The Smiley Smile Message Board

Inspired by the "Mike Love's H&V rant on Lei'd in Hawaii recording" thread, which you can find here: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,7302.0.html and which discusses how said rant may well have been scripted by Brian as a joke about the tensions in the band.

We all know the popular storyline about the BB's and why Smile disintegrated -- that Brian was a genius, the band didn't understand him and Mike was an untalented bully who didn't want to "f*&k with the formula."

But is that really the case?

Let's start by acknowledging this: Brian was a really, really messed up, immature kid that a whole lot of people depended on.  But let's follow it by acknowledging this: that none of us will ever know how utterly impossible the situation that presented probably was to deal with. 

Don't get me wrong -- I love, love, LOVE the man's music.  No pop artist touches me like he did with his voice and his melodies -- it's not even close.  And there's no question that there was plenty of appalling behavior in this band to fill out a season's worth of Behind the Musics.

But as we now understand the larger scope of the band's story, isn't it it time to acknowledge how hard it must have been for these guys--some of whom probably would have been pumping gas without this meal ticket--to deal with Brian's emotional state?  Tony Asher's quotes strike me as the most telling -- and sound pretty in keeping with what others have said.  There's never been a hint of ego with Tony that I can see -- just somebody who was looking at a kid (23 y/o, yes?) and was fairly appalled by what he saw when the matter at hand was anything but music.

And can you blame Brian?  Yes and no.  I mean, the kid was trying to tap into his insecure emotional state to create while dealing with being the center of a multi-million dollar operation from his late teens onward.  I can't remotely imagine what that would have entailed...especially given what his father clearly put him through (and what he might have that we don't know -- I've always wondered if that "lifelong hangup" Leaf writes about him confessing to Audree was sexual abuse).

But even still, putting yourself in the guys' shoes, that must have been absolutely BRUTAL to deal with.  On one hand, yes, they were getting laid 24/7 in England touring Pet Sounds to come back to columnated ruins domino.  But on the other was this guy who you all depend on moving so far, so fast.  It's easy to look at how crazy the 60's got today and say, "How couldn't the BB's have known Smile would have eclipsed Sgt. Pepper?" -- but hey, Sgt. Pepper wasn't out yet.  It wasn't as if that was so obvious in 1966.  This was only a year removed from "I'm So Young," six months from "Wouldn't It Be Nice?" -- songs about the most traditional institution ever: marriage.  Most of the band members have said on the record that they thought the new music was brilliant -- but not a little scary in that it was so unfamiliar and so advanced.  And more importantly, it was going to be very weird to their fans, most of whom thought of the Beach Boys as a very safe, responsible band your parents could trust you with.

Now, regarding Mike...

Yes, Mike was a mere entertainer. 

Yes, he was less than 1% of 1% of Brian musically -- if that.

Yes, he's clearly a GOP-loving, meditating, preening jerk of a human being. 

Yes, yes, yes.

YES!

But...Mike also had an undeniable nose for the marketplace and asserted--correctly!--that the Beach Boys would not be accepted by their fans unless they brought them along with them.  For that matter, I'm always amazed that for all the hate he gets, Mike's actual quotes kind of defy his reputed persona -- for instance, that H&V was the last "dynamic track" Brian wrote (ie, he liked it).  This guy clearly wanted the BB's to be as famous, popular and at the cultural center of pop music as anyone.  But it just so happened that the guy who was going to take him there was almost fatally unstable.

Some people will want to blame the prevailing "Mike Is Evil" narrative on David Leaf -- and that may be fair.  But I think Leaf did the world a major service by singling Brian out, putting his plight in some context.  I'm sure it's overly slanted -- but as of 1977 when he wrote the first edition of his book, most people had no idea whatsoever what Brian had accomplished or gone through.  It may not be too beyond the pale to suggest that absent Leaf (or someone like him) Brian may never have "finished" SMiLE -- which, if nothing else, has quite a bit of historical value.

I've been obsessed with this band for 15 years -- and honestly, I feel like I can see everyone's side pretty clearly here: this was a TOUGH guy to deal with.

And so I ask you, SmileySmilers...

Was Mike Love...*right*?

...... 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing .......

Good post I will try to answer some of your questions.
I don't think Brian was molested. One it would of come out by now, and two there were a lot of good things about Murry. I plainly don't think he had it in him to do something like that. Mike Love has indicated that a few of the worst stories about him were borne of Brian's mental illness. As Mike has stated openly that he hated the guy I doubt he would defend him without reason.

It's not black and white with Brian and Mike. Both could be inconsiderate, and both could be kind. Things cooled off for a while after Smile. Brian's relationship with Mike and the others was quite good during projects like "Smiley Smile", "Wild Honey", "Friends", and "Sunflower". Smile did not destroy Brian, the Beach Boys, or their interaction together. Brian may have let the others have more say, but Smile or not it was going to happen sooner or later with the advent of stereo and the blossoming of the others talents. Brian's retreat and decline was slow and not always steady.

Landy, Leaf, and Melinda despised Mike. Take that for what you will but I think that the people "in charge" of Brian have caused a lot of tension. At the same time most of Mike's lawsuits are merda, not counting the songwriting credits which Brian himself has stated was valid. Frankly I think most of the court antics stem out of Mike being bitter, and I would blame Leaf for at least a part of that. He may have praised Brian, but always at the expense of others. If he understood the depth of Brian's talent, he did and does not get how important the Beach Boys interaction with Brian had been creatively nor socially.

I don't agree that
 Mike was a mere entertainer. 

he was less than 1% of 1% of Brian musically -- if that.

he's clearly a GOP-loving, meditating, preening jerk of a human being. 

First he was a good lyricist sometimes (as on Today) an excellent one. His voice defined the band as much as Brian's in the early days, and he was a superb bass vocalist when it came to the harmonies.

Second he often led the Beach Boys down the wrong path after 1975, but what he did until then shouldn't be overlooked. Nor should it be overlooked that he now does many shows with a challenging setlist including things like "Here Today" and "Their Hearts Were Full Of Spring". Was he in Brian's league of course not, but he was part of what made the Beach Boys great.

Not that it should matter but Mike's enviremental views have led him to not always support the GOP. As far as being a jerk of a human being, at times he is, but after learning all he did for David Marks over the years I for one think he has a very endearing side too.

