The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://smileysmile.net/index.php/setting-the-record-straight

When I first read it(about three minutes ago) I thought-- regarding his comparison of his own lyrics going to number one(Good Vibrations) and Heroes and Villains(Parks) going to, like, 50 or something-- that it was a bunch of crap.
I mean, I have always liked the lyrics to GV, but it's the music that gets me, otherworldly, ethereal, even futuristic as it is.
 But then, I t hought, maybe he's right. I'm looking at it from the point of view of a thirty-something forty years later, someone who has long since stopped caring about what tops the charts-- not from the point of view of a teenage girl/record buyer in 1967. Maybe Love's lyrics did help to push it to the number one spot and maybe Van Dykes' kept H & V from going higher?

What do you think? How much did the lyrics of GV influence it's number one slot? Do you think it would have gone to number one even with Asher's (IMO) inferior lyrics?
And was Mike as pro-Smile as he makes out?

I can't disagree with that...

I had the advantage of only listening to GV or H&V when I bought a copy of Made in USA. I didn't pay attention to the lyrics, and my English wasn't that good anyway.

"Good Vibrations" sounded like a hit. "Heroes and Villains" impressed me for the vocal acrobatics, but it didn't sound like a hit, with all the starts and stops and the chorus/hook wasn't as strong as it could be.

Plus, just the eight months or whatever difference was important in those days.

For the 'album of the year' race, maybe.

But that wasn't the reason why Heroes and Villains, Wild Honey and Darlin' weren't even top 10. The Beach Boys could have released any of those singles in Feb'67 and they wouldn't have charted any better.

I think you're right on the money.

Good Vibrations is all about the music and the harmonies - both of which are superior to the ones on Heroes And Villains, particularly in terms of mainstream hit potential.

GV is a superior song through and through, but I listen to H&V about five times as much as GV. There's only so much of the chorus "Good, Good, Good- Good Vibrations" that I can take in a day. However with H&V I can listen to the lyrics and find new meaning almost everytime I hear it. I can relate to H&V on a deeper level than GV.

GV wouldn't have been as big with Asher's lyrics, IMO. "Excitations" really contributes to the charm of the tune in a real simple way.

I think the In the Cantina version of H & V released in February 67, just ahead of Strawberry Fields/Penny Lane, would have caused a sensation and possibly gone to number one for it's outrageous brilliance (after all the remake toned down the bold arrangement of the original).   I wonder what else was on the charts at the time?

Taken together, the new BB and Beatle singles would have "changed all the rules" (I can just hear the critics saying it) and the positive reinforcement would have shut you-know-who up, at least for the time being, and inspired Brian to finish the album before Sgt. Pepper. 

I still believe Brian would have eventually cracked up, but at least Smile would have been an official part of his original oeuvre, where it should have been (regardless of how well it sold).

I think that, to the average joe, the Cantina version sounds just like the released version, but without the chorus and with a weird interlude where there's people talking and laughing. I doubt it would gave done better in the charts than the official single.

By the "In the cantina" version, are you referring to the one that's on the GV box set? It is cool, but I miss the last verse of lyrics or so...(the sonny down snuff part). But I agree, in the era of Strawberry Fields it might have gone higher because of the weird factor.

Zack, You touch on something that I was thinking about but which I'm not sure I'm articulate enough to, er, articulate. Bear with me while I attempt to say what it is I'm thinking.

On Beach Boys discussions there's often this "If only this had happened then this would have happened" theme. You see it again and again.
What if Smile had been released? What if 15 Big Ones hadn't sucked donkey dicks?

I was thinking: what if the Beach Boys history had stayed exactly the same as it is now. In other words, aborted Smile and so on...

But with one chief difference: people like Mike Love didn't pooh pooh the other stuff as much.

 He's too hung up on commerciality.  He says great things about the commercial hits. Whenver I've read an interview about something that wasn't a top ten hit, he always says something like: "WEll of course I like it MUSICALLY. It's great. And I love those kind of lyrics for their ART--but you understand, looking at it from a purely COMMERCIAL point of view, people just don't relate to those kind of lyrics. That's why Good Vibrations was a hit and Heroes and Villains wasn't" Or "Well, it's a great song, great production and harmonies, but it's a waltz and that just doesn't play on the charts."

Who cares?
 Does he think that people relate to Strawberry Fields Forever, which was a top ten hit--as if it matters.

 It's almost as if everything in Beach Boys world --you see it liner notes, in interviews with all of them, even Brian--boils down to "top forty or not?" As if that was all that mattered. Somehow it seems like an integral part of their story--and it WAS. But it doesn't have to be NOW. But it still is.

Now I think Brian Wilson was a great talent, maybe a genius. He's my favorite songwriter anyway(lately). But why is it so important whether or not he wrote a song that(shudder) didn't hit the top five?

You never see bios about Jimi Hendrix where, I don't know his bassist or someone says,
Yeah, I GUESS that song was okay--MUSICALLY. But it only hit number 25. I guess people just didn't relate to Purple Haze's lyrics. I wanted him to change the title to Summer Daze, you know(sings) 'Summer Daze, in my mind, Beach and girls, you so fine' but he wouldn't listen.
Well, I guess the poor chart showing of Purple Haze has proven me right."

This is the one thing about the Beach Boys that I don't relate to.

OK, I can see how in the sixties, the Beach Boys were in competition not with Jimi Hendrix so much as the Beatles. They were in competition for the singles chart, something that seems absurd forty years later, though, who knows, P.Diddy and J-Lo or whoever's ruling the charts today probably have the same competition going. They were all a bunch of kids so I cut them some slack.

But forty years later? DWhy doesn't he just say, Damn, we did all this brilliant music for ages.

