The Smiley Smile Message Board

I love Jack's lyrics, though they are perhaps even more esoteric and "out there" than VDP's.

Mike, being the guy who seemed to most have issues with unusual, atypical lyrics, I would think would have not particularly cared for them... is there any evidence of Mike's or the other Boys' opinions on Jack's lyrics one way or the other?  They don't scream "commercial" either, or have any particularly "relatable" boy/girl themes.

Was Mike just not in an empowered position during this early 70s period to voice significant displeasure or dissent, was his opinion simply quashed by Carl, or was Mike just more open-minded at this time?

   Carl on at least one occasion apologized to the audience for the lyrics to "Feel Flows" before playing it in concert, circa 1974.

I think Feel Flows has great lyrics. Sure, they don't make such sense, but they sound beautiful.

I always wondered that myself. I mean, Feel Flows is as far out there and psychedelic as anything from SMiLE, but somehow didn't get the same "drug induced" negativity from those who didn't "partake."

Exactly… It's really strange and contradictory, but the only thing I can think of is that by that point in time, Mike was either more willing to go along with everything, or was in no political position to make as big of a stink as he did years earlier, and/or Jack and Carl could just tolerate dealing with potential pushback (if there was any?) more than Van and Brian could. I suppose Jack was far more respected by the entire band in general, relatively-speaking… Or perhaps a combination of all of those things.

 For that matter, I wonder if Van inspired Jack's lyrics? To me, there seems to be a pretty direct correlation between the two men's lyrics and styles, even though they are different.

Or maybe Brian had Jack's back...

That's kind of sad to hear. It's a great song.

It is an interesting topic, but apart from asking them directly, we can comment as to how we feel about them. 

First, I had to look up what "esoteric" means...esoteric...from Merriam-Webster..." Only taught or understood by members of a special group, hard to understand, limited to a small number of people...eg. a body of esoteric legal doctrine, (Justice Benjamin Cardozo) requiring or exhibiting knowledge that is restricted to a small group..."

Maybe that is (esoteric) Parks, (Smile) but not Reiley.

Reiley did more concrete, somewhat consciouness-raising, but understandable topics such as colonialism, with The Trader, but anyone with even an 8th grade education, who understood the concept of immigration or slavery, and basic concepts of predatory nations, more universal in nature, could understand this concept. Funky Pretty, not difficult to understand; young people were often into theirs' and others' astrological signs.  Steamboat is sort of concrete. 

What I don't know is how much of Sail on Sailor's lyrics is Reiley's contribution?  ;)

I think that is probably it.  Brian was reported as "clashing" with VDP but I have not heard of any clashing of Brian with Jack (or did I forget it?).

I find it funny and rather endearing.  Yes, it's a great, great song, but the lyrics are really out there.  Does anyone have any more details about what Carl actually said?   

According to Leaf, Brian was the one who did not trust Jack right away.

I find it odd that he would sing the song at all if he felt he had to apologize for the lyrics. 

OH, those crazy Beach Boys!!  You just never know what they'll do...

The thing about Mike is that he's always commercially minded. The counterculture was in full swing (and probably reaching its zenith) by 1971. It was, paradoxically, a rather "safe" route to go by this time, hence the acquiescence to Rieley's new direction and making Surf's Up the centerpiece of the new album, etc. This new image made business sense (for now).

1966 was very different, only two years post "I Get Around". Brian (or VDP to be more specific) was ahead of the curve and in Mike's mind, taking enormous risks with the "brand" (although that wasn't the terminology back then). A completely different situation.

Who fired Jack Rieley?

RE: the lyrics and their acceptance, Stephen Desper would probably know. He tracked 'em.

One of the revelations of the SOT studio boots is all the dialogue between takes. Gave a great birds eye view in how the guys worked. When they were all wood shedding at Bellagio, I'm sure there was some tomfoolery goin' on. Whether that ever turned into rebellion towards Jack's approach, we can only conjecture. Bruce maybe. Hell, he split the scene man.

I think I read somewhere that Jack Reiley said Feel Flows was about masterbation. So it could be that Carl loved the music and a lot of Jack's poetic lyrics. But apologized for the subject matter of Feel Flows ??? Also, Mike had talked about Feel Flows when either Songs of Summer or Warmth of the Sun came out a few years ago. His take on Feel Flows seemed positive. But then again, he is a positive thinker!

Perhaps at this point, the big Boy wasn't up to clashing with Jack.

Curious about the thread's title. 'Mike + the other Boys'. Who are the other Boys? All of them? Why not just ask what the Boys thought of the lyrics? I imagine, despite Jack moaning about Mike and Al, that they thought they were pretty good and went along with them. Mike's best solo song is Big Sur (either version); Al's best is Lookin' at Tomorrow and they both clearly tried to get in the groove with Cal Saga - and let's not  forget Mike's excellent work with Charles Lloyd from around this time. Was he just being opportunistic? Who knows? It works though and it remains their (that is, the whole band) last really creative period.

For all its other shortcomings, the Gaines book introduced the delightful concept of Brian's Best New Friend. Jack was but the latest.

Lets not forget that Rieley was also their manager at this time and was having some success in how he was presenting the band.He was probably the perfect person to be running the show in the early '70's.

The "counterculture" was the mainstream in music by 1971. Also, by then Mike wasn't as reliant on Brian -- he could now generate songs on his own, or write with Al. (I think that a large part of Mike's objection to VDP 's lyrics was the feeling that Mike should be co-writing these songs, and not some fancy-pants outsider).

And people should give a listen to MIU, the next major occasion when Mike is writing extensively with Brian. Regardless of their quality or lack thereof, Mike's lyrics for that lp are quite ambitious, and in fact not unlike Rieley's.

 ??? ??? I'm not getting how myKe's lyrics on MIU can possibly be akin to Jack's. Ambitious should be replaced by banal if anything. As far as calling VDP a "fancy pants outsider", I think we all know who wore them in the family. And honestly, luHv was paranoid of Asher, VDP, Rieley, and Thomas primarily because they all far exceeded his stuff.

Jack Reiley was also Brian Wilson's collaborator. If you make a list, it would show that they did some pretty good stuff together. I wonder if Brian stood up for Jack - not as a manager but as a collaborator - when Jack was being shown the door? Anybody know?

It's interesting to note how dismissive Mike AND Dennis were when Bruce left - of course, he contributed to CATP and was back singing on Holland in no time!