Lastly was Mike Love right? Well other then resenting the fact that he wasn't chosen to write the lyrics I don't think he hated Pet Sounds at all. With Smile he may have (rightly) disliked many who were around Brian, but at very least he did his fair share of work. For all the objections he made about "Cabbinessence" he did his part, and did it well. I think that we have to realize that Brian's word was law. Even into the home studio era everything else would be dropped when Brian wanted to work. In 1967 Mike simply did not have enough power to stop Smile and I don't think he really tried. Smiley Smile proves that he was OK with releasing some music even more truly bizarre then the majority of Smile.

I really like Smile especially the 1966-67 tapes. The melodies, the production, and the vocals themselves are amazing. Some of the lyrics are too, but it doesn't tug at my heart like most Beach Boys music. It's music that I marvel at, music that is truly unique, but it lacks some of the personal aspects of Brian's best work. "Surf's Up" is a superb piece of music, but other then being affected by it's beauty I don't relate to it like I do say "Caroline No", or even "Girl Don't Tell Me". It's not a lesser song then those two examples, structurally it's mind blowing, but it doesn't have that certain quality of relatability. That is what I think Mike was trying to get across. Still I think Smile should have been finished, but IMHO the reason it wasn't is because Brian himself didn't want it out.

Two THREADS in one night. God love 'em. :)

Where to begin?

Indeed, Brian did then and does now have more than his share of problems that he deals with daily. He is most definitely the victim of a stunted mental and emotional growth, mainly due as we all know to the stress of life in Hawthorne before the Beach Boys even existed. That so-called "adult/child" syndrome. Throw in the fact that within a year of forming the Beach Boys, the band were literally road dogs, Brian was stepping up more and more with the writing and production and it became plainly obvious to Michael, Carl, Dennis, David, and eventually Al that Brian was the Man In Charge and they were going by his whims as and when they came to him. If he were to say "jump", their response would be "how high?" with no exceptions. That was that. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Brian was the one responsible for the sonic magic and they knew it. Of course, the band, as musicians and singers, while amateurish, were not exactly worth shaking a stick at either, since as the years went on they became more and more adept at interpreting Brian's increasingly more difficult compositions live and in the studio if they were on the sessions.

But when you're someone like Brian, with the incredible baggage of his (in a word) hellish childhood on his shoulders, the reason for his suffering as their manager, the pressure from the record company to write, arrange, record, and then perform live a new smash hit every six weeks and write, arrange, record, and then perform a new LP every three to five months, the burdens of the road, and his relationship with Marilyn burning like a kerosene fire, by December of 1964, the breakdown could not possibly have been avoided. It was GOING to happen. The man was, quite simply, overworked and overtroubled, both personally and professionally. While retiring from the road allowed him the benefit to just concentrate on the music, which we all know was and is his passion, there was the OTHER PROBLEM - at least, what he considered the REAL PROBLEM. They were, and still are today called The Beatles.

From a personal standpoint, I prefer the Beach Boys, but for someone like Brian Wilson, leader of the then-preeminent pop band from the United States of America in 1964, the Beatles were not just a challenge, they equaled sudden death. Brian felt then that he needed that crucial right cross in order to keep the Beach Boys commercial and viable as a brand and as a representation of their own respective musical and vocal talents. He owed them that much - sure, Brian could have just gone out as Brian Wilson, but it was a family situation. He had to look out for Dennis and Carl, as their flesh and blood, he looked to and respected Michael as a sounding board for ideas, and Al was his brother from another mother, so to speak. The Beatles were always evolving, trying new things, reaching new highs, with EVERY NEW RELEASE. Brian felt that it was an absolute necessity that he do the exact same thing for his own band. Brian was not going to go down easy, and if he did, he'd go down swinging.

1965 is the turning point. Brian has come off of All Summer Long and the Christmas LP, and on both albums he's done work with considerably larger groups of musicians, and to that point, these were his most complicated arrangements (at least the Christmas album cuts he did arrange) and productions. Today! is where he begins to find new ways to keep a fun tone to the music while at the same time developing a different personality for his band and his songwriting. Brian and Michael in 1965 were writing pop with great hooks and VERY clever, touching lyrics. This all fits, in the band's eyes. The Party! album comes and goes, the band and Brian know it's just a way to buy time for "the next album".

The band then is treated to Brian's new productions in early 1966.

Well, it sure doesn't sound like the old stuff, indeed!

Pet Sounds was, is, and always will be a work of art, and one of the two or three best albums in rock music. But coming off the tails of stuff like Help Me, Rhonda, California Girls, and the shocker of Barbara Ann on the charts within the last six months, I can personally relate to the feelings prevalent at the time among the rest of the band. It was just THAT radical of a jump. Sure, it's great music, but, Barbara Ann was our last hit. People might buy this new album and expect a new album of breezy pop songs, which is clearly not what they're being given. We don't think we could be accepted singing these deep lyrics - they'd laugh at us! We're the number one surfing band in the nation. Our fans won't understand it.

Now, of course, the $64,000 question.

Did Michael then and now actively dislike the material?

Pet Sounds...well, Michael objected to some portions of Hang On To Your Ego, hence the brief rewrite into I Know There's An Answer. And of course "it doesn't sound like the old stuff."

Then Smile comes along. We have so many versions of who liked what about Smile going around anymore, I've lost count; however, I will try to pick up a few -

Brian says Mike hated it.
Brian says the group hated it.
Brian says Al and Dennis liked it.
Carl says he loved it.
Dennis said it made Pet Sounds stink.
Michael objected to a single line from Cabinessence.
Al didn't like making animal noises.
Bruce loved the fragments.

And they were ALL SCARED SHITLESS.

Either way, Smile was abandoned. The group didn't force Brian into anything. Brian pulled the plug. He was thoroughly spent. It wasn't appropriate for the Beach Boys, as he felt, although he considered it a Beach Boys album. He just gave it up. Brian doesn't blame anyone else for Smile collapsing but him, except in Beautiful Dreamer, where he blames Michael. Take that as you will, but please consider the quote that follows before the Brian fellatio is thrown around.

"I had to destroy Smile because it was destroying me." - Brian Wilson, 1976.

20/20 hindsight is fantastic.

One thing I don't entirely blame Mike for is "son't f**k with the formula".

Although I love the fact that Brian was and to some extent still is an experimental composer looking to expand away from mere 'pop music'....the fact is that in 1966 Mike had no way of knowing that 40+ years later he'd still be on stage singing Beach Boys songs. At that point in time pop music careers were assumed to be short, and Mike had every reason to worry that if they changed musical direction and the hits dried up that the whole band could end up pumping gas and flipping burgers for the next generation of musical superstars.

If you'd told 25 year old Mike Love that he'd still be making a good living out of those early 60's songs he'd probably assume you'd smoked some bad weed.