In my opinion Mike Love's attitude(as well as the oldies act he fronts) does a lot to sell greatest hits packages, sometimes(every decade or so) even selling a few million, which is nice. The Boys all make some money and maybe a bare few like me get curious enough to become major fans.

But if he--or they-- would just get behind all of it, not worry about the whether the single only hit 42 in 69 or whatever, just say it's all great and push that--hey, we're the greatest American band ever, we have TEN or FIFTEEN solid years of great music(**cough cough 'cept for Big Ones coughcough**), they might not sell a few million of one album, but they would probably sell a steady amount of ALL their albums, which would amount to the same amount of product shifted, maybe even more.

Do you see what I'm driving at? I really th nk this half-assed attitude of "Oh, I Get Around and Kokomo were great because they were commercial and artistic,while Surf's Up was artistic genius but not commercial--it wasn't a hit with the people" is doing them no favors--not as a great band deserving of respect, or even commercially.


This brings me all back to Heroes and Villains. I don't think it would have been as big a hit EVER as GV was. But that doesn't make it WORSE.(though I prefer GV)

 But it could have and would have done better if it had been pitched the same way as Strawberry Fields was. And in the End, Strawberry Fields was probably only as big a hit as it was because it was the flip side of Penny Lane. Another thing that the Beatles were better at(marketing-wise)--making singles that a fan simply had to have for the B-side/other song.

Oh, the Hoskyns interview. I wrote a bit on that in the pac thread earlier this morning, 'cause I only just caught up with Barney's story the other day. And I was surprised to see how much slack he cut Mike, if only because Barney is a really smart guy and a brilliant writer and I absolutely loved his "Hotel California" book from '06. All that said, I think he was being willfully naive in letting Mike pretzel the facts like he does. He lets Mike do his usual subtle-to-not-so-subtle ridiculing of Brian (the bit about why Brian "can't sing like that anymore," which isn't quite true, and ignores Mike's own vocal shortcomings) and doesn't even mention Mike's post-"BWPS" lawsuit, which struck me as a nakedly hostile gesture, designed less to right an even remotely-visible wrong caused by the 04 Smile, than to pee on Brian's moment of glory.

I don't want to demonize Mike, or assert that Brian is incapable of doing ill-considered and even downright selfish and stupid things. He can be just as hostile, in his way. I thought Mike made some smart, sensitive points about Dennis's life and work, and how difficult it was to separate his art from his (rapidly-exploding) life during the mid-to-late '70s. It's also important to note that the extended Wilson/Love family is something other than a model of healthy intra-family dynamics. Oh. My. God. But any coherent story on Mike has to at least note the existence of these things. To do otherwise isn't setting the record straight, as much as it is another attempt to distort the record altogether.

**"Good Vibrations" sounded like a hit. "Heroes and Villains" impressed me for the vocal acrobatics, but it didn't sound like a hit, with all the starts and stops and the chorus/hook wasn't as strong as it could be.**

I feel the exact same way. "GV" is a great hook, and we go on Brian's guide vocal with the Asher lyrics as saying it became the hit that it did because of Mike Love's lyrics. I certainly give them their due... I love the lyrics to "GV." But at the same time, it's just a flat-out groovy riff, and with the proper production, it was ripe for the top of the charts. "H&V," on the other hand, just lacks the hook. It's an incredible production, and the lyrics and vocals are beautiful. But it has NEVER made me feel as alive as "GV." Just driving down the coast and hearing "GV" blaring from the radio... it's still an incredible feeling... and that's probably what makes it such a timeless song.

But is it VDP's fault that "H&V" wasn't as big as "GV"? I don't think so. It's just inferior, in terms of a pop hook. The song is still successful and groovy. But the one VDP/BW song that is as spiritual as "GV" is melodic is "Surf's Up." That may not have been a chart hit in 1967, but it was a crowning achievment all the same. Something to be as equally proud of as a big hit song.

Anywhere online where I can read this interview?

Barney's "Waiting for the Sun" and "Hotel California" were good books, and I hear he's working on a Tom Waits biography. But does he live in Los Angeles? I've always wondered the extant of his journalism, in terms of actually getting to know the place. "Waiting for the Sun" had so many glaring oversights, and was geographically off in a lot of things. It's greatest achievement was that someone, anyone, tried to tackle the mammoth task of putting a story arc to L.A.'s rock 'n' roll history.

I just look at it in the very simple manner that....... Mike has a right to his opinions, views, ideas, ect ect ect.... He was there, contributed greatly, has good points/bad points, just like anyone else in music. He knows Brian in a way that few others do. The guy has all the same rights as anyone else to be treated fairly.

Funny thing! I have a Beatles fanatic friend who I turned onto the Beach Boys. He knew absolutely NOTHING about their story and I purposfully kept him in the dark.  All he knew were the hits. So, I gave him all my Beach Boys stuff and he got really really into it. He loves EVERYTHING!!!! He didn't even know any of the Beach Boys names, other than Brian before I told him. He loves all the Beach Boys voices, loves Mike and all his contributions. Loves his lyrics, as well as all the other lyrics.... I'm glad I pulled this little experiment because it really lends credence to the opinion that people like David Leaf, Dominic Piore, and other writers really did damage Mike's reputation and music lover's ability to approach The Beach Boys from straight ahead, and not at some skewered angle.

You know, that's by far the most thoughtful, pointed post I think that's ever been made here. No-one ever thought of that one.

My friend does hate Kokomo, though!

But that's it!!!!!

I could sit down and listen to the Charles Manson album not knowing the Manson story and come away thinking the Manson was a really nice guy.

Excellent point...

