!!!!!  

Tahoe Bunker... LOL!

But seemingly so true.

These are Brian Wilson articles.  

http://www.examiner.com/article/inside-the-recording-process-of-brian-wilson-s-no-pier-pressure

http://www.examiner.com/review/brian-wilson-no-pier-pressure-deluxe-edition-overview

http://www.examiner.com/article/brian-wilson-s-emotional-evocations

http://www.examiner.com/article/brian-wilson-takes-new-journey-on-upcoming-solo-album

...

The movie showed us that Brian is brain-damaged? When the hell does the movie do that? It shows Brian dealing with a plethora of mental problems, but the movie also ends casting light on how Brian has triumphed through it all.

This arm-chair diagnosis aside, calling him brain-damaged is a very tactless way for a supposed member of the media to describe one of the world's greatest songwriters.


Glad you're enjoying it. Personally I'd rather this entire thread/article didn't exist - it's tiresome to wake up every other day to read yet another Mike Love interview or David Beard article where Brian's mental illness and past drug use are ceaselessly brought up.


It's a shame not everyone follows this philosophy, otherwise this article wouldn't exist right now.


Thing is, we're not the ones calling ourselves journalists. We don't have to say anything. You are the one who writes for the Examiner, you are the one who flaunts this opinion ad nauseam about Brian's mental illness in a media outlet. We are merely spectators to what you release. If you disagree with our opinions, fine. You're a journalist, back up your statements with fact, and don't call the majority of us assholes because we aren't privy to the insider information about Brian's brain condition that you supposedly have.


Not if your articles keep popping up here.

Yet curiously the initial 'The Right Time' review is missing from this list. Ya know, that review that had 3 sentences about the music itself (yes I counted) and the rest of the paragraphs were about defending Mike and Bruce.

David, you're using a moniker as well - Mr. ESQ Editor. Instead of using the tired 'opinions are like...' argument, perhaps you can get off your high horse and consider some of what's been said.

We use monikers for fun. For fun, fun, fun. My real name is Ched Stanisic. I'm friends with Mikie, Susan Lang (of the old Cabinessence board) and many others in Beach Boys world. My opinions are my own however, and I own up to them. Now don't be so defensive when someone points out the inherent bias in your work. And excuse me for questioning your unquestioned standing in the literary world.

...and poof, it's gone! So it was all a dream... brought on by undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone, brain-damaged potato... No doubt.

Odd that the opinions of a bunch of "assholes" could bring down such a solid piece of American journalism.

+1.

I think it's safe to say that if Mike Love wasn't constantly saying stuff like that... if Mike was somehow a person who never talked that way about Brian's illness and spoke with great tact and restraint (the way people like Carl and Al have/had pretty much always done, for example)... that such tactless terminology would be less "normalized" and "acceptable" for anyone to think of just casually uttering about Brian. It would then be much more shocking, don't you think?

I feel that years and years of Mike spewing Love-based negativity regarding Brian's condition, regardless from whatever place in Mike's heart that these words are coming from (which many people would debate), have somehow lowered the bar of what is acceptable language for other people (who are big fans of Mike) to also say when referring to Brian. Kind of how certain once-shocking profanities, when they become more used over and over and over again in pop culture (or particularly by celebrities of a certain stature), thus become more normalized for many people to just think it's ok to throw similar language out with abandon. It's called desensitization. It's like... "well, Mike says stuff like that all the time, so it's acceptable, right? And Mike is related to Brian, so it must be ok."

I'm no prude, and I can curse like a sailor when I want to, but contextually in a piece purporting to be journalism, it seems not cool to say stuff like that.  

It's Brian's own place to speak of himself in such terms if he so desires, but it's way uncool for others to just throw terms like that out casually and nonchalantly to describe one of the world's greatest songwriters. Just IMHO.

+2

Perfectly said CD!

"Mr. Positivity" is constantly spewing negativity! As you point out, Mike is forever saying these things in interviews. He is is own worst enemy! Then he goes into his TM bragging crap. Then he drops "All I can say is that love transcends all the bull". If he were really a truly spiritual being he would never talk like this.

His recent "Q&A: Mike Love's Half-Century With The Beach Boys"  interview is a prime example (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,22573.0.html):

"Q: Pretty much anyone who has heard of the Beach Boys knows the group has had its ups and downs and is aware of the split between you and Brian Wilson years ago. You reunited with Wilson for the 50th anniversary tour and then went your separate ways again. And now there is the new movie about him, "Love and Mercy." What caused the estrangement? And do you think the fence can ever be permanently mended?