However...it turned out that Brian was right in two ways. First off, Brian himself needed to do something more grand than simply write great surf/car/girl songs. Second, he was right that the band needed to evolve.

Good thread with some nicely expressed opinion.   It seems that time may have finally  provided room for objectivity and perspective regarding these two guys.

It took me many years as a Beach Boys fan and seeing Brian solo a couple of times  and Mike with his fine new band to realize what pop music giants each of them are.   One could list, a very long list, the accomplishments and mistakes made by each.  Were their contributions equal?  Maybe, maybe not.  Ingredients in any fine product are seldom in equal portions.

Was Mike right?  I just think he was Mike.    What we have seen is what we have gotten.  Do you like it?

I've had the experience of knowing a couple people who went from highly functioning and very bright to being people who hear voices in their heads telling them horrible and impossible things. It has been very difficult for them, their friends and their families. Most friends and much family can't hang on for the difficult ride.

Unless Brian is/has lied when he's said that he hears such voices in his head and unless "Goodbye Surfing, Hello God" is a pack of lies about Brian's mental state at the time that SMiLE disintegrated you really need to take the severity of his mental illness at the time into consideration any time you want to analyze what happened.  Normal life can become totally impossible except during limited remissions, when you can function more or less normally.

This kind of organic disease isn't brought on by horrible parents, horrible cousins, or horrible record companies, though all of those will certainly make it more difficult for the individual to cope with their illness and their life.  When the "mind gangsters" are out to get you, "don't foda with the formula" could be the least of your problems.

 

I feel that, in many people's minds, Mike's biggest fault is that he's not Brian. I think that once we can get past that, then we'll be getting somewhere.

I have to say though, the animosity towards Mike has lightened up a bit.
When I first got into reading articles on the Beach Boys, and going to message boards and all that good stuff (which was about 10 years ago), virtually nobody ever said good things about Mike. To somebody who's just starting to get into the BB's, when everything you read and hear about somebody is negative, that's the way you're going to feel. Then, when I got into SMiLE, and read LLVS, that pretty much sealed the deal for me.

However, over time you start to see things differently. There are things about Mike I don't care for, and at the same I don't believe that Brian is  the harmless victim that I once thought he was. Mike by himself didn't cause SMiLE to fail. He contributed, just like the other guys did (and Brian himself). It's ridiculous to go with this Priore school of thought that Mike Love destroyed Brian Wilson. I just don't buy it.

I like this thread because I have been a fan since 1972 and the wisdom over much of that time is Brian - good the band - bad. Carl and Brian have had their outs and Carl was envious of Brian's talent. I think he liked it when he controlled the band. But Brian's comeback left him in an awkward spot. Give control back to Brian, or treat him as just another band member. He went somewhere in between.

Can you really, really imagine what kind of ride all this must have been? To be rich rich rich by 15 (like Carl). We wonder why the group didn't seem to follow Brian down any path he chose in 1966. I think they did pretty well. Remember, NONE OF THEM WAS OVER 26! Remember when you were 26? Did you make rational and carefully reasoned desicions? I am 50 and I only started doing that...well....last year!

But to say that this is a good guy, this is a bad guy simply because of who you side with and who you have put into a certain box makes no sense. I have ALOT of problems with Mike. One that burns me to this day is that I think Mike could have been a really taleneted lyricst. He was working his way there. Then he decided to be "Surfer Joe" and talk about the honeys and woodies and there went the lyrics. THat is my biggest beef with him. The lawsuits sucked, but like the songwritting one, that needed to be done. Murray was a pr**k and cheated EVERYONE....and ON everyone. And Brian's reaction when he became a huge star was to act like a huge star (sometimes) because he could walk up to you and say "Your new song sucks!" and everyone would say how honest he was. I am sorry, that is just uncalled for. Or to say (as he did) no, I am not interested in your record. They were all a little on the pr**k side. But what beatiful music they made together. That is the only real important point. The rest is just window dressing.

Where to start.


I don't think Mike was "right". The pop marketplace was shifting towards the progressive. That is a fact. Even the Monkees were going psychdelic and enjoying commercial sucess. And one didn't need to go overboard either.  Bands like the Beatles and the Stones were still able to go "out there" and still be accessible. The top groups of the era were able to maintain their popularity through the psychedelic era. Why that didn't work for the BB was down to the length of time between Pet Sounds and Smiley and Smiley's own uncommerciality (I'm of the  "Smiley as Brian's F-U to the Boys" school of thought. "You wanted acid-tinged garbage? I'll show you acid-tinged garbage!") Mike to this day won't admit that he was wrong!  In Catch A Wave, he scoffed at the idea that progressive ideas could sell.

Of course that's my own prejudice, I'm sure. Out of all of the figures in the Beach Boys, Mike is the one that consistently rubs me the wrong way.  I can see why Brian as a person would rub people the wrong way, but because of his illness, I'm more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt than I am to Mike.   But one thing is certain: Mike's songwriting direction since the 70's and how he has lead the band undermine the "Mike as misunderstood creative force" argument because his songs on MIU, Still Cruisin and SIP unwittingly prove David Leaf's portrayal correct.

Mike's ALWAYS right. No Mike, no Beach Boys, and that's the undeniable truth.

I first read this Mike Love thread this morning on my way to court - I had jury duty - how ironic. Actually, you could write an entire book on this topic alone.... Most of what I was gonna say has alrerady been posted very well above, so I apologize if I repeat some points. I only want to focus on a couple of them.

Almost everything Mike did from 1961-1966 was right on the money (no pun intended); there's not much debate on that. Naive Teen Idol, I respect your opinion, but I think you are being NAIVE, and I don't think you give Mike enough credit for what he DID contribute. I never like to read that analogy about, "he'd still be pumping gas if not for...." While we have no way of knowing that, couldn't that analogy/projection apply to almost every member of a rock and roll band who relied on the talent(s) of a leader, including some of the OTHER Beach Boys.

That being said, Mike Love was wrong about SMiLE then, and he's wrong about SMiLE now. He didn't "get" SMiLE then, and he still doesn't "get it". Which mystifies me. Mike was and is the most sophisticated Beach Boy, who always appeared/dressed "arty", spoke articulately, and seemed to TRY to portray that sophisticated image, rejecting the stereotypical "surfer mentality". Unfortunately, that attitude was rarely found in the confines of The Beach Boys, and Mike was many times responsible for those confines. Mike failed to accept SMiLE as a work of art, oh he knew it, but he couldn't accept it. Yes, there could've still been a couple singles from SMiLE. Yes, they could and eventually did perform much of it in concert. And, yes, that phase of Brian's would pass, making SMiLE a temporary "stop" if you will. But, Mike just didn't see it that way, not HIS Beach Boys. Not his fan's Beach Boys. Mike couldn't let go of that image, not even for a few months, and he still hasn't 40 years later.
 