I could sit down and listen to the Charles Manson album not knowing the Manson story and come away thinking the Manson was a really nice guy.
[/quote]



Ok, that's a very cheap shot, but since you brought it up:

No, I don't think you'd come away with that opinion. Charlie's voice and lyrics are enough to put anyone on edge even though there's nothing exactly threatening in his lyrics. But then again, it's impossible to know because we only know of Manson as a guy in prison for ordering the murders of innocent people. I certainly can't make the claim that I'm able to listen to "Never Learn Not To Love" without thinking immediatly of Manson. It's a pretty song, great production. Of course my thoughts regarding the song would be very different were I to have no idea that Charlie wrote it. See this is my point exactly!!! Manson's album has several good songs. Good lyrics. Good melodies. And he has an interesting voice. Should one be able to listen to his album and like it in spite of knowing all they know about Manson?....... Certainly!..... Why not?

Should one be able to love the Beach Boys and not pay any real attention to who's evil, who's innocent, who did what, when and where?...... Of course! If someone wants to let David Leaf and others color their opinions based upon 40+ year old recollections and argued upon occurances/opinions....... they are more than free to do so.

Ok, that's a very cheap shot, but since you brought it up:

No, I don't think you'd come away with that opinion. Charlie's voice and lyrics are enough to put anyone on edge even though there's nothing exactly threatening in his lyrics. But then again, it's impossible to know because we only know of Manson as a guy in prison for ordering the murders of innocent people. I certainly can't make the claim that I'm able to listen to "Never Learn Not To Love" without thinking immediatly of Manson. It's a pretty song, great production. Of course my thoughts regarding the song would be very different were I to have no idea that Charlie wrote it. See this is my point exactly!!! Manson's album has several good songs. Good lyrics. Good melodies. And he has an interesting voice. Should one be able to listen to his album and like it in spite of knowing all they know about Manson?....... Certainly!..... Why not?

Should one be able to love the Beach Boys and not pay any real attention to who's evil, who's innocent, who did what, when and where?...... Of course! If someone wants to let David Leaf and others color their opinions based upon 40+ year old recollections and argued upon occurances/opinions....... they are more than free to do so.


[/quote][/quote]

I said "I could" - not "I have", "I would" or even that "I would want to" and it doesn't matter if its Manson, Maddona or the Monkees, the point was that my post was as simplistic in its assumptions as were the previous ones. Whether we like it or not, the Beach Boys, the Beatles, The Bangles or whoever come with baggage that we all have to deal with - ignoring it will not make it go away.  Part of the charm of all these bands is that they come with the baggage which enhances the story. That baggage colours opinions and without opinions we would all be a bloody bland lot - kind of blueboardish - eeerrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhh!!!!! (okay - so that might have actually been a cheap shot)...

It's also possible that the Beach Boys saga, which any music fan has a basic notion of, attracts the kind of people who'll pay more than a bit of attention to who's evil, who's innocent, who did what, when and where.

The chicken and the egg.

There's music and then there's personalities. And while I'd encourage your friend to find and enjoy Mike's better contributions to the Beach Boys, I'd caution him, or anyone, from forgetting the offstage machinations that helped diminish so much of what would come later. The Beach Boys' failure to go on creating the lovely music they made between 1962 and 1973 (with a few rare exceptions) can be traced to a vast catalogue of failures and problems. But Mike's role can't be overlooked, and the choices he made following "BWPS" are a primary example. Yes, there are far too many problems to go around. It's like an Agatha Christie mystery, everyone has a motive and a weapon. And Mike is in the middle of the whole mess.

I think they're talking 'bout this:

http://smileysmile.net/index.php/setting-the-record-straight (http://smileysmile.net/index.php/setting-the-record-straight)


Should we mention that H&V was no.12 and not, as Mike notes, something around #50.... ?

Thanks Rocker I read that I was looking for the whole article because Peter mentioned it's longer

Peter I understand and in some ways agree with you about the role Mike played in the decline. However from 61-73 he deserves an artistic defense, and the lack of credit for that work is part of what made him so difficult later. I think your book actually is pretty fair to him especially compared to Leaf or Priore.

True to a point..... In 1974 The Beach Boys were in a no win situation. They had two choices, keep on pushing their creative muses ala Holland and wrack up debt and watch their albums/singles stall, or they could embrace the oldies and make tons of money at least and try to be artistic when they could... Brian had his serious problems. And even then, anything he did was criticized for not being Pet Sounds part 2-3-4 and on and on.... I mean, the decline in sales/popularity around 68/69 must have been a nightmare they certainly didn't want to have to live through again. It must have been tough. They deserve a ton of credit for sticking it out.

The oldies are great/amazing/earth shattering stuff, btw. performing those songs in front of frenzied crowds couldn't have been too bad a feeling.

**Pet Sounds part 2-3-4 and on and on.... I mean, the decline in sales/popularity around 68/69 must have been a nightmare they certainly didn't want to have to live through again. It must have been tough. They deserve a ton of credit for sticking it out.**

But the point of expectation is, often, that "Smile" was every bit Pet Sounds Part 2 and then some. So it's more of a lamentation that an out and out criticism. Besides, Brian had less and less to do with BBs albums from "Surf's Up" to the "Endless Summer" package hitting.

I'm glad they stuck it out too, and also collaborated in the social consciousness movement. It's an honest period.

Well thought out, well expressed, and I agree down the line, and also with the parts I didn't quote, but- just for the other side of it: I heard Brian asked once what he remembered about "Guess I'm Dumb" and he said "I remember that it flopped." It was funny coming from him, but imagine if Mike had said it. It's not unusual at all for songwriters to respond to their work based on how they think it was received. "H & V", regardless of its merits, was intended to be a very big hit, and it was a moderate-to-big hit. That may pretty well define its importance- not to us- but to the Beach Boys.

I've heard somewhere along the line Burt Bacharach is not very interested in talking about songs of his that weren't big hits.