As I noted in the concert book, jack was still managing the band as late as summer 1973 by which point Brian was beginning his hibernation and the love brothers were gaining control of the band.  With Brian gone and al leaning in mike's direction, the wilsons lost control and rieley was soon gone. Didn't help that he decided to long distance manage the band from holland

Could a Beach Boys' manager be fired - or a new one hired - without a vote by the Beach Boys themselves? Was it a majority or unanimous vote? Does anybody know how the vote went?

My understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that it was indeed unanimous.

Belles of Paris  and the extended metaphor of Match Point of Your Love were lyrically ambitious.

Overly ambitious as it turned out,  but in the same pretentious, overly explicit manner of such a Rieley lyric as A Day in the Life of a Tree.

I know that Mike absolutely LOVES "Feel Flows" and "The Trader" - it was at his insistence that the former made it onto MIC. And Bruce, despite his problems with Jack, told Brad Elliott in 1981 "...I always thought stuff he did was really great, I never took issue with that."

I like Mike's lyrics in both of your examples but in my mind they are about as far removed as Rieley's style as can be.

Several tomes say stuff like "the group" was dissatisfied or infuriated with Rieley's decision to run the shop from Amsterdam, but there's no indication of any support for Jack.

Carl got executioner duty, which he performed in Holland in the spring of '73.

Are any of the other Beach Boys on Feel Flows or is it just Carl?

  Carl: lead & backing vocals, piano, organ, moog, bass, bells, guitar
  Brian: backing vocals
  Charles Lloyd: flute, sax
  Woodrow Theus: percussion
 

Would be interesting to know just who "the group" represented at the time. I can only imagine. While the Holland project substantially drained the coffers, under his direction the boys had their best shot at regaining their relevancy. And they did, indeed recapture the magic. But with all the factions and infighting going on they let Jack slip through their fingers. They lost not only their manager, but one of their most creative, interesting and refreshing lyricists. My favorite period in the band's history-unfortunately, it somehow wasn't meant to survive or thrive for a more extended period of time.  

Don't forget Marilyn on backing vox

I'm not sure exactly when Jack was fired but he was still managing them in the spring of 1973.  He accompanied them on their March-May 1973 tour in the States (he was interviewed at a few college shows and I have them).

That would be incredible to hear.

Thanks for the info. Does anyone else sing backing vocals on Feel Flows?

 Not sure. Thanks to Alan Smith for noting Marilyn.

"For both Dennis and Carl having Brian as their elder brother was like being Ira Gershwin to George Gershwin. But Carl wrote some great things, like “Feel Flows” and “The Trader and “Long Promised Road”."  Mike Love 2008

Jack was also a manipulative liar (not merely my opinion but documented fact - ask Renee Pappas) who played off each faction/clique against the other. People conveniently forget he was also on watch when CATP was released, so not exactly batting 1.000.

Great comment re the manipulation, AGD, and reminder about CATP - his role around that time seems noticeably absent in the stuff I have at hand (that's a lazy general comment on my behalf).

Just to milk-a-bit-more that Goldmine interview (thanks, DonnyL) I've been hang-ing off of late, Al is on record saying:

Jack Rieley: A real fraud from the Netherlands.

Eugene Landy: Same thing. Landy might have had an edge in the fraud department.

Do you have a link for the Goldmine interview Alan? Would very much like to read the entire thing.

It came out Jack had lied about his previous accomplishments in getting the job of manager.  And Brian didn't always get along with Jack - there's the incident in the Rolling Stone article where Jack is going on to Brian about writing a song about the Pentagon Papers scandal and Brian completely ignores him.

Also didn't Gaines or someone report Jack's sexuality became an issue for some of the Beach Boys?

Hey MB - here is "the" link - http://troun.tripod.com/articles.html - again, courtesy of DonnyL, I am just a humble reader.

On this link are many insightful articles with great comment from Mike, Al and some good but brief stuff from Durrie Parks, who Donny worked with at some stage - my pleasure - A

Thanks to both yourself and DonnyL.

I'd often wondered who Theus was and just this minute got round to looking him up. Seems he died in 2011:

http://www.moderndrummer.com/site/2011/08/woody-sonship-theus/#_

 

And some of the Beach Boys lied about being surfers.  What's a few lies among friends?

Have to agree with you there Andy. The Beach Boys have been fudging the facts from the very beginning. In further defense of Rieley, the BB's would be a very difficult group to manage,especially at this time. And the Boys have been known to toss people by the wayside once they got what they wanted from them. That's show biz.

I disagree here. Bad behavior isn't made better by being common.

He claimed he worked for NBC's Puerto Rican bureau. There isn't one.

He claimed he won a Peabody Prize. He didn't.

When Ricky was having immigration hassles, Rieley produced a letter of welcome from a well-known politician. A stack of notepaper with said politician's letterhead was later found in his desk drawer.

That's not "a few lies amongst friends", that's flat out fraudulent.

I recall hearing something vague about this too.

I am almost afraid to ask for more details about this, because I doubt the answer will be pleasing to hear, but does anyone have more info on this?

I'm not trying to rationalize Rieley's behavior ,I'm saying that it was the nature of the business that he was attempting to get into. Essentially what he did was lie on his resume. And as it so often does, it came back to bite him in the ass. Was he wrong? Yes, but I think the positives outweighed the negatives.

Agreed. I think the firing reasons had to run deeper than that.

Seconded

Which ones?

Jack was bisexual in the 70s. For many years before his passing his partner was Jaye Meuller. Thought the former was common knowledge. No biggie these days, back then less tolerated. Which members weren't detailed.

"He (Jack Rielly) was a great manipulator. He could sell ice boxes to Eskimos. He was one of those guys who worked his way into your brain and into your life and into your recording sessions and onto your songs."  Al Jardine 2009

Do not get me wrong here--there is no question that Jack Reiley told many whoppers--but have any of the items from Andrew's post, which are IIRC all taken from Gaines's book--ever been confirmed from any of the sources independently? I've seen these charges repeated many times, but I've never seen anyone indicate that their own conversations with the people who must have made those comments in interviews with Gaines "double down" on what appeared in his pages.

Those of you who've forgotten what the stance on homosexuality was like in late 60s-early 70s America might find it interesting to see the new film BEST OF ENEMIES, which frames many American social/political issues of that time around the riotous TV debates between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley Jr. during the 1968 Presidential conventions...Buckley losing his Cheshire cat "cool" on live TV and uttering a sexual epithet is a revealing toe-dip into the pool of what things were like then. It wasn't likely that very many of the BB's were going to be particularly enlightened about this issue, given their upbringing in 50s America--while so much was changing, there were still frontiers that would take a good bit longer to cross.