But, I don't hold it against him, at least the way he behaved back then. There was so much on the line - hit records, live audiences, future record contracts, popularity in a dog-eat-dog business, Mike wanting to be the lyricist, Mike wanting to protect Brian from the hangers on, etc. Mike was still relatively young, maybe a little naive, artistically challenged, there was a lot of sh-- going down - HEY, I PROBABLY WOULD'VE FELT/DONE THE SAME THING AS MIKE. Like somebody said above, 20/20 hindsight is very clear, isn't it. If you're honest, I wonder how many of you would've felt and acted like Mike did.

There is one area where I will defend Mike, or at least I don't blame him entirely, and that is the "going back" period from 1974- onward. If you want to say that Mike led that path, I might agree, but just a little. If you want to "blame" Mike for that direction, I will never agree. During that period (post Endless Summer onward), you were dealing with a group of money hungry, financially irresponsible, divorced, child support paying, alcoholic, drug-addicted, confused musicians. AND THEY WERE IN IT FOR THE MONEY. They wanted The Beach Boys for the money. All of them. They saw an opportunity to "cash in" and they went for it.

So why single out Mike love for the "oldies" direction. Things like setlists and album projects were DISCUSSED AND VOTED ON. The Beach Boys were not a dictatorship; Mike Love was not a dictator. How many times have you read how Mike was not respected because he didn't play an instrument, didn't write music, couldn't sing like the rest. So, why in the world would the other guys support Mike, go along with him, vote with him, GIVE their vote to Mike, to someone as musically-challenged as Mike, for matters as important as setlists and albums? Unless they were in it for the money. It makes no sense, unless the other guys agreed with Mike's direction - behind closed doors, that is -  only to say something different in public. I don't think enough is written about what went on INSIDE the Beach Boys, inside the board room, at the table, how the votes went down. I would love to read the minutes to those meetings. I think it would be eye-opening to see how our heroes voted. I definitely think Mike would be exonerated. Somebody above mentioned how his opinion of Mike has changed in some areas. Maybe the record, the real record, would show that Mike voted on a certain direction, but that so did the rest of The Beach Boys. Wouldn't that be interesting for history's sake?

Nice.

Not according to the guy in your avatar...

(http://assets.mog.com/pictures/0000/0001/4753/image_thumbs/1217584294.jpg)

It's almost like a cover of a Stephen King book. To think, all of those guys backstabbing Brian. Look at Mike, there, with his head in his hands! Could he really be Brian's evil tormentor?

They all look evil to me. Especially Al, though. Yeah ... I see you there, Jardine, your smug little murderous dentist face, arms crossed, midget stature ... I see you.

I think hindsight has proven that Brian has done more to destroy the Beach Boys than Michael could ever dream of doing. Remember, Michael didn't pull the plug on Smile. Your benefit of the doubt should be directed elsewhere. But you don't get that and you never will. It's ok. All good timin'. :)

Let me just say in the course of my research I have found a tape of early 1968 interviews with Brian, Mike, and Bruce. Brian (who was interviewed seperately) was articulate, in a good frame of mind, and very pro Beach Boys. He spoke particularly about how much fun Smiley Smile was to make. It wasn't an f off to the band at all. 15 Big Ones may have been a half assed effort from Brian, but the Brian of 1967-68 was a much different persol then the one from 1975-76. It was a much different Beach Boys as well. What people don't seem to get is that Brian and the boys had a long period where they functioned very well as a group. I argue that for much of their first decade this was so.

SJS has a good point about the oldies band era. Al sided with Mike because Carl and Dennis were veering out of control, but the big factor was Brian's regression. Starting with the "Why Do Fool Fall In Love" session Brian was looking to the past for inspiration and his productions lost much of their grandour. Sure Brian had issues, but never before did he truly settle for less then his best. If Brian wanted to move forward as a mature artist you would be hard pressed to find evidence. Now Adult Child had some hints at some interesting progression in the big band sessions, but it seems Mike is guilty there of not supporting it. Only Dennis really continued creatively as he had before and I am sure he and Carl were both somewhat frustrated at the situation. That said Carl certainly wasn't writing strong consistent material, and I think by 1982 he just caved. Even Dennis was less strident against fighting the image as he went into full decline.

All in all my point is that nothing is black and white. Every Beach Boy made some great choices as well as some horrific ones. Though personally he has had it rough, no one can deny that he has consistantly made decisions that made life harder then it had to be. I feel truly bad that he had mental illneses, but I don't pity Brian professinally. The Beach Boys were a great band end of story.

i don't think 15 Big Ones was a 'half-assed effort' from Brian at all. A few songs fit that description(Chapel of Love, Back Home) but the rest of them are pretty damn detailed. Problem IMO is some fo the vocals, and also that so many superior songs were left in the can.

um...what are we talking about?

That bull about fucking messengers doesn't deny my bull, you silly dwarf.  :)

“SMiLE” is a work of genius and “Surf’s Up” is the greatest song of the rock era.  With that said I do not begrudge Mike or any of the other Beach Boys for their resistance to SMiLE.  Here they are coming back from a tour and are presented with this partially completed vision that would be impossible to do justice to live (they were still touring as a 4 piece band – 5 if you add in Mike’s sax).  To me the issue was not only the complexity but the fact that Brian did not know how to finish it.  I would have reacted negatively to it as well if I could not discern where it was going (song list, order).

It took software (something that did not exist in 1966-67) and a band that had nothing to lose to finish SMiLE.

Rightly or wrongly I do blame Mike for the direction that the Beach Boys took after the success of Endless Summer.  He came to the forefront and Carl took a step back.  The band was better and more vital under Carl’s leadership. 

As for the votes.  It is my understanding that they were 3 to 2 with Brian siding with Al and Mike.  I am unclear as to whether Carl and Dennis ever bought off on the late 70’s changes to the Beach Boys.

I also blame Mike for this:

http://www.omahasymphony.org/artistsdetail.asp?art=51

“In 1974 Mike Love’s concept album Endless Summer ignited a second generation of Beach Boys fans and stirred a comeback that rocked the music world.”  For that he should be forced to sing “Over and over, The crow cries uncover the cornfield. Over and over, The thresher and hover the wheat field” for an eternity.