A: Brian did himself a lot of damage and that was a horrible thing for me to witness as the years went by. When we started out he was doing great music but then got into drugs and that didn't do him any favors. All I can say is that love transcends all the bull because we are family and grew up together. We went to high school football games together, loved the Everly Brothers together, and sang doo-wop before the band was formed. We wrote all the great songs together and were successful together. As far as performing with Brian again, I have nothing but love for that cousin of mine and would love to get into the studio with him again."

Lets just say, if Mike had the tact of Carl, and had the same sensitive barometer for what is "appropriate" (and what isn't) that Carl had, this type of language would be far from the norm for other interviewers to use.

If only everyone was more like Carl.

In a way this thread has been kinda unifying, which makes a nice change around here :)

...

I do agree with some of these assessments--to a certain extent that is. Brian did some amazing music right after 1970, some of which even qualifies as some of his best ever, like 'Til I Die, Love You, or even some of the stuff on BW88. BWRG was pretty inspired too. Brain-damaged? I don't care, he's brilliant anyway. Do we go to his concerts in order to "see the legend"? In a certain way, yes, of course, but it's also great to hear his voice and see him perform, even when he does have a "bad day". He may not be a natural performer, but that's perfectly fine with me. He's charismatic even when he does just sit there and join in occasionally--the Knebworth footage comes to mind, where Brian singing his part on Surfer Girl is the highlight of the entire show. Is Brian the same guy he used to be in 1965? Of course not, just as I'm not the same guy I used to be in 1995 or whatever. That's life. In short, I do not feel David Beard is completely off the mark but from my point of view, there's no need to talk down Brian's remarkable achievements past 1970.

I hope this better reflects my feelings of Brian's show in Atlanta.

Best,
David

http://www.examiner.com/review/brian-wilson-concert

On Brian's music output post 70s - totally agree that he's put out gems since, BWRG is one of my favorites, this man has done things all through his career that make me want to hear more from him.

On Brian being brain-damaged - Is it an honest assessment? Who knows - I'm not a doctor. But again it's just something a journalist should never say about someone of that stature.

On Brian occasionally joining in to sing along when he wants - I wasn't at the concert David went to, maybe Brian was in and out of it, but it didn't at all reflect the Brian I saw in concert not even a month ago. And since David used the term "We" in the context of his point, he seemed to lug all the concerts Brian has done together...which, given what I saw at the Philly show, I felt was unfair considering Brian was on point and sang through the majority of the concert - not just when he was "inspired" on "occasion".

On Brian not being the same person - I'm not disputing that Brian is a different person (who would be after 50 years?), just curious why David thinks it's unfortunate that Brian is the person he is today ("Unfortunately, he isn't the same"...a question which I've still yet to get an answer to.


Let me make that more realistic for you:

You know the drill: First, a journalist says or does something offensive about America's most popular songwriter ad nauseam article after article. Next, fans of this songwriter get offended and call the journalist out. After doing this they're called "assholes" by said journalist who can't seem to take any criticism about his work. We don't feel better about ourselves because in a month we'll probably get another Examiner led Mike Love interview where both the interviewer and interviewee relentlessly gab about Brian's mental illness and past drug use. The article, as the ritual seems to go, will be pulled after common sense takes over and the journalist realizes the article serves no purpose to the actual fans.

Rab -- you took the words right out of my mouth.

So Nelson Bragg and myself pull you up on a few comments and you post this?

Actually, I think the comment that "we await new Brian Wilson music because of the incredible music he made from 62-70" is pretty accurate. I can't think of one Brian project in those years that has received all out raves like PS and SMiLE do. Sure, some fans love Love You, but an equal amount hate it. BW88 got near unanimous raves upon release; today, it is criticized for its 80s production and Brian's shouted vocals. GIOMH is universally scorned; TLOS might be the one album that seems to get the best reviews. Oh sure, everyone loves NPP right now, but give it another year or two, and it will get the same kind of revisionist scorn some are throwing at TWGMTR.

It's accurate for him and accurate for a lot of people I'm sure - but he shouldn't lug us all into the "we" category and then say "that's the truth" because it's not considering a lot of us have varying opinions on the matter.

You know, one thing that I think is overlooked is that David Beard owes Mr. Brian Wilson an apology. Not to any of us or anything. But for him to basically say Brian is brain damaged or talk about him like he's the gold medal winner in the Special Olympics. I've noticed it a little lately. Kind of like, "hey, he's really messed up, but still, you gotta appreciate that he's tryin', the sad little sack."

And whatever your opinion of Brian and his latest tunes and concert performances, it's become pretty apparent lately that Brian isn't "performing well by his recent standards." He's performing well by anybody's standards. The concert my wife and I saw last month was beautiful. And his singing on No Pier Pressure is absolutely gorgeous. Dare I say it, better than Mike Love. Better than Paul McCartney. Better than Al Jardine (okay.... maybe not as good as Al these days). So to have the falsehoods like the fact that Brian only occasionally joins in stated by an "insider" is just kinda sh*t. Sorry to say it.