Of course, an interesting aspect of this that reflects back on Rieley's lyrics is the collaboration with Carl on "Feel Flows," which Jack has explicated as being about the sensation of orgasm...interesting point of connection for a straight, married Beach Boy to have with his closeted gay manager-advisor-writing partner. Such a discussion was probably possible in 1971 due to the momentum of the sexual revolution and a desire for more open discourse on such subjects, but one wonders if it would have been possible if Jack had been out of the closet at the time. I tend to think that such subject matter became ironically more taboo as more and more people agreed to accept alternative lifestyles, but talk less and less about sexuality in a cultural context.

 ::) But not nearly as fraudulent as myKe luHv billing his tribute act as The Beach Boys every time he drags his band of unknowns on stage. And yes we all know myKe forks out money for doing so and has the licence and so on and so on. As for Jack, real fans are damn happy he was once associated with the group.

As ever in your pathetically puerile posts, you have no idea what you're talking about. I happen to have a very soft spot for the Rieley era, and his lyrics, and his sexuality has never bothered me, but liking the music he was helping create doesn't cause me to excuse his dishonesty nor his manipulative management style. As for you pronouncing who is, and is not, a "real fan", well... that's like a politician lecturing someone on honesty and morality. Real fans have more than one threadbare song in their repertoire. Other have also noted your near-complete absence from any thread that demands both a basic knowledge of this band and their music, and the ability to say something more than a bajillion variations on a theme of "I hate Mike Love". You're the fraud. You pretend to be a fan, but you're just a simple troll.

Who saw them in 1967 and bought the records as they were released. OSD is a true fan in every sense of the word. Both OSD and I have no time for Mike Love fanboys bullying people because they know the bar band is an inferior product.

Congrats on turning yet another thread into a 'let's bash Mike' thread. And it just so happens that I think the best years of the group fell under Jack's watch.

I understand that sexual/gender id issues weren't aus talked about back then. I can see LGBT people being a mysterious "other" that could be off-putting to people *who have never met one before.* But it seems shitty to oust someone you know is a good guy (ok, the lies aside) who's helped you produce some great music just because they prefer men. It's like being married and sexist or best friends with a black man and racist. Just really hurtful and closed-minded behavior no matter what decade it is

Well were the guys aware Jack was gay when they first hired him? Because if they were then I can't see why that would suddenly become a problem 3 years later and a reason to fire him. The reason I always heard he left was because of him staying in Holland. He may also not have been the best man for the job in capitalising on the new post Endless Summer phase.

As always, simply delighted beyond belief to see you make a complete fool of yourself in the face of disagreement. That last line takes the cake, proving once again just how ignorant you are. :p

That is indeed a key question, and there are of course a number of surviving Beach Boys who might be persuaded to talk about that in 2015 under the right circumstances. My guess is that it was not known initially, and that its discovery (likely during the time in Holland)  contributed to the unanimity of the BBs desire to sever ties with Jack after that adventure...where the Netherlands' less straitened atmosphere with respect to homosexuality may well have contributed to the discovery of Jack's preferences. Under such circumstances one can envision a collision course of reasons leading to the break with him. From Jack's remarks it seems that he was tiring of the internecine strife he was encountering with the band; it's also likely that the relationship(s) he'd developed while in Holland might have motivated him to remain. Put all of those things together and you've very likely got a powerful impulse for "you go your way and we'll go ours."

Clearly Carl would have been the most interesting person to ask about this, as all accounts of the Holland story indicate that he is the one who fired Jack.

He also introduced them at their August '73 Hartford, CT show.

Some real misunderstandings of the early 70's era going on here.

This was the era of glam rock, when stars like David Bowie and Lou Reed proclaimed their homosexuality in interviews, when Bowie mimed performing fellatio on his guitarist as a routine part of his stage act,when even straight rockers implied that they were gay and wore mascara and dresses. And yes when even Mike Love, in imitation of Jagger, queened his way across the stage. Homosexuality was hip.

Excellent points made. Reed and Bowie could easily pull it off, but myKe luHv trying to emulate Jagger only succeeded in making himself look like an obnoxious wannabe and also tarnished the group's image.

Right c-man I forgot that appearance. As I thought his firing was in fall 1973 as guercio started to become involved and became the new advisor. As far as the stuff in Gaines goes, having interviewed many beach boys insiders for my book, I've come to believe that everything in that book is basically true and that gaines actually showed restraint! Reliable sources have told me even crazier stories but I can't share them!

Oh man..."white hot glistening shadowy flow..."  How did I never catch on to this before?  Man...

I've told this before but FWIW, I managed to get a hold of Nick Grillo a decade or more ago. He was very nice and called me back but at the time he was not interested in giving an interview concerning the BBs.  However he did refer me to Gaines book and said he felt everything attributed to him was accurate. 

So Mike really did tell Brian "don't f*** with the formula"? That's in the book. There were posters here not long ago saying that never happened.

I have long believed that Jack Rieley's collaborations with band members constituted a conflict of interest. With the band members fighting to get their songs on the group's albums, wouldn't  a good manager have kept himself in as objective a position as possible? It's telling to me that "A Day in the Life of a Tree" made it onto Surf's Up and "Wouldn't It be Nice (To Live Again)" didn't.

COMMENT:  It's not about the lyrics. Anyone can write lyrics. JR worked with Carl on lyrics most of the time, but some with everyone else, except Bruce who didn't buy into the JR approach.  But the main point is that it's not about the lyrics, it's about who could communicate with Brian and bring him into civil behavior and thinking. If JR was able to shift Brian's attention back to music creation and into the studio, and if the vehicle for that is lyric writing, then everyone will work with JR, to some extent, to achieve normality of Brian. So what you need to realize is that this was a time of some desperation. Brian, the founder of the group and its driving force, was in trouble. Now we know it all turned out for the better of everyone, but then we didn't have the advantage of that hindsight. So in the atmosphere of 45 years ago JR was getting Brian back into production, so his lyrics were allowed, tolerated, and massaged with enough Beach Boy influence to gain acceptance into the production. In short, Brian came with Jack's lyrics. Jack was an excellent writer and quite capable of good lyric writing, but that is not the question, more to the question is, was it worth it. Was having Jack's lyrics worth it to get Brian's involvement?   
I would suggest that comments you wish to make should be made in light of the above.
~swd
 

Thanks as always for your insight, Stephen. Makes sense.