"Mike Love's concept album"? That's ridiculous!

 Mike Love *Left* !

I'm not saying you're right or wrong on the vote issue, but I would like to SEE the voting records for myself, instead of relying on what some people have said, especially the Beach Boys themselves.

The more I read, the more I realize how many times the Beach Boys told, um, untruths. There's just so many contradictions. You almost can't believe anyone anymore. Just check out some of our recent threads; if you dig deep enough, you can disprove a lot of things that were said.

Yes, I think Mike Love was right.

And yeah, the other BBs (including Brian) have been so all over the place regarding such issues, and Mike has always stood exactly where he stands.

Mike's opinions on not *F*ing with the formula and whatnot, might sound annoying, but he had a point and was the frontman of the band, co-lyricist, frequent lead singer, founding member, blood relative, so his opinion meant something and should have been respected.

I to this day don't think Smile would have changed the world and would have been steamrolled by Sgt. Pepper, no matter what. Smile was/is great, but Sgt. Pepper rocked and sounded like and was the product of a band! People like to forget how much people in general like bands and the sound of a band and to know the personalities who are creating the sounds. Smile didn't have that.

One thing I dig about BWPS 2004 is that it's Brian's band playing on the stuff as well as singing it. it makes a difference.


But, aside from that, the lyrics to Smile don't really touch me at all. Never have. I can dig the concept, but I can in no way feel anything even close to what I feel when I put on "Please Let Me Wonder" when I play anything from Smile.

Surf's Up I feel transcends this problem simply for the sheer beauty and emotion in Brian's vocal section.

The Beach Boys were/are always about pure, unbridled emotion. There's nothing on smile that allowed for their most basic quality to shine! And let's face it, none of the BBs (ok, maybe Carl) were Pavorotti, but it didn't matter. The fact that they sung out with pure, open voices, almost devoid of any technique, was/is like a beam of light straight from and into the heart.

I think if the Beach Boys had behaved like a band on Smile with Mike contributing (yes, along with Van Dyke Parks) lyrically and the Boys playing their insturments, it could have really been something. But as it was, the Brian is God bubble was about to burst and Smile itself could have done the trick all on it's own, had it been released as intended.

I can defend my opinion about the Boys playing on the tracks, simply because a bit of raw rock n roll verve would have fit right in with the "out-there" material. And as I've stated elsewhere, I'll take Dennis bashing away live on any of their songs over the recorded session guy performances any day. I LOVE the way he played most everything live. Some of his performances on Good Vibrations are enough to give the coolest hipster drummer of today some serious pause.

One other thing, why exactly was Heroes And Villians not the same monster hit that Good Vibrations was?

Was it timing? Perhaps

Was it the melody? NO!!! H&V has an awesome melody

Was it the performance? Maybe. It's not as refined as GV

Was it the fact that no one knew what the hell the song was about?.....

Very likely!

Therefore Maybe Mike should have been listened to.

"I'll take Dennis bashing away live on any of their songs over the recorded session guy performances any day"

I love Dennis as much as anybody, but Hal Blaine wasn't exactly just some random session guy :-)

No, he wasn't! You're absolutely right!

BUT he was a studio guy. Practiced at playing with percision in a controlled studio environment. Just listen to Sloop John B from Pet sounds then listen to the version on "Live In London"

The LIN version rocks and moves and shakes in a way that the studio version just does not.

It's not a matter or which version is better or who was the better player, but rather a matter of feel. I just happen to prefer a bit of risk and pure performance in drumming rather than technique or finesse. I feel that having a guy like Dennis playing on such material would have given it a kick in  the ass in a way..... Not like it exactly NEEDED it though.

I have never been a big fan of Dennis' drumming.  To me, Brian's best moments were the subtle ones and Dennis' drumming could not catch that.  I always thought Dennis would have served the band better by playing the keys live as opposed to the drums. 

I am a big Beatles fan but Pepper does not do much for me.  I much prefer "Help!", "Rubber Soul", "Revolver" and "Abbey Road".

I am very touched by SMiLE every time I listen to it.  The entire second movement (Whenever I hear "Wonderful" thoughts go to my daughter) is very touching.  The seague from "Mrs. O'Leary's Cow" to "Blue Hawaii" is absolutely sublime.  When Brian sings "Is it hot in hell . . . . . . . " it sounds like he is being transported from Hell to Heaven.  Powerful stuff.

First post in a really, really long time...like let's say before BWPS.

As I've gotten older, I have a lot more sympathy for Mike Love.  Based on a few things I've read, on this site, and in other places, I'd like to run this scenario past y'all.   This is my theory on how all of this went down.

I think Mike loved his cousin.  I've never thought Mike was a bad guy, and I also think he had every right to question the direction the group was taking at the end of 1966.  I mean, they'd had a really good thing going, they were arguably the 2nd most important rock band in the world, (#1 if you believed the NME) and there was really no guarantee that any of it was going to last.

The key here was Pet Sounds.  If the group had known that album had been a hit, they might have given Brian more support over SMiLE.  But what no one has mentioned in this thread is that Capitol Records was not entirely honest with the group as to the sales figures for that album.  We know now that Pet Sounds, despite the release of the Greatest Hits (the kiss of death for any rock band at that time), and despite Capitol's lack of real marketing muscle for the album, actually sold quite well.  But at the end of 1966, it may have seemed to the group that they'd just "jumped the shark."

So let's say you're Mike.  You're already worried about the group's direction, Pet Sounds' lack of success, and your cousin's emotional well being.  You know he's doing drugs, he's got a bunch of shallow "hangers on" who don't really seem to have his (or the family's) best interests at heart, and on top of all of this, you're more than a little jealous because he's writing these weird lyrics with Van Dyke Parks...who let's face it, was probably a little stuck-up anyway.  As far as that relationship was concerned, I think Mike acted condescending because that's the vibe he received from Van Dyke, who was probably equally condescending.  So you've got all of these factors coming into play, and the "smoking gun" is the fact that the group's last album, Pet Sounds, was also written with a lyrical collaborator (not Mike) and arguably flopped (at least if you believe Capitol).

I think the 3-movement concept was just too far out for the band.  Peter Reum stated in one of his posts that this was the real ending of SMiLE and this argument occurred in December, 1966.  That is most likely what Mike was objecting to with the famous "crow flies uncover the cornfield" argument...it wasn't the music and the lyrics per se, but just this whole pompous idea that his cousin (who'd just taken a lot of drugs) was now thinking of himself as a composer of classical music as rock-and-roll.  I wouldn't be surprised if the way that argument worked out was Mike + Bruce + Carl + Al vs. Brian with Dennis as neutral but supportive.