I've heard Mike make much worse comments than those under discussion here, but again- to his credit- I think his views have evolved at least a little in the last twenty years.  He sees the commercial and artistic stuff as each having its place, and it's natural that the artistic stuff just hasn't meant as much to him, and he wasn't as personally central to that aspect of things, either.

And for the record, I think "GV" and "H & V" had two of the very best sets of lyrics in the Wilson canon- the "Heroes" lyrics are a mind-blower- but I think if the lyrics of "Good Vibrations" had a lot to do with carrying it to the top, they were not the verse lyrics that came from Tony and then Mike, but the chorus lyrics that came mainly from Brian. In other words, it was the title and the idea and "Good, good, gooood, good vibrations....", not so much the colorful clothes or the perfume in the air- though those are great impressionistic images.

One thing I would like to see in "setting the record straight" is the actual RECORD. By that I mean the minutes to the Beach Boys' meetings in the 1974-1980 period, along with each members' votes. Oh, I know they probably don't exist anymore, if they ever did, but I think many Beach Boys' fans who are anti-Mike Love, or who BLAME him for "going back to the oldies" would be surprised. I'm sure there would be rationalizing that "the guys didn't care", "were too stoned to think clearly", "didn't even bother to attend", or "let Mike have his way" to avoid conflict and/or to "keep group harmony". I think ALL of the guys were in it - at that time - to make as much money as they could. And I think their votes would reflect that. Maybe Dennis, Carl, and possibly Brian's hearts weren't into the oldies as much as Mike and Al, but to NOT CARE enough to push for another direction - the artistic direction - is not a good excuse. To me anyway. Now, if somebody would show me (factually) how the votes went, and it shows that Dennis, Carl, and Brian fought for their art (within the Beach Boys context; Dennis did put his money where his mouth is with POB), then I would be the first one to lay the blame/responsibility where it rightfully lays. But, so far, all I ever read/heard were war stories and conjecture.

Very interesting topic . . .

I'm a good many years into my Jan Berry research. Aside from a few articles, and leaking a few things here and there, my stuff isn't out yet . . . and I've already been accused of trying to demonize Dean Torrence. Dean jumped on my case early on, and then (as an example) some fan who goes to Dean's shows tried to pull the 'ol "I'm a lawyer" chestnut on me, trying to stick up for Dean . . . Sad and laughable at the same time.

But I'm very lucky to have tons of hard-core documentation . . . to augment the memories of those "who were there." And I have to admit, it's a terrible relief. One thing the Beach Boys saga has confirmed for me is that my Jan Berry biography will be footnoted to the "n'th" degree . . . in academic style. All sources front and center.

Folks, after 40-some years, having "been there" is not a lock on what happened. Such insight is crucial, but it has to be vetted against other memories and documentation.

For me, it's not about tearing people down, but using documentation and interviews to get closer to the heart of matters . . . juxtaposed against "memories only" and personal spin from years later. Especially since Jan (the company-signed arranger and producer) had no official voice after 1966. Dean could tell the story at will, without fear of being challenged, because Jan was brain damaged. (Then there's the matter of Dean's 1970s cover versions of Jan & Dean classics getting mistaken for the original recordings).

But I would also say that any negatives against Dean can be matched with plenty of positives as well (and I'lll cover both angles). There's more than one side to any story.

Same goes for Jan Berry. In fact, my biography will expose Jan to far more scrutiny than it will Dean.

M.

Why does Mike try to make out as if he has never done drugs? In a 1976 interview, Mike was admitting that "we were stoned out of their gord!"

Now he makes it out that starting with Smile, Brian, Dennis and Carl started using drugs, while he Al and Bruce stayed clean.

My understanding is that they all (except maybe Bruce) experimented with drugs in the late 60s. Brian was the first to become an addict in the early 70s. Dennis was an alcohaulic on and off in the 70s before getting hooked on cocaine around 1977. Carl was addicted to something in 77,78 then quickly cleaned up his act.

If there was any truth to Mike claiming that he has been hated by writers because he was a sqare that did drugs, then it would seem to reason that he would have been liked by that crowd from 66-68.

Our reality is flawed, and every philosopher that ever tried to write about our ability to see the problems in life and change them has come to that conclusion. So, you know, what are you gonna do? Memories become coloured through the years, but still, I find it hard to write off what ones man's eyes have seen, ears have heard and where his feet have traveled.

Cross-referencing documentation and all of that stuff is important. But as a journalist, a lot of times you have to go with your gut. As far as the '80s, '90s and '00s, Mike Love has admitted to being much more hands-on when it comes to the track selections of the hits packages. He has called the album filler (i.e. non-hit singles) and b-sides to be of interest only to the devout fan. He has criticized many of Brian's solo efforts as being arty (which I think they are not quite enough, for the most part). He has led a band called the Beach Boys long past its original incarnation, so as to be unrecognizable, except for the 40+ hit singles that his original group spawned. His continued decisions reflect a devotion to that singular mindset. And there is enough evidence, via his chosen lawsuits alone, to indicate that he is staunch in his stance about what is their "important" material, and what his role has been in it.

Unfortunately, Mike Love, like many Baby Boomers, missed punk-rock entirely. Michael McDonald/yacht rock is where a lot of those people were, and the Mike-led Beach Boys were campaigning for Reagan administration elections as punk moved into new wave, hardcore and college rock. The facts are the facts, and believe me, all the fun Mike Love lyrics from the early years... all of the select cuts from the psych years that he wrote... and all of his cool hippy songs from the early to mid-'70s (which I love)... none of that can do away with what he started throwing out to the public once the punk era came in. For a guy his age... and many, many other popular '60s rock acts... it would have been too much of a stretch, artistically, to try and do something as spiteful and aggressive as punk. Dick Dale managed to do just that during the early '80s second wave of surf music, which was an extension of punk. But he was just a little act... never even broke out of California in the '60s. The Beach Boys were in a bit of an artistic corner, once the times changed a second time. They weathered that storm the first time, because Brian Wilson was so with it, and Dennis, Carl and Jack Rieley all got on board later with great songwriting. So they fit in after things went from garage-band to psychedelia.