We already know that is incorrect. Dennis pulled his tracks of his own volition, due to track sequencing issues between himself and Carl.

Conflict of interest or not, the tracks he co-wrote are killer and we are mighty lucky to have them.

It makes little sense to me.

Anyone can write lyrics? How would that explain Brian Wilson seeking out Mike Love, Roger Christian, Tony Asher, Van Dyke Parks, Stephen Kalinich, and the various collaborators who provided lyrics in his solo career? Why didn't Brian just write his own lyrics? Because he used different lyricists for different songs/projects.

Was having Jack's lyrics worth it to get Brian's involvement? Well, let's see. "A Day In The Life Of A Tree", "Marcella", "You Need A Mess Of Help To Stand Alone", "Sail On Sailor", "Funky Pretty", and "Mount Vernon And Fairway". I vote "yes".

1973, maybe. But not 1971. The term bandied about in the rock press was "adrogyny." Not "homosexuality." Bowie's quote in 1972 referred to bisexuality, but the only thing we can really infer from all that is he was making provocative statements in an effort to boost album sales for Hunky Dory. Reed didn't transform himself into a glam androgyne until late 1972, despite the many "lower depths" references in earlier songs.

Glam rock came from Europe and Britain, its influence in the US was not particularly widespread. It pushed various poses of decadence into the conversation, but it was short-lived. You can see bands that began with those trappings (Roxy Music) abandoning the adrogyny and moving quickly into a fin de siecle world-weariness. Jagger's appeal, such as it was, stemmed from sexual swagger for all, which was not directly solely for an emerging group of closeted folks.

It's an open question whether glam rock was a catalyst for gay rights activists, who were quick to abandon public hyper-flamboyance when it came time to generate a viable political strategy.

At the time that Jack Reiley joined forces with the BBs, it's accurate to say that homosexuality was not quite so hip or accepted across the social spectrum, even in the world of rock.

As for Mike's Jaggerisms, methinks this is really 1975 territory, when the band is reestablished as a headlining act and Mr. Love was having his own wacky kind of "fun fun fun" on-stage. I will leave it to others to ask Mike if he was "queening" it like Mick or not, or whether any such connotations should be taken seriously or tongue-in-cheek.

Rieley's lines were frequently clunky, and overall his lyrics were too on-the-nose and journalistic -- but they weren't generic. I liked them, found them to be entertaining.

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,3019.0.html

Some insightful info in the 2006 Jack Reilly thread.

I mostly agree with all that, but Rieley was still fired not in '71 but in '73, in the midst of homosexuality's ephemeral moment of rock music hipness. If Rieley's homosexuality figured as one of the reasons for his being fired, the spirit of the times should not be used as an excuse -- as some, not you, did -- since, at least in rock music circles, the times were relatively sympathetic to homosexuality.

Personally, I find the whole music scene of the early 70's to be the most fascinating in rock history.

The financial and managerial information, and the details of the various contracts, are indeed extremely accurate, as is to be expected given the source. Said source also inevitably informs other aspects of the book.

I'd be seriously surprised if the Biys hadn't come across and worked with (to coin a phrase) gay people in the music industry before this time. A few years down the line and they're working with Curt Boettcher (or however he was spelling his name at the time).

For all the good and bad things that Rieley did, he still deserves an online epitaph like the following!:


        John Frank Rieley III

'Are you sleeping Brother John?'

        Jack of many trades

What does Gaines say about F*ing With The F*ula?

I wonder what others who are mentioned in the book think/thought about it's accuracy or lack there of as far their experiences? (shooting a glance toward Stephen "Despar")

Chapter 8, section 6 - Mike Love was the most vocal and vehement. "You're going to blow it, Brian," he said.  "Stick to the old stuff. Don't f*** with the formula."

Context is the BBs returning to California post tour for Smile vox sessions, then flipping out on purveying "the scene" and hearing the tracks.  The quote immediately follows on from the recollections of David Anderle.

Yes. It isn't attributed to Anderle but is in the context of his recollections.

OSD - looking back (always 20/20) this "move," under Jack, makes me wonder exactly how "self-serving" (as it related to Jack) in terms of his personal lifestyle tendencies as well as the then, rare and relatively lax standards with regards drugs.
And notwithstanding his fudging his resume, whether there was any real investigation as to his bona fide credentials.

We know the Holland era is outstanding, but, I'm thinking Jack was more a "facilitator" rather than a true teacher. He certainly appears to have been crafty in surveying the scene and "dividing the band members, to conquer." I have little doubt that the creative stuff was flowing with each band member, and their capabilities were evident with Wild Honey, and Jack just "assembled" or "packaged" their work.

Thanks as always for your insight, Stephen. Makes sense.
COMMENT:
What makes little sense to you?  That anyone can write lyrics? Let me expand on that statement.  "Anyone can write lyrics" means that it is easy for any writer to put words to music. I didn't say anyone can write successful or commercial lyrics, I said anyone can put words to music. Try it yourself. You may discover a hidden talent. So JR's attempt to help Brian overcome the many fears within his everyday thinking was to reach out to him through his music. Jack did not write music, but he was a successful author. He took tone fragments, musical snippets that Brian had left dormant and applied some reasonable words to the notes. This enabled him to work on a common project, common to both men. This was a long and patient process requiring more understanding than Brian's band members had a talent for. Jack's reserve and commitment lead to Brian becoming more creative and into the studio and so forth.

Why didn't Brian write his own lyrics, you ask. Why didn't Brian fix his own car or cook his own meals or sew his own clothes?  The answer is the same as to why he didn't write many of his own lyrics. He was not as good at doing that as were others and he wished to collaborate with them to marry his melodies to their words. Now don't think for one minute that JR was writing all these lyrics by himself -- somehow bringing them to the studio in a finished form ready to be sung. Jack worked with everyone (except Bruce) on lyric composition. The main thing wasn't the lyric it was getting Brian stimulated. You have the songs you listed, not because of Jack's lyrics, but because of Jack's ability to get Brian interested in his own talent.