So then, the original vision was fatally compromised.  My theory is that the group distrusted the 3-movement concept, but didn't really have a problem with the standard 11-12 song format.  The problem was, Brian couldn't find a way to condense and separate his original vision into distinct 2-3 minute pop tunes.  So, he worked and worked and worked, recorded miles of tape, but the more he recorded, the farther away he was from completion.  Of course, this was the first time he'd ever really hit a major roadblock, and so he started questioning not only his vision, but also his ability as a songwriter.  And let's face it, he had a whole choir of people from his father to his own brothers and cousin who were questioning every move from the get-go.  What he needed was just a little encouragement...or someone to just say, "Brian, the track is perfect as is! Let's call it a day."

There was a 1996 message exchange with Jack Rieley (posted on this site), in which he described how Brian had told him that what killed him was the public's less than stellar reaction to Heroes and Villains.  That this confirmed what he had suspected all along...that he wasn't as good as he thought he was, and that he was taking the group in the wrong direction.  Smiley Smile was simply an attempt to salvage the basic tunes which had been recorded, without doing anymore work on them, or trying to make them part of a cohesive whole.  Ironically, Mike's worst fears came true in the end.

In my opinion, if SMiLE had been released in January or February 1967, as a 3-movement work, it would have done quite well.  Not everyone would have liked SMiLE but not everyone who was alive then liked Sergeant Pepper.  My parents were 17 and 20 respectively in 1967.  They lost interest in the Beatles after Sergeant Pepper because they thought the Beatles had "gotten weird".  Yet, they both are huge fans of Pet Sounds and BWPS.

The melody WAS a factor in H&V not having the kind of mega-hit potential as GV. (don't misunderstand me, I love it). It just didn't have the same indefinable universality that made
GV such a smash, IMO. The impenetrability of the lyrics was of course also a factor.

You know what would be crazy? If we really have no idea what happened! Call me crazy, but I'm starting to believe that. Only Brian, Mike, Carl, Dennis, and Carl really know what happened, and none of them have ever really seemed to want to talk about it. I think we can guess that some crazy stuff went down, but who knows beyond that?

I also have to chime in that Smile touches me (if my username didn't make that clear). It is a
somewhat more cerebral and indefinable emotional connection than earlier work, but no less profound.

I'm not invalidating the opposite opinion, though, different strokes for different folks. :)

Yes, I'm guessing some crazy stuff went down.

 
  The Best Of The Beach Boys Vol. 1 , went Gold!
 
  " Kiss Of Death" ?
 
   Not as far as Capitol was concerned.

    Check out the #'s.
 

all your points make a lot of sense, but.... Mike Love wasn't right. His basic argument was that Smile wouldn't sell, right? Crazy acid alliteration that no-one could relate to, with loads of bonkers 'ego music' in there that makes no sense. Stick to making surfing tunes. they sell.  Nevermind that rock music was moving with brian, very obviously, and there was a lot of press for the album which all basically claimed it to be the second coming of american music. Not even Sgt. Pepper got that sort of pre-release hubbub. So the absolute worse thing to do would be to scrap it, right? And funnily enough, after following Love's (and the others, i guess) advice (which, after Good Vibrations, seems particularly suicidal), The Beach Boys didn't have another hit til the 80's.
If the consensus is that Mike was doing it to save the band, then he's wrong. I fail to see how he could be 'right' in this situation. The beach Boys were ruined commercially, rubbished in the music press and never had the same amount of artistic credibility (which, as they learned later in decade, sells records) again. Mike Love bitches about the beatles being more artistically valued, but that's hypocritical of him. He stymied that creativity. Imagine if George had put the brakes on Pepper because it wasn't 'Please Please Me'? It sounds crazy, right? In my opinion, 'right' would be encouraging Brian to release Smile whilst all the press attention was on him, the Beatles still at work on pepper, and be first with the all-important 'new sound', which even he knew was important. Which is why Heroes failed when it was released. The timing had been ruined (all musical arguments about the Smiley version aside).
Mike Love had a point, granted, but i happen to think that point wasn't based on anything approaching an awareness of music and where it was going at that time. He based it on what he saw at the shows, which is ridiculous. If it were 2, 3 years earlier, he'd have been right. I wouldn't say Mike love was a bad guy, but.... he wasn't bright. And i guess Brian is partly to blame for not convincing the group enough.

Despite its provocative title and a bit of trolling, I think this SMiLE thread is one of the best this board has ever hosted.  It synthesizes and clarifies the current thinking of what went down all those years ago, given the information we have now and the unlikelihood of getting any better info as the years go on.

When I first joined this board my view was probably more like hypehat's - and to a degree still is.  I do think, though, there is one more variable to keep in mind: even assuming Mike and the others were 100% behind the original concept and the three-movement format, Brian still may not have been able to get it done in 1966-67.   There is evidence to suggest he was starting to unravel anyway, putting too much pressure on himself and not willing to seek any assistance or collaboration which might have relieved some of the pressure - but also would have ceded control.  For their part Mike and the others were understandably wary of what was happening, and did not know how to deal with it.  The shenanigans with Capitol over sales figures, royalties and control didn't help and were surely a distraction, as Jcc eloquently states.  These will always be, to use the hackneyed phrase, among the "known unknowns".

Some crazy stuff like the band voting down the three-movement idea. It was so crazy and painful that it hasn't been mentioned by anyone who was actually there for 43 years! But beware, if you ask Mike, Al or Mike about it, they'll go into a numb stare and take a turn to the White House, to murder Lyndon Johnson.

They didn't have another hit til 1976 (R'n'R Music sucks but it's there, what can we do?) because Brian couldn't write another one after Good Vibrations. Simple as that. Neither could Carl, Al, Mike, Bruce, Dennis, Blondie and Ricky, to be fair. A hit is a hit, Joe Public doesn't care if it's avant-garde or americana or bubblegum, they just turn on the radio and dig the track. Or not.