Anyway, I think it's a tribute to Brian that he could regain some of that density during the alternative era, and do work as good as the Wilson/Paley sessions. But it didn't come out, and that aesthetic sense and freedom did not last.

Thank god. Can you imagine his stage outfit?  :-D

Punk is bullshit. Sure, some great albums, some good, some bad. But whoever 'believed in punk' as late in the game as in the late seventies...

a) was an idiot
b) was just another marchant selling 'rebellion', just like Mike and Brian sold 'California' in 1965 or 1976.

Oh, brother.

You sound like one of those guys who would rather the scene be small and uninfluential forever. I happen to think that egos can be put aside at times, and circles can be powerful, sharing, influential and wildly popular.

"Punk," whatever the terms means to you... in my book... has evolved. It did quite a lot in the late '70s and all throughout the '80s. The outfits don't matter as much as the intent and scope. A guy like William S. Burroughs never had a hard time relating to  things as they changed, because his mind was always open, and there are other people who could see depth no matter what the times or age-bracket was dictating.

Part of what came out of punk was the "we don't care about hits- we just want to make music" mentality. One of my favorite bands, R.E.M., was founded on that, and they didn't have big hits until years after their first record came out.
Even now, they do want their stuff to sell, but more because they want people to hear it, and not so much to make money. They never bought into the rock star/Rolls Royce/mansion thing and continue to defend the merits of records that flopped.

The Beach Boys, on the other hand, were pre-punk, and for them the music was very much about hits. And that includes Brian, except Brian also cared about artistic integrity, probably because during his peak he was too manic and perfectionistic not to care. Same with the Beatles. They wanted to make great, creative music, but they also cared about hits. I don't think we can criticize that generation for caring about hits, since that's the world they are from.

However... just because something wasn't a hit doesn't mean it wasn't good. Brian saying "I remember that Guess I'm Dumb flopped" seems like a reflection of his disappointment at the lack of response to his hard work as much as it is a reflection of his wanting hits. After all, Brian continued to make artistic music after that and clearly wasn't only out to appeal to the bottom line. Mike, on the other hand, focuses on a commercial hook more than on whether something is artistically good (witness his continued bragging about Kokomo). Does Mike think Kokoma is a _better_ song than Heroes and Villains, since it went to number one? That's an interesting question. Then again, Brian has also said he liked Kokomo, presumably because it was a hit.

Nothing is black and white.

By the way, someone should ask each of the Beach Boys the following question:

What do you think is better: A hit song that's not very original or a song that flops but is artistically original?

I wonder what each of them would say.

^ I think they'd ask whether it was a song they were releasing or not! It's easy to love an artistic flop that isn't on your own dime. And if it were theirs, I think they'd fall in line with the commercial success. Nothing wrong with that, either, as long as a person is honest about it.

It's always easy for non-artists to criticize artists for commercial interests. And it's also amusing, as if we go to work for the artistic merit of sitting in a cubicle...

Whatever punk-rock's merits were, the part about it that I enjoy the most is the notion that rock-star status is relegated to a place it had been during the garage-band years. There are egos there, and all due credit to those altruistic individuals who made music without want for financial return, but that doesn't impress me nearly as much as the honesty, desperation, collaboration and overall feeling that the scene is bigger than the individual.

It's not just a punk sound, either. I feel that artists like Tom Waits, Lou Reed, Frank Zappa and Dennis Wilson had a lot of the traits I love most in artists, even if they weren't out and out "punk," genre-wise.

Conversely, after the Wilson/Paley sessions failed to materialize an album, Brian still had his project with Van Dyke Parks from 1995, and there was so much buzz about "Smile" and "Pet Sounds," and the indie/alternative tribute albums. During the mid '90s, Brian Wilson was on everyone's tongue in the indie world. When they finally did the "Smile" tour and album, it was something that could have connected and been translated to a 35-minute set for, say, Coachella. However, something always seemed slightly off in the presentation... feeling a bit processed and staged. Like the great elephant in the room, that Brian is being coached to act a certain way... it always feel a little sad and dishonest. I know Brian does his best. I don't want to sound like I'm putting him down. Maybe just the influencers around him, sometimes. He's a big name. Anyway, there was never that raw artistry in the 2004 presentation, like there was when Brian was filmed for "Inside Pop." I'm still glad it was put out in some form... and Brian went for it. But maybe it's that vulnerability to needing commercial validation that still kind of pervades Brian's circle. The expectation for him is high.

The point about that generation was well thought-out. Appreciate you taking the time to put it down for us to read.

I do think the Woondermints and Brian's group go a long way towards making the experience of watching Brian more enjoyable. His stage fright and uneasiness being in the spotlight are really noticeable, and we all pull for him. The effort is phenominal.

But that desire for him to do something valid artistically seems to be more and more elusive as the years go by, which is why the Paley/Wilson sessions are so good, in my mind. I'm sure some of it was forced, but for the most part, it does NOT feel like it. Those songs have an honesty to them. And the melodies and productions are stellar.

I think you're as far off on Zappa as you can be. I think that he felt he was bigger than any scene, or that he was the scene. For that matter, any honesty in his music was probably by mistake, as he was ever the cynic and smartass. Desperation? In "Trouble Every Day," maybe, and while trying to balance the books after putting on symphony shows or touring a large band. Collaboration? He never admits to any, although there was obviously some.

I wonder if you're just listing people you like and compartmentalizing them in some aesthetic you imagine to be there.