I recall the day Brian came to me to discuss a song he was working on (with Jack) about the health and welfare of trees. We went for a walk in Brian's back yard, he was reflecting on some of the trees growing there…some young, some old….strong oaks and one that was dead from a lightning strike. We were discussing how to get the message of the song to come across in a sound picture (or tone poem) and not just a melody with a story attached. Brian would tell me sonic concepts and I'd throw ideas back at him about how to realize the picture from a sound engineering point of view. What is the sound a healthy tree makes? Or a sick and dying tree. How do you tell the story in sonic concept? It wasn’t until I suggested using a pipe organ to represent the majesty of a tree (wood pipes) and a reed organ made of oak, for other sounds that things took off.  ‘Tree didn’t just magically come into being. It was a collaboration of creativity from Brian working with Jack, the group and myself. The words of ‘Tree have gone through many stages of development. Some of the ideas are from Jack, others from the group – I even think I said a thing or two during one of those many lyric discussions. ‘Tree was a very complex song to both create and to execute, but it was the lyric that got Brian out of his bedroom and into the backyard where he returned to his creative self. (‘Tree’s creation is covered in Part Three of Recording The Beach Boys.) ~swd

COMMENT:  Jack's sexual identity was never a factor. Remember everyone lived and worked in Hollywood, California, Sexual Revolution, Liberal Thinking, Creative Atmosphere, etc.  In other words, not your average life-style, rather a life-style that tolerated any creative behavior that eventually lead to making a dollar.  The Business of Music -- don't you know!    ~swd

This being one of my favorite Beach Boys songs I'm so glad I read this. Thank you for not only your insight but for your work on the actual song itself!

-

I find the word "pollution" jarring in the context of a song. It feels too journalistic, too abstract, a violation of diction. I don't know, maybe it's just me.

Anyway, I love the song -- even the lyrics -- nonetheless, and I also love the arrangement and Rieley's croaking, weathered vocals. It all just somehow works.

Sheer fucking genius. Thanks for sharing, This sort of stuff is priceless.

Thanks, Stephen, for bringing some first-hand information into this topic. It reminds us just how creative things were during the time frame when you were masterminding the Beach Boys' sound. I think it would be terrific if a special edition of the songs recorded at that time was released with special sub-mixes of the songs that would permit us to hear the vocal and instrumental arrangements as separate entities. The building blocks of this type of creativity are often as fascinating as the finished product.

Regarding Jack and his sexual preferences--I wonder if you would clarify if those were known to the band in the early going of their association with him? Recalling that anecdotal evidence tends to paint Mike as someone less comfortable with/ tolerant of leftist politics (the oft-quoted concern about appearing with Joan Baez at Big Sur because he was worried that she was a Communist...), I think many might find it plausible that differences in sexual orientation might have been another source of concern--particularly since Jack himself characterized the band as having two factions in '71 (Brian-Carl-Dennis and Mike-Al-Bruce). If I have the time frame correct, the Holland adventure and the severance of Jack's service to the band post-date your own departure, so you may not be privy to the details involved with those events...but it would be interesting to know if members of the band were aware of Jack's preferences during the time you were still working with them.

COMMENT:
The special edition you request is in the form of the study-video "Recording The Beach Boys - part two."  I'm not Privé to sub-mixes from the multi-track. This is inside BRI, of which I am no longer involved. However you will not be disappointed with part two (about Surf's Up) and the music thereof.

On being gay:  They were aware; it didn't matter. Talent is what matters. The Beach Boys were quite secure in their sexual identities. It's not about how you make love, not anything near. It's about the business of music. Follow the money. Even Quincy Jones was bi-. So what?  What matters is that he knew how to make money for everyone involved with him. It's the business of music. ~swd

And similarly so in the Tom Nolan RS article.

COMMENT:

Note it's Desper with "er" at the end or is that why you put the name in quotes?  

I don't know anything about the book. I will say that if Michael said anything like that to Brian it would be during one of their impromptu production meetings. These meetings happen from time to time and are regarded as a suspension of creative activities while a subject is discussed and a decision reached. Usually this will be a business related decision. Sometimes these meetings are called where conditions for secrecy is unavailable. So someone may have overheard Michael say something to Brian -- but take it way out of text or proportion. So under these circumstances I can see Mike relating his feelings. In this setting he has just as much say as anyone. But in daily overall conversations, interaction, and on a creative level, Michael and Brian worked well together, given Brian's condition. As to Michael's supposed sentiment to Brian, if Mike wished to stay with the surfing motif, why did he go on to create, work, write and sing on so many songs not of the surfing motif? In short, from my experiences of being around the group for many hours at a time, day in and day out, in the studio and on the road -- I think the Michael statement is over rated as some historical turning point . . . if it was ever muttered. ~swd

Thank you Stephen for your sharing and patience. I've always thought that it is curious that Brian is supposed to have had so much resistance and grief from the Boys over and during the work yet none of it seems to have gotten on tape and the Boys themselves seem to know little if anything about it. Lots of good humor and hard work and cooperation from the Boys made it to tape though some how.

The "Despar" was a joke as that is how your name is misspelled through out Gaine's book.

Context is therefore wrong, as the "formula" quote has historically been associated with Pet Sounds. Ergo the source is questionable. As I said, the financial & managerial info is reliable. Anything else, not so much.

Can we nail this quote to the top of the main page on the board?

I'm trying to work out some of the logic being used in some recent posts here. First there was a post saying what is written in the Gaines book seems to be what actually happened based on talking to various insiders. The "don't f*** with the formula" quote stood out as one of the most repeated lines in various histories and among fans, and it's noted in the book as Alan Smith cited. But the reply to that was the business/contractual evidence is what was spot-on, the other points like that quote not so much, so despite the comment that what is in the book seems to be accurate, in this case it isn't. You'd expect the contract/business material would have more detail in the book since Stephen Love was a primary source for the book.

Now Cam comes back with the idea that despite all of the stories written and observations of people who were there including Brian Wilson himself, nothing seems to have been "captured on tape" to back up what has been said about the band members challenging Brian on certain material, especially in 1966-67.

Is this an assertion trying to suggest that because there are no session tapes that captured anything of the sort, that it didn't happen? That it never happened?

So if that is the case - It didn't happen because we don't have a "Heroes" session or something where we can hear a conversation taking place?

Taken to the extreme, that sounds like a suggestion that anything that wasn't captured on a studio session reel is more likely not to have happen despite observers saying it did? What about band meetings, BRI meetings, and the like? Are there any tapes of those conversations, are there minutes taken down of every meeting? Do we even know what the band was discussing at Columbia in Dec 1966 when CBS's camera crews were filming them for Inside Pop?