I didn't know R'n'R was a hit. But it sort of proves my point about publicity. Everyone was talking about the BB's, they release a single, and people get interested and buy it. The same would've happened with H&V....maybe.
it's not down to songwriting quality *insert how much i love Wild Honey/Sunflower/Friends/etc here*, but more that the public just wouldn't listen cos they were the beach boys, y'know? they saw it as square surfin' music. The songwriting quality was, whilst not Good Vibes, still of a chart-bothering quality, and they had evolved a long ways artistically. Breakaway is the perfect example. Smile, if released on the crest of that publicity, would have given the beach boys some artistic credibility among the yoof, which would have equated to record sales later on in the decade. People listened to Jann Wenner back then. And the blame isn't solely Mike's, that's true. The lawsuit couldn't have been timed any worse, for instance. But... the thread asked whether Mike was right. And i don't believe he is.

Of course, if i saw my cousin/meal ticket hosting bizarre parties in recording studios staging arguments with his druggie friends instead of making a record (and a bloody strange one at that), i would be worried. I'm not 100% on Brian's side, either. Some of his behaviour was a little....questionable. The music, on the other hand, wasn't. Smile is anything but a case of black and white. But my main point is - Smile would have sold and guaranteed the beach boys credibility among the press/record-buyers like Rubber Soul did the beatles, and the hits might have lasted a little longer, which was his main concern. Opposing Smile caused the opposite of that....That of course, is my opinion.  :pirate

Well, my theory is that the group had their problems with the 3-movement concept.  This would explain why Brian was unable to complete SMiLE in a more standard 12 song format, yet was surprisingly able to tie it all together within a few months in 2003-2004.   It would also explain why the group continued to play live songs from SMiLE throughout the years (H&V, Surf's Up, etc)  or even "mine the tape vault" for ideas until 1971.   None of the group has ever come out and said specifically that they disliked the Smile music.  Lastly, it would also explain the rumors over the years of a "six minute" or even "12 minute" long Heroes and Villains.  This is not to say that Heroes and Villains itself would be 6 or 12 minutes, but that might have been the contemplated length of the First Movement of SMiLE.

I honestly believe that the real issue is that none of the group, Mike especially, could get their heads around the concept of album long tracks.  I'm sure the discussion was along the lines of "Where's the single?"  "How do we play this stuff in concert?"  "Brian, are you trying to go solo?"

And if you've envisioned a 3-movement cantata, how do you break that down into 12 pop songs, on two sides of a record, at 3:35 apiece?

Yes, the B-Boys should have been more patient with Brian, who probably didn't do that great of a job of explaining himself.   But Van Dyke Parks's comment (when asked about the Cabinessence lyrics) "Well, gee Mike, I really don't know what it means" seems awfully snotty in retrospect.  If Parks had explained to Mike what the lyrics meant, there is actually a slight chance that the Lovester might have gotten on board with the project...and that would have changed history.

Heroes & Villains went as far as it could IMO, an there are rumours that Capitol did some work under the table to move it as high as #12. It's all opinions, but I don't think a December / February / April H&V release would have made much difference. Well, if they had released the Cantina version in Feb, without any discernible chorus, it would have REALLY bombed. Not everything that charted high in USA between 67-70 was corroborated by Jann Wenner. In fact, very little. If the Beach Boys' singles and albums flopped, that means there wasn't a public for them. Other acts with even less credibility sold well or very well. Go figure.

Do you think the group ever heard about a 3-movement concept? If so, was their opinion even asked? If so, why hasn't anyone talked about it till BWPS? It seems to be a very important issue to be erased from history like that. It's not like Smile is a black box, we know that there was a confrontation between ML and VDP about Cabinessence lyrics. Brian gave that interview about the group almost breaking up over the decision to self 'Surf's Up' (whatever he meant). It doesn't make sense.

Just a related thought/question.    How is it that someone who is credited with writing the lyrics to Warmth of the Sun responsible for some of he really bad songs on his own solo albums?   And, I must say, like Mike or not, those are some seriously pretty bad songs.  Don't wish to stir up bad feelings on a thread that is being kind to Mike......but I have wondered about this.

Perhaps this would be a good place to list the top 5 Mike Love songs where he was the primary or solo lyricist.


WOTS and what other 4 songs?

Well, i was wondering about that myself. The 'commerciality' of the Cantina, or any other version that brian assembled is purely hypothetical... and the Cantina version is somewhat barmy. As for the Jan Wenner, it's quicker to type his name than 'assorted hipper-than-thou types, underground press writers, attendees of Monterey Pop, etc waiting to be impressed by Brian & co', if you get my point. The beach boys had definite image problems since Smile, you must admit. Most acts with less credibility don't have the stigma of 5 years of 'uncool' surfing music behind them and the name which instantly reminds you of it.

Yeah, that market was closed for them, no doubt. Btw, they were already on the way to 'uncoolness' before and after releasing Pet Sounds.

But... there were other markets:

BILLBOARD TOP 100 (1967)

1. To Sir With Love  Lulu 
2.  Light My Fire  The Doors
3.  Windy  The Association
4.  Ode To Billie Joe  Bobbie Gentry
5.  The Letter  The Box Tops
6.  Daydream Believer  The Monkees
7.  Somethin' Stupid  Nancy Sinatra And Frank Sinatra
8.  Happy Together  The Turtles
9.  I Heard It Through The Grapevine  Gladys Knight &The Pips
10.  Incense And Peppermints  Strawberry Alarm Clock
11.  Groovin'  The Young Rascals
12.  Can't Take My Eyes Off You  Frankie Valli
13.  Little Bit O'soul  The Music Explosion
14.  Respect  Aretha Franklin
15.  The Rain, The Park &Other Things  The Cowsills
16.  Never My Love  The Association
17.  Hello Goodbye  The Beatles
18.  Tell It Like It Is  Aaron Neville
19.  Come Back When You Grow Up  Bobby Vee
20.  I Was Made To Love Her  Stevie Wonder

You're assuming here that any such concept ever existed before 2003. BW himself has stated many times that the 3rd movement was totally a 21st century creation.

The only source for any kind of 3-movement notion before 2000 is Peter Reum, who stated that Brian told him this in 1982/83. I respect Peter way too much to even consider that he made this up... but in 1982/3, Brian was in terrible shape, and of course if you throw him a leading question, he'll just go along with you.

"As for the Jan Wenner, it's quicker to type his name than 'assorted hipper-than-thou types, underground press writers, attendees of Monterey Pop, etc"

Haha! Pure genius! ;D

As for the previous question:

Why is there this myth that Mike was only capable or writing "fun fun fun" lyrics and absolutely nothing else?

It's beyond silly!

Best 5 Mike lyrics? (not in any order really)

1. Warmth Of The Sun
2. Big Sur
3. She Knows Me Too Well
4. Good Vibrations
5. Sound Of Free

My source is Peter Reum's posts at this link:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,2325.160.html

I think it makes sense, though.