True that Zappa was a bit of an island, and you might be right about me seeing what I want to in him. I was only thinking of the continued utilization of great talent by Zappa, as well as his incredible stance during the whole PMRC hearings. Plus his spirit of individualism, far outside the confines of comerciality. But, in some respects, he built his own niche market on that, wheras the Beach Boys did not.

Just sort of thinking out loud here, as it goes. So forgive the improv, if it goes slightly off. Great topic, and conversation from all, though.

I wonder if you take it too far to hint that individualism is punk. It was a part of punk, sure. But it was before, around and after punk, too. It seems analogous to saying guitars are rock 'n' roll, and then saying some modern jazz guitarist is rock 'n' roll because of it.

From a musical perspective--which, when we're at heart discussing music--Zappa was pretty far removed from anything punk. Any time he used the punk idiom, it was for comedy (generally at the expense of punk).

But if we're talking about strong personalities, individualists and brilliant artists, yes, Zappa is those. Er, was those.

Well, of course I'm using it that way. I'm not even saying Zappa was punk. Not remotely. I put Dennis Wilson in the same list. I was saying that during the punk era, some remained valid artistically, some did not.

There's a tape I have of a radio interview with Rodney Bingeheimer, where Dean Torrence is asked about Blondie and the Ramones, and not only does he not know much about them, but he goes on to cut them down.

But my point is to categorize an attitude by a musical term, when that attitude existed before and outside of that musical genre, probably isn't the best way to go. I get what you mean, it just feels like playing loose with the language ... which is very punk of you.

(I'd put a smiley there but I'm off emoticons. f*** 'em. So you have to understand my intentions are good.)

**For that matter, any honesty in his music was probably by mistake, as he was ever the cynic and smartass.**

Cynicism can often be one of the most powerful ways of being honest. And from the part of the '70s that I come, my family always enjoyed a good smartass. None more than Randy Newman. I don't see those characteristics as being dishonest.

**But my point is to categorize an attitude by a musical term, when that attitude existed before and outside of that musical genre, probably isn't the best way to go. I get what you mean, it just feels like playing loose with the language ... which is very punk of you. **

Thanks, but I'm not trying to be "punk" in any sense of the word. I'm on the outside looking in, as I was just a kid when punk and new wave were happening. But, of course that attitude existed before punk, which is why I harkened it back to people like William S. Burroughs seeing the same thread from his own times to the times of the punk era. I also mentioned garage-bands of the early '60s not being as "rock-star" based. I'm using "punk era" as a losse term. Like it or not, it had a drastic effect on the record industry. And during that time, there was some "non-punk" artists from the previous generation that remained valid. Others did not, for whatever reason. For the Beach Boys, it was too far of a stretch, obviously.

I was never indicating my desire to see Mike Love have green hair or a spikey waist-belt. That was never my point, but I'm not always the best at making the point clear, and labels are polarizing most of the time, anyway.

I know, i get what you're saying -- i was joking. (see my parenthetical from that same msg)

No, I knew that.

I felt like your point about Zappa's cynicism was really valid too. It can consume a person. I went through a divorce last year, and I finally got to the point where I had to stop feeling bitter and jaded... stop seeing myself as a victim... too much cynicism isn't healthy.

Zappa released "We're Only in It for the Money", almost a whole album parodying and pissing on the flower power scene. I don't know if ten years later he'd be proud to being labeled as 'punk'. He'd probably laugh his ass off.

I don't get this 'Sinatra was punk', 'Brian Wilson was punk', Duke Ellington was punk' rotine. What does it mean, that they had integrity? Individualism? Talent? I'm sure some people think that before 1976 you wouldn't join a band unless you knew 5498 chords, had a major recording contract on the line and a Rod Stewart hairdo. Then..... Punk saved rock'n'roll. Duh. Like the Beatles saved USA from Frankie Avalon and Fabian in 1964.

And what's the problem with Dean Torrence not digging Blondie or the Ramones? Did he also have to wear an uniform, as everyone alse? I thought punk was about individualism.

One of my favorite all-time quotes actually plays in very nicely here. It's a Zappa quote from a live 1968 show--I think the Royal Albert Hall. Someone yells something about "take off that uniform," presumably because Zappa was wearing an army jacket, as he did sometimes. The crowd roars, and Zappa calmly says something to the effect of "Don't kid yourself, everyone in here is wearing a uniform." Seems apt to the conversation for a few reasons.

**Zappa released "We're Only in It for the Money", almost a whole album parodying and pissing on the flower power scene.**

It was ripe for parody. I think that album is insightful.

**I don't know if ten years later he'd be proud to being labeled as 'punk'. He'd probably laugh his ass off.**

Well, since no one labeled him a punk, not really sure what you are saying here.

**I don't get this 'Sinatra was punk', 'Brian Wilson was punk', Duke Ellington was punk' rotine. What does it mean, that they had integrity? Individualism? Talent?**

Wow, what an incredible stretch. Who said that about Sinatra? Brian Wilson? Or Duke Ellington? I only remember using the term "punk era" to denote a group of years defined by an explosion of homemade, garage and independent releases that were loosely lumped into a category called "punk." Okay, so that label doesn't work for you? I mean, if you don't like calling little chameleons actual lizards... I don't know what to tell you. Sometimes labels can help a little to express the point of the conversation. I'm not using "punk" as a jumping off point to brag or sound musically superior here. It was a time, and yes, for many people, it was maybe a more pure evocation of the times, musically, than, say, Boston, or an Eagles album that took five years to release, with a $2 million advance or something. There was a cultural divide. You might find Boston or Foreigner or Michael McDonald to be more valid than the Sex Pistols, and that's fine. I happen to be of the mindset that there is an off-the-beaten-path outlook... a think-outside-the-box aesthetic... that is more honest, immediate, and yes, valid. But I'm just one opinion, and subjective at that. The original point was that I don't think Mike Love was anywhere near that mindset in the year 1976-82, a.k.a. the "punk"/"new wave" years. Brian and Dennis were, perhaps, a bit closer in their raw honesty, especially with "POB" and "Love You." And just so it isn't confusing, I'm not calling those albums punk.