It seems to be a case of selective reasoning here, either the book got it right or it didn't, it's just funny that one or two examples pulled out of hundreds of pages gets parsed and suggested it "didn't happen", and a year ago there was a discussion about the failed spring 1968 Maharishi tour and how much that folly cost the band - Despite Nick Grillo giving specific details and numbers in the Gaines book, I remember Cam and others tried to parse those figures as well.

Just trying to understand the process being applied to reach some of these conclusions. I'd suggest using whether or not conversations were captured on tape and appear on bootlegs or box sets decades later isn't a good way of concluding that it never happened. The tapes that do exist add up to a micro-micro-microcosm of real life and everything that happens in a 24-hour day. If a Heroes session reel doesn't include Brian ordering a pastrami on rye from Canter's during a break, that doesn't mean he didn't order a pastrami on rye from Canter's during a break. If he says he did, and remembers it was one of the best sandwiches he ever had...then he's wrong because it's not on tape? That's illogical reasoning from the get-go.

Is that a no then?

It's a call to apply basic logic instead of cherrypicking details to refute or change them based on the content or implications. It would be easy to whitewash any number of events out of the band's history that were not captured on a reel of tape in the studio. Too easy and not accurate, either.

Sure, but that's Cam's modus operandi

At this point does it really matter? It has a myth all it's own. Whether that quote actually was said or not, it can be concluded that most people who care will continue to believe whatever they want to believe. It is the Beach Boy way. The truth should never stand in the way of a good story or quote.

Setting aside whether it was recorded or verbatim said, do you doubt that the quote would have at least been what Mike would have thought at the time? It probably was, and likely moreso than the other Boys, and he probably communicated this thought nonverbally with body language too. What's done is done, but those claiming it's so incredibly farfetched, unbelievable, and out of character are trying to whitewash history themselves. Let's not deny that is a thing that that a faction of people on this board are prone to doing. Can we agree on that much?

In all likelihood, the quote and/or its sentiment is true in one way or another; people need to deal with it.

Personally, I do think he did say something to that effect. Probably not said in the context or the extreme seriousness that some fans take it. It was more likely said in frustration as the studio work was arduous and that it was not Mike's favorite place to be. If it was said during the Pet Sounds sessions, Mike had to have had second thoughts about it, with Sloop, WIBN, GOK and GV all doing very well on the world charts. Again, most likely said while having a bad day in the studio and taken way out of context.

The alleged "formula" quote. No-one has, to my knowledge - as ever I stand to be corrected - any reference to it prior to the mid seventies, and certainly not in any contemporary media. Few years ago, as I posted here at the time, I asked Mike about it and he gave me a source, viz. one of the suits at Capitol when he and Brian presented the finished Pet Sounds to them. He admitted it sounded like something he might say, given his love of alliteration.

As for the filmed "Surf's Up" session, the notes make no reference to any argument or dissection.

So, how to reply to gf2k's question? What is to believed these days? Does it take more than one source to confirm or dismiss a story or quote from a band member? Maybe it is just my age showing, but it just seems that in all the books and articles written about the Boys', it seems like just about everyone in the story had some kind of agenda. To whom to pass blame too when things went out of kilter. I mean, most of the myth that we know today came from Brian's friends & associates during the Pet Sounds-Smile era. I always found it odd that for a band that was never around much, constantly touring, that They or Mike was responsible for all the bad things that happened during that period.

Tom Nolan Rolling Stone article, October 28, 1971.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beach-boys-a-california-saga-19711028?page=6

"Mike Love was the tough one for David (Anderle). Mike really befriended David: He wanted his aid in going one direction while David was trying to take it the opposite way. Mike kept saying, 'You're so good, you know so much, you're so realistic, you can do all this for us-why not do it this way.' and David would say 'Because Brian wants it that way.' 'Gotta be this way.' David really holds Mike Love responsible for the collapse. Mike wanted the bread, 'and don't f*** with the formula.'"

Do you ever wonder if any of these ever talked to each other? If they all owned a piece of Brother Records and hired Anderle to run it, did they not have a plan? Did they not sit down and discuss how the business was to be run. Wasn't Anderle making decisions in the day to day running of the business? A business that new, one would think that in the beginning they would all be on the same page getting it up and running. Sounds like buck passing or Anderle was too much under Brian's sway to make his own business decisions.

If Mike ever said "don't f**k with the formula" : what could he have meant by the "formula"?

Not surf/car songs, which they had long since abandoned, and which were no longer commercially viable in any case. Does Pet Sounds have a hugely different formula than that of the 2nd side of Today, which Mike co-wrote? Is that Mike what meant by the formula (if he ever said it, that is), side 1 up-beat songs, side 2 introspective?

Or by formula did Mike mean that he, Mike, co-writes the lyrics, rather than Tony Asher?

It's hard to use that quote to knock Mike unless we know what he would have meant by it,  assuming he had said it.

To me it more likely sounds as if he is questioning how Brian changed his recording techniques. Not hearing fully rooted songs using the modular method.

I think Mike meant the band shouldn't abandon the relatable boy/girl subject matter from being the primary focus of a large amount of songs. Deeper, more painful and personal subject matter, touched on with the title lyric Child is Father of the Man... songs like I Just Wasn't Made for These Times,  etc... those songs are blatantly fucking with the formula. I'd imagine that a small handful of those types of songs could have been stomached, but when more and more came to push in that direction, it was qualified by Mike as formula-fucking.

I doubt Mike had big problems with album cuts. I think his issue was with songs that would/could be slated for singles. I could see him feeling that way with the Smile material. There is nothing AM radio hit worthy on Smile. The modular method of recording probably made it even harder to figure out.

Here I'll say Stephen was intimately involved in the process for years, not a visitor to a few sessions over the course of a few months. He is speaking from a much more informed position and I think what he said speaks directly to how the group, and specificly Mike, were not trying to keep Brian from F-ing with the F-ula. Maybe I misunderstand Stephen and I hope he corrects me if I am.

I suggest another thread be started and I'll be glad to try to answer for all of the words being put in my mouth. If not I guess I can do it here too.

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/774/20498897280_531fb05912.jpg)

I'm trying to work out some of the logic being used in some recent posts here. First there was a post saying what is written in the Gaines book seems to be what actually happened based on talking to various insiders. The "don't f*** with the formula" quote stood out as one of the most repeated lines in various histories and among fans, and it's noted in the book as Alan Smith cited.

I can’t speak for Ian, but I didn’t have the impression he was pronouncing the entire book as true. He can correct me if he meant what you claim.

As for me I passed on what Grillo said. As I said, he didn’t say everything in the book was true, just what was attributed to him, so that leaves a lot of the book outside his endorsement.