The theory that alien creatures abducted Brian and sucked out his hitmaker abilities in mid'66 makes sense, too. How could a guy with the run he had from 62 to 66 suddenly lose his midas touch?

Of course, it doesn't mean it happened.  ;)

I thought that it was Brian who (off-the-cuff) offered that he inteneded SMiLE to be 3 movements in the midst of a completely different conversation about Gershwin. Sure doesn't sound like Peter was throwing him a leading question.

Actually, Dancing Bear, what you describe is not uncommon.  We attorneys refer to the experience as "Law School"  ;D

Seriously, though, you should look up Peter Reum's posts (there's not that many of them so you can read them all in about 20-30 minutes).  He has some amazing insights into Brian's mental illness and how it affected his music from 1967 onward.  The gist of it is that Brian never lost the ability to make music, but as his illness worsened, the ability to concentrate and actually create a finished product was lost.  Like a lot of mentally ill people who are misdiagnosed or go without treatment, Brian tried to self-medicate using amphetamines (and later cocaine) and this made his symptoms even worse.  I think Reum described the high of cocaine would make BW normal for about 30 minutes, and then he would crash and feel unspeakably worse.  And, even if the sources of cocaine were cut off, Brian would find something else to self-medicate with.

I would trust Reum's statements because he's essentially a primary source.  He's spoken with all of the individuals involved, including Brian, and has a great deal of professional experience dealing with people like him.  He's not just some schmuck (like all of us) who posts on a message board.

You made some good points, Jcc, and I agree with your overall excellent post. However, I'm not as sold on the "three movement" SMiLE as you are. I need more - anything actually - than Peter Reum's posts to sway me in that direction. This is where I have a problem with the group rejecting a "three movement" SMiLE, if there was indeed one...

The band could've "separated" the songs for the use as singles or live performances. I know it's not the same thing, but a live album is "linked" by applause, and singles can be edited out of a live album. The Beach Boys' Party songs were "linked" by (fake) party chatter, and "Barbara Ann" was successfully "pulled" from that album. Another scenario could've been Brian recording special single versions of songs that might've been entrenched in a movement, almost like he did with the "Heroes And Villains" single. You don't think it would've sounded that way on a SMiLE album, do you?

As far as live performance of the SMiLE songs that were part of a movement, I think the band (including Brian) could've figured out a way to "extract" songs from a movement to perform live. Compose an intro here, an ending there; doesn't sound too difficult, especially at the level Brian was operating on in 1966-67. Not all of the Beach Boys songs that were performed live in 1966 began or ended the exact way as the single or album versions. They were performing medleys even back then!

You stated that "Brian couldn't find a way to condense and separate his vision into distinct 2-3 minute pop tunes." Don't you have that backwards? ;D The prevailing theory is that Brian's biggest problem was piecing the songs and segments TOGETHER in a way that made sense and satisfied his vision. He had most of the songs finished; he just didn't know what to do with 'em. Wouldn't it have been EASIER to just take each individual SMiLE song and end them, either with his glorious fades or by a sudden cut? That's what he did with every previous Beach Boys' studio album. Heck, it was easy to "individualize" the songs; how long did it take him to do Smiley Smile?

Late Edit: I was just thinking of the re-mixed "Fallin' In Love", and the way the new intro was "grafted" onto it. That's kinda what I was referring to when I mentioned taking tracks out of a movement and creating new intros or endings. I know technology is more advanced now, but that wouldn't have been too difficult for Brian Wilson.

Look again, I'm there in that thread, in the page you quoted. I remember it very well.

What can I say? You believe what you choose to believe, and you trust who you choose to trust.

1. The Warmth Of The Sun
2. Good Vibrations
3. I Get Around
4. When I Grow Up (To Be A Man)
5. Only With You
Bonus Track: Little St. Nick
Hidden Track: She Knows Me Too Well
Unreleased Track: Big Sur (early version)
Uncredited Track: Back In The U.S.S.R.  :police:

IIRC, Let The Wind Blow was almost entirely Mike, both music and lyrics.

I hear what you're saying, but I have no evidence not to trust him.  Unless of course you know something I don't.  The problem with message boards is that anyone could be hiding behind the handle.

Nah, I'm just another schmuck. By the way, forget about that alien creatures theory. I was pulling your leg.  :)

JCC I am going out on a limb here and I hope I don't offend anyone. To be brutally honest I also need more then just Peter's word to back up anything so heavy as a three movement Smile. I also highly doubt Brian was a cocaine addict in 1967 . I don't think Reum makes stuff up maliciously but if you are going to make statements that go against generally accepted data, you have to back it up with evidence beyond a drugged out 1982 Brian. He hadn't met Brian or the group in the sixties so he had to go on second hand info himself. Now if he dug up sessions tapes, business journals, or other even people saying Brian was coked out in 1967 after the three pronged Smile was abandoned, then I would give it more weight. Not meaning to offend Peter or anyone here but I gotta be honest and say I am not convinced. Like Domenic Priore has done in his books, Peter's statements were worded in a way that pass off some very controversial things as hard, cold fact. I personally think they are theory with a pro Brian anti Beach Boys bias.
I don't dislike these guys, and in fact have had some very nice interaction with Priore, but I don't subscribe to the Brian and five a-holes conclusion. In fact it's Peter who made that quote in DAG 1.

I hope I don't sound arrogant about this and I think if I remember correct I even questioned him direct about this on here. So it's not like I have an agenda that's hidden. I openly state my considered opinion is that  Brian and the Beach Boys worked together better from 67-71 then anytime since.  To me that is because except for a brief period in 1968  Brian was in better shape from 67-70 then anytime since. The thing is I have interview tapes I conducted plus archive data, photos, and vintage interviews to back up my case. We forget again and again that Brian was a hit maker through 1969. First of all "Heroes", "Darlin", and "Do It Again' did  pretty well domestically.  In the rest of the world they did even better. Add "Break Away" to the list of international hits and we see that Brian's music did not fall off at all. The American public just had the wrong idea about the Beach Boys. If he or the group had lost the plot completely they wouldn't have remained as popular as they did.

In 1967 and beyond a couple of years, I grew away from the Beach Boys....I was growing up and was focused on the avalanche of new music coming down.  I bought Hendrix, Airplane, Byrds, and the money was gone.  I just couldn't get enough of the new.  I didn't have time to bother with anything from earlier inthe decade.....INCLUDING the Beatles.  Seargent Pepper was hyped so much I finally gave it a listen...found it in a cutout bend in Akron Ohio