**I'm sure some people think that before 1976 you wouldn't join a band unless you knew 5498 chords, had a major recording contract on the line and a Rod Stewart hairdo.**

Certainly not me. I'm praising garage-bands from the '60s throughout this thread. Three-chord bands. But I have no problem saying that after Woodstock, classic rock became the modus operandi until punk bands started hitting. Then there is a paradigm shift.

**Then..... Punk saved rock'n'roll. Duh. Like the Beatles saved USA from Frankie Avalon and Fabian in 1964.**

Some people feel that way. Not everyone had Dick Dale & his Del-Tones in their own backyard. For those in the garage-surf scene of Los Angeles during 1963, the arrival of the Beatles killed their scene and their mojo. It was never as good for them as 1963. All depends on who you ask, and where they lived at the time.

**And what's the problem with Dean Torrence not digging Blondie or the Ramones? Did he also have to wear an uniform, as everyone alse? I thought punk was about individualism.**

Except that most WEREN'T wearing the punk uniform in 1977. Rodney was one of the first guys to play punk records on the radio on the West Coast, if not the first. And he liberally mixed his sets with '60s garage, Phil Spector, Brian Wilson and punk. It's not that Dean Torrence had to fall in line. He's entitled to his opinion. The problem is when you sound dismissive of the new thing that is in clubs, when, of course, Jan & Dean were having a big comeback between 1977-80. The attitude he portrayed on that radio show was condescending. Period.

Okay, let me put it a way that might be less polarizing, because this is starting to sound like I'm being a punk-rock snob.

For the record, there's lots of classic rock records that I love. The '70s was a great era for music, and diversity of taste is to be respected.

I'm only saying that, after the Beach Boys had their hippy period and they released "Endless Summer" to huge success, yes, all of the Beach Boys likely had a hand in saying that they should tour the old hits, and no excuses for those who were doing drugs or drinking too much or whatever. However, the point was that Mike Love seems to have become the biggest outspoken supporter of the "hits" path, for the tours and the overall sound of the band's then-new material. And to that, I was only saying that there was a cultural divide between the Beach Boys and that other side of social/political spectrum. Like, say, the city officials and the kids on the streets marching in the mid-'60s. Cultural divide. And to that end, I just think that Mike was far more culturally divided from that other contingent than, say, Brian or Dennis.

Dennis and Brian weren't a part of "punk-rock." But I don't think the cultural divide between their most artistic work of the late '70s is as drastic as Mike's. And, yeah, it's just my opin, but I think he was out-of-touch.

brianc, do you think you could use the "Quote" button when quoting? I hope this doesn't sound like I'm being rude, because I don't mean to. But it makes things easier to read. The asterisks don't really set apart quotes easily.

What about artistic legacy? Does Mike think about that at all? ABBA had a lot of hits, but doesn't rate as high art. Then there are bands that never got near the top of the charts but are respected for pushing the boundaries.

The Beatles and Beach Boys did both (and GV is an example of a song that did both). Mike often talks about the hits, but he never talks about the artistic legacy... does he? Let's say Pet Sounds had only gone to number 60 or something. Would he dismiss it completely? Would Brian?

Who knows what people think about artistic legacy. I guess my feeling is that we have one life to live. We are defined by what we leave behind. Artistic legacy isn't a solution to any man's probelms. But, then again, neither is money, fame or validation. Invariably, what we are left with is our integrity. Or, whatever... I'm being philosophical and going way off point. But artistic integrity is something a lot of us want in life, and admire in others. Some people I know find it pointless, and respect those who worked hard and made money. Mike Love HAS worked hard.

There's a lyric that I heard recently that said a lot to me: "What do I want to leave behind? Friends who'll miss me, work well done... one true love and one good song."

An artist with no commercial success, in most cases, will leave nothing behind because he'll have been a tree falling in the woods with no one to hear him.

(Being devil's advocate, obviously, to an extent.)

History is written about the winners.

That's the most perplexing aspect of Mike Love, for me anyway. Mike is an intelligent, worldly, somewhat sophisticated man. And while I believe he knew/knows the value of "art" in music, I don't believe he has near the appreciation of it that he should. He STILL doesn't "get" SMiLE.

Just a quick thing on the punk issue.... I always thought Mike Love - along with Dennis Wilson and David Marks WERE punk in the early 60's. They had attitude. They were cocky, and I say that affectionately. "Surfin' Safari", "The Shift", "Summertime Blues", "Surfer's Rule", and "Little Deuce Coupe" had that hedonistic spin. Look at the songs that the Ramones and the other "young" groups covered on some of those tribute albums.

Anyway, you couldn't really expect a 40-something Mike Love to follow the punk rock trend of the mid/late 70's. He had children who were old enough to do that. He wanted to make Beach Boys music. That's all he knew. You can say a lot of things about Mike Love - some did and many more will - but you have to admit, the guy was true to what he believed in.

This is a simplification. First of all, what does "no commercial success" mean? Sure, if only 10 people hear your music, you'll evaporate. But if 50,000 people hear it (as opposed to 2 million), there's a chance those records will still be in the family for new generations to discover, particularly if the music is so good that it resonates decades later. To complicate things further, if you record your music, you always have a chance for an artistic legacy, even if the music flopped to begin with.