Now Cam comes back with the idea that despite all of the stories written and observations of people who were there including Brian Wilson himself, nothing seems to have been "captured on tape" to back up what has been said about the band members challenging Brian on certain material, especially in 1966-67.

Is this an assertion trying to suggest that because there are no session tapes that captured anything of the sort, that it didn't happen? That it never happened?

No, it’s an observation that nothing like the sort was captured on tape, that is known. Just what I said, not what you projected. What IS captured on tape in abundance is the exact opposite of the “sort”, as I said, the Boys at work seemingly doing everything as told, being cooperative, working hard and with good humor.


Taken to the extreme, that sounds like a suggestion that anything that wasn't captured on a studio session reel is more likely not to have happen despite observers saying it did? What about band meetings, BRI meetings, and the like? Are there any tapes of those conversations, are there minutes taken down of every meeting? Do we even know what the band was discussing at Columbia in Dec 1966 when CBS's camera crews were filming them for Inside Pop?

Most of the evidence of the sort is claimed to take place at sessions with the Boys. Is there any evidence they discussed anything of the sort at band meetings or Columbia? Does anybody have band meetings tapes or transcripts? If not, are you suggesting it means they then must have discussed things of the sort? I’m not suggesting it.

It seems to be a case of selective reasoning here, either the book got it right or it didn't, it's just funny that one or two examples pulled out of hundreds of pages gets parsed and suggested it "didn't happen", and a year ago there was a discussion about the failed spring 1968 Maharishi tour and how much that folly cost the band - Despite Nick Grillo giving specific details and numbers in the Gaines book, I remember Cam and others tried to parse those figures as well.

I agree there is some selective reasoning going on. Mike denies it happened, but he is just the guy who was supposed to have said it. Are we to selectively ignore that?

Are we to ignore Stephen’s perspective?

Even Anderle says the Boys weren’t antagonistic rather there was love and they worked hard and sang beautifully trying to please Brian.

Point me to the Grillo thread please, and I’ll take a look.

Just trying to understand the process being applied to reach some of these conclusions. I'd suggest using whether or not conversations were captured on tape and appear on bootlegs or box sets decades later isn't a good way of concluding that it never happened. The tapes that do exist add up to a micro-micro-microcosm of real life and everything that happens in a 24-hour day.

Since I didn’t do that I don’t have a comment except to agree we probably shouldn’t conclude too much from  the micro-micro-micro-micro-microcosm of the impressions of a couple of guys from a few sessions over a few months out of a 50+ year career about somebody else.

He just picked the worst possible song, imho. Why take what, as far as I can gather, was a formless 3 minute musical comedy that even included My Only Sunshine at one point and make that the single? Or, if you're gonna do that, stick with it. Don't spend months making it commercial and more verse/chorus/verse if that so obviously wasn't the plan before. Pick something already like that, such as cabin essence. Even something like Surfs Up, as we were saying in another thread. The title would capture less aware old fans, the tv plug the general public, and word of mouth would do the rest. They could have gotten a second hit off SMiLE if they just backed the right horse

I will try to summarize the general history of the band and its inner dynamics from the "fall from grace" that followed Good Vibrations. We will also focus on Mike's involvement with the creative efforts of that time. You can all take potshots at that as you see fit with respect to any interpretations of behavior and involvement between the various band members. We begin with Smiley Smile. Steve Desper is most welcome to add any details regarding the period in which he was in attendance as the band's sound genius.

SS--With none of the other BBs ready/able to take over production & songwriting chores, Brian is forced/cajoled into creating a quickie surrogate. The LP continues the already in-process transition to Carl as the key alternate lead vocalist to Mike.

Mike's involvement: moderate (leads/lyrics on "She's Goin' Bald" and "Gettin' Hungry," the usual peerless background singing).

WH--The BBs "reload" with an album that pushes away from their signature sound and channels Motown/R&B. Carl becomes yet more prominent as a lead vocalist, moving into uptempo songs that had previously been the province of Mike.

Mike's involvement: heavy (lyrics on many songs, with lots of emphasis on "boy/girl").

Friends--Almost a Brian solo project, nearly a 180-degree shift from WH. Dennis debuts as a songwriter.

Mike's involvement: slight (away in India for a good bit of the sessions).

20/20--The rest of the band begins to flex its songwriting/production muscles as Brian goes through an emotional decline, necessitating Carl to augment/finish two SMiLE tracks.

Mike's involvement: moderate-to-heavy (more leads here since Summer Days/Summer Nights). Brings back "the formula" by coaxing Brian into writing/recording "Do It Again."

Sunflower--The product of an enormous burst of creativity from all band members, including Brian, who writes some terrific songs in extending the classic BBs' sound ("This Whole World," "All I Wanna Do"). The band supports everyone's songwriting efforts; Steve Desper perfects his sound  mastery to create one of the greatest-sounding LPs in pop music history.

Mike's involvement: moderate- to-heavy (lyrics on many songs, one of his best leads ever on "All I Wanna Do", peerless backing vocals).

With the commercial crash-and-burn of the LP, Jack Reiley enters the picture, angling the group toward new songs stressing topical issues (particularly ecology, a subject that seems to resonate with Al and Mike).

SU--The LP isn't quite successful in following Sunflower's pattern and reflects some factionalizing in the band as Brian's involvement wavers (only two new songs on the LP, "Day in the Life of a Tree" and "Til I Die." The schizoid nature of the material, coupled with the aura of the SMiLE treasure "Surf's Up," revives the band's commercial fortunes despite the lack of an AM hit.

Mike's involvement: light to moderate (leads on two songs, co-writing--but none with Brian). Tom Nolan's RS article repeats the anecdotal notion that Mike is a conservative force in the band; observers of the band during the 1971 tour intimate that Mike seems more enthusiastic for the earlier songs.

CATP--Jack Reiley, with Carl's blessing, shakes up the band; the BB's risk losing their earlier identity in a wide-ranging series of tracks that sound more disjointed than they are thanks to being packaged with a reissue of Pet Sounds. Carl stands in for Brian, with Mike mostly as a cheerleader on the sidelines.

Mike's involvement: light-to-moderate (lead on "He Come Down," half-lead on "Marcella"). His support for the songs on the LP is broad but not deep.

Holland--The "change of venue" LP only comes together when "Sail On Sailor" emerges from the ether after the LP is rejected by Warner/Reprise. The LP more successfully blends the disparate sounds of the band than CATP, but it doesn't have the former LPs high points or range.