Also pretty rich is that the guy who posted a thread about "opinions on ESQ" would then tell us we are assholes for having opinions.

And I gotta say, it is interesting that after the C50 breakup, there were a few of us on here saying that perhaps ESQ and Mr. Beard should indeed have been a bit more pointed with the group about controversial topics and get us some better info rather than public relations fluff. And to an extent, we kinda got what we wished for. But instead of getting tough on controversial things like the C50 breakup, instead we've seen more attention paid to the fact that Brian is apparently only a somewhat sporadic participant in his own concerts (which really is untrue even on what I would say was a "not-so-good" night for him). Or a lot of hard hitting asides about how Brian's not the same guy he used to be (well no sh*t! Neither is Mike Love! Or you, or me, or anyone).

Unfortunately, instead of Mr. Beard pressing Mike Love about why the group never got back together after "giving it a rest for a year" or asking why they didn't try to capitalize on the success of C50 as a group, instead we get PR fluff, like "everybody is back doing what they like doing, and golly, isn't that great!"

But lastly, I'm also gonna say ESQ is pretty neat. Quite a few cool little issues. And I've been wanting to order the issue about L.A. (Light Album) but just haven't found the funds to do it lately.

The thing is, would you call someone who had a stroke "brain-damaged"? Would you say that to Kirk Douglas or Garrison Keillor or Ray Bradbury -- all of whom had strokes and then kept on doing public appearances? I mean, that is the definition of what a stroke does -- it damages your brain!

But no, people understand that a stroke might affect someone's speech, and might slow them down in certain ways, but if they're lucky enough and have quality care, they can resume most of their lives.

No one would call them brain-damaged, even though it's literally true, because the term is pejorative. Pure and simple.

Yeah, but as David Beard pointed out, remember the "brain damage scene" in the Love & Mercy movie??

Oh wait, neither do I.

Exactly! And it brings up another interesting point: would anyone have the gall to make such a comment in the presence of Brian Wilson? Hell no. Doesn't surprise me in the least that it was published though. This was like the fourth article this week that attempted to delegitimize Brian and build up Mike into some sort of saintly figure - it seems like the most unorganized/unsubtle PR campaign ever.

...Now back to our regularly scheduled programming of the Mike apologists incessantly bringing up the postponed UK tour and claiming Brianistas hate SIP only because Brian wasn't on it :lol

As someone who's HAD a stroke (4 years on, now), I can say I agree with you 100 %

I'm actually truly NOT a big fan of overreactions, and fake outrage, which we often see in the news. Sometimes people don't truly really find something offensive, but they observe that it's something that they can attack someone for saying/doing.

However, in the case of this article, it's all about tact, and context. I would argue one could even reference Brian's problems and conditions and do so respectfully and tactfully. This article was a hit piece in my opinion, albeit an attempt at a very subtle one, again in my opinion.

If *anyone* should know how to tactfully and appropriately write about Brian's past problems and condition, and accurately write about the current state of his tour/show, you'd think it would be the editor of the only ongoing Beach Boys fanzine. That's probably another reason the piece came across as being so disrespectful and tactless and purposeful; it wasn't written by some random blogger or writer who knows next to nothing about Brian who wiki'ed the Beach Boys ten minutes before writing their article.

How disrespectful that article was is obviously open for debate. But I think several points/assertions were disrespectful, and I would imagine Brian and/or his camp know it.

And not only that -- who exactly was this piece written for? A casual fan? Die hards?

Why does every piece David writes need to address Brian's "condition." People are much more than their perceived setbacks and/or afflictions. SURELY, SURELY, SURELY David is aware of Mike Love and Bruce Johnston's sketchy (read: human) personal issues that he blatantly has ignored ever harping on -- Brian's health issues seem a pre-requisite for any type of coverage, be it on his career or Mike Love's.

I don't want to sh it on David, or make it a character assassination, because I absolutely believe that he cares about the band and fully loves and appreciates all the music. That's never been in doubt in my mind. I think he's a guy that responds to this music the same way we all do -- or at least I do. What I question is the reason WHY he does what he does. I would read even the greatest, most informative issues of ESQ and throw each of them down because every 9 words had a copyright notice attributed to his name -- it seemed sometimes as much as four times per page (I mean, how many people are stealing content about the Morgans from ESQ, dude?)

I already said what I thought about the journalistic and historic aspects of the last few articles, so I pose this to David. . .

Use your magazine for unity.
This is a fork in the road situation re: your rep.
Stop kissing asses, stop shitt ing on heads and do a great job.