This is making my brain hurt. All I meant was to ask if Mike could look back and say, "Hey, that song flopped, but I still think it's great because of the production/harmonies/whatever, and people appreciate it now, decades later, so it's not a failure."

Anyway, you couldn't really expect a 40-something Mike Love to follow the punk rock trend of the mid/late 70's.


Right, exactly. No one could expect that. Only that the cultural divide was there. And truthfully, it was a philosophical shift for not only Mike, but a lot of people who were supportive of the counter-culture just a few years before that. I guess what I'm saying is that I admire people who stayed with it, despite the pull to become "less idealistic" as you get older, whatever that means.

I cannot figure this quote thing out. So sorry.

Re-posted that too.

Can you name a couple of them?

Not to get far off-topic, but brianc, try using that Quote button on the top right-hand corner of the user's post you want to quote.  There will be brackets around quoted text.

Exactly.

And the funny thing is, if they did that, theyd sell more records, I think. It is either a terrible narrow unimaginative  way of looking at their work or it is spiteful. Or perhaps they, Brian and particular, really need that sort of thing in order to validate themselves? In which case, its very sad.

Oh yeah, I had that quote in mind.

Exactly. Scenes are scenes, always ripe for parody.

I guess I just think that analyzing things through a punk filter does a disservice to the artist, the individual. Not everyone felt like sounding urgent in the late 70s, what's wrong with that? In the end, the Boston album or Never Mind the Bollocks are just dudes recording music in a studio to be sold in stores.

What does it have todo with Mike, Brian and Dennis? Nothing. If Brian wasn't writing songs as good as 'Till I Die' in 1977, it had more to do with the fact that he had already released something like 150 songs in 16 years than a cultural divide with some blokes in CBGB or London.

IMHO The Beach Boys belong nowhere near any argument about punk rock, this-n-that!

They are simply the greatest, most unique, "rock" band the world has ever produced. They are their own catagory, end of story. They pretty much gave birth to The Ramones: the second greatest band of all time. That's all the punk cred anyone could ever need.

I'm sure Mike isn't as one-dimensional as he sounds in interviews. He's 'the Beach Boy who worries about the pratical stuff', that's the role he appointed himself. We know why he felt and feels like that, his dad's business going bankrupt and the pressure he felt when he was suddenly homeless and with a baby on the way.

Maybe when he's interviewd, no one asks him if he wrote Big Sur on guitar or piano and why he changed the rhythmn to 3/4 when he rerecorded the song for Holland. But he certainly doesn't make an effort to move the interviews in that direction either.

Well, that kind of thing probably never even enters Mike's head after 40 years of being treated like a talentless leech. Just imagine the effect this kind of thing can have on an individual.

Everyone should listen to those Beach Boys Podcasts! Mike is very different on these. Almost warm. They ask about specific songs and Mike seems almost like a different person as he's talking about how great Feel Flows is, for example.

It's funny. Me and a friend were trying real hard to make a documentary about Mike a few years ago. The idea was to get as in depth with him as possible and ask him all the questions no one has ever asked him and to treat him like an important member of the band and not just an obstacle. We talked to Elliot Lott and apparently him and Mike both thought it was a wonderful idea, but we never heard back from them. Shame, because it would have been great. He would've been given a real opportunity to help his reputation. But I doubt he even cares at this point. The Dominic Piores of the world would have eaten this movie up, if not just to yell at the screen.

Funny, my opinion on this thread was largely formed because I had just listened to the Warmth of the Sun podcasts. I thought that he concentrated far too much on the commercial side of t hings, as if their relative flop had sent them down a notch in his opinion, especially the ones he didn't really write. I thought, for example he was a little hard on "Friends." Oddly, not so hard on "Don't Go Near the Water", although that too was an relative flop. I thought they all could have been far more supportive of some of that material. And it would serve them well in the long run.
 

But at least they were being asked good questions and weren't just being fed flames to fan regarding lawsuits and "Mike's an asshole" related stuff!

Eric,

I would have loved seeing that documentary. It sounds like a great idea.

Again, for the record, I didn't and don't wish that the Beach Boys had been "punk." I'm only saying that, creatively, after "Love You," it feels like they creatively rested on their laurels. They are allowed to do that. It was just a little more cool to see them evolving, whatever form they chose to. "MIU" through "Summer in Paradise" just seemed like more of a devolution. That's all I'm saying.

Brevity is the soul of man's wit. I seem to be severely lacking in that area.

The BB were just the BB BB BB BB..never anything else..get over it..very simple

Right.

Except that that over-simplification forgets to factor in the part about the music changing so much that members of the Beach Boys didn't even recognize their own band at times.

I don't see what's so threatening about this conversation. It's not like we're changing anything here. Like it or not, Brian Wilson is already accepted as a bonifide cult artist.

I agree

If any band is gonna get discussed to the infinie detail, it's gonna be The Beach Boys. It's not like The Beatles where everything is wrapped up neatly in a tight little bow. The Beach Boys story is a messy one, so much detail, and too much amazing music to ever be taken in without arousing insane curiosity for the details and the people who created it.

Just how many famous bands in history have had 5 writers/singers/producers/multi-insturmentalistsand at least one confirmed genius?

Where can i find the COMPLETE interview of mike.. there are a couple of excepts here only..Unless im not seeing something to click on on the prior link..thx..

If any band is gonna get discussed to the infinie detail, it's gonna be The Beach Boys. It's not like The Beatles where everything is wrapped up neatly in a tight little bow. The Beach Boys story is a messy one, so much detail, and too much amazing music to ever be taken in without arousing insane curiosity for the details and the people who created it.

Well said. Obviously, for me, the most interesting of the "people who created it" was Van Dyke Parks, that modern Dandy that probably threw the biggest wrentch into the situation, and also happened to inspire Brian's most reckless artistic abandon.