Mike's involvement: moderate (solo composition, leads on "Big Sur," "Caiifornia", co-writing on several songs, including the deleted "We Got Love". In '72 Mike seems to be reasonably integrated into the current creative framework of the band, even co-writing with Dennis and Blondie/Ricky.

The continuing absence and ongoing decline of Brian in '73-'75, coupled with the escalating resurgence in popularity of the band (in large part due to Endless Summer) seems to be the watershed for Mike, who more emphatically embraced the oldies segment of the live performances and began calling for the band to return to its roots, eventually advocating that Brian be brought back to do a high-wire act in a windstorm and write "new old" BB classics with his lyrical assistance.

15 BO: The lone example of a Wilson-Love collaboration is "It's OK," Brian's rewrite of "Mess of Help" as a summer tune. Mike's lyrics betray a little middle-age resignation that pushes back a bit against the "fun in the sun" veneer, but it's a momentary crack in his armor.

Mike's involvement: moderate (lead vocal on "Rock'n'Roll Music," "It's OK", "A Casual Look", songwriting "Everyone's In Love With You")

Love You--Brian's second near-solo effort, completed by Carl with guest appearances from most of the rest of the band.

Mike's involvement: slight (leads on "Roller Skating Child," "Johnny Carson", half-leads on "Let Us Go On This Way," "Airplane").

By this point Mike had "effed with the formula" a number of times, and he was still in search of a summer hit that evoked the good old days. With Brian regressing after his first round of treatment with Gene Landy, the band tried to rally for its first LP for CBS, but they were still crippled by their near-breakup in 1977 and the material was unfocused. Mike himself began to tire of the BBs chaotic creative democracy, and began to pursue side projects that more accurately reflected his desires to go back to the pre-Pet Sounds commercial glory days. 

Once Dennis died and Bruce returned as an active member, Mike pursued the America's band monicker as a ticket to ongoing commercial success, an approach that for the most part has remained in play over the past 30+ years. He wants to write new-old BBs classics with Brian, and actually got close to the general vicinity with TWGMTR, singing exceptionally well for a septuagenarian, but Brian stole the show artistically and commercially with cuts co-written with others.

To conclude: Mike's desire to return to the good old days has consistently increased as time has passed, and his revisionist comments tend to overlook/downplay his genuine involvement in the more artistically adventurous periods of BB history. Despite the fact that he has nothing to lose by embracing these intriguing tangents of BB history, Mike has mostly chosen to eschew that aspect of the band, which has only served to confirm for many who believe that he was a intransigent dissenter against any/all "veering away from the formula." While there is truth in that, it seems certain that it has been exaggerated. But Mike would do well to sit down with some journalist (perhaps in his autobio) and simply expound more on the entire BB oeuvre, including the period that he seems least inclined to discuss--the band's 1968-74 "alternate identity." Simply doing that might go a long way toward dousing the flames that he sometimes seems intent on fanning.

Profound thanks for that: I'm away from the Bellagio Archives right now and couldn't check. So, it's back to fall 1971... however, Anderle doesn't attach it to Pet Sounds but rather during Smile. More problems. There's another caveat in that, along with all the New Best Friends, David isn't exactly a neutral voice. Curiouser and curiouser.

Hey drBB - from David Anderle's recollection/perception of events described in the Tom Nolan interview, apparently not to many of your questions (the below words appear immediately before the dfwtf quote cited by tortapuerco (thanks, dude) - A

The idea of Brother Records was to guarantee Brian the liberty to make whatever kind of music he wanted. It would be the Beach Boys' own label, and David would be its director.

It seemed like a good idea at the time, but once into it David realized it had nothing to do with the creativity. It ran counter to their whole ethic. The rest of the crew was trying to be open and fertile, while David was putting things into compartments because he was trying to make a business. A certain amount of structuring was needed. He thought he could do it all: hang out, fantasize at night; then put it all together in the daytime. You couldn't do both. The music always suffered at the hands of the business. You had to be open to all vibrations, you had to have strength, and you couldn't get it sitting behind a desk all day listening to uptight phone calls and deciding what percentage was right.

--------
Brian played the Beach Boys his new music and it scared the sh*t out of them.

That's what David thought happened. He couldn't figure it any other way. They must have known it was great music. They had to. But they knew it was something that wasn't them. Brian did not get the family backing that he needed. He had been working as a solitary musician and suddenly had to return to working with the Beach Boys; he lost his immediacy explaining to people.

It got too hard for David. He couldn't deal with explaining something five or six separate times for five or six separate people. And there was no way to get them to agree to a single course of action when they all had their own personal desires.

Dang it, wrong thread again. Nothin' to see here. No, I'm not senile.

See, there is the first issue. A company owned by the band members, but "guarantee Brian the liberty to make whatever kind of music he wanted." I think Anderle was too sided with Brian to run a corporation that had 5-6 owners. He (Anderle) didn't know how to run a business. He wanted to run a playground for Brian. There was no vision. The label went dormant within a year, year in a half. When reactivated with Warner/Reprise, it still never fully materialized to what a record company should aspire. It (BRI) wound up being a holding company for the most part. A company almost exclusively overseeing the intellectual property of The Beach Boys name.

On another note, I'll bet if Brian had just stuck to producing other artists and not writing for them, there probably would not have been as much acrimony as like what went down with Redwood. I can see the Boys' point of view where writing for other artists would impact on their own careers, But that was Anderle's job to work that situation out. He was running the company and should have been making those decisions. If he did not insist on having those powers within the corporate structure, then that was pure business weakness on his part for not insisting on it when he was hired.

Care to take a guess on naming the "sides" among band members when Michael Vosse remembered them huddling up and taking sides in the studio when there were arguments? That also explains a lot.

And this stuff about David Anderle, I don't get it. DrBeachBoy went on a tangent blasting David Anderle in the other thread that got a reply, but he posts over here instead? Ok. Roll with that, then.

If we want to push this, Anderle in the Williams interviews from 1967 said Mike supported the plans he had for Brother going in, and if you read between the lines it may have had to do with the way income could be generated for the band through the new operations. Eventually Nick Grillo picked up the plans started by Anderle, as much as was possible and leaning into investments beyond the music biz to generate income. But the Nolan interview added another layer to the Anderle involvement. Happens everyday in board rooms to those reality shows like Survivor and Big Brother. The notion of the "alliance". I'll cozy up to you and vote with you but I expect to get this in return for my coziness and support. That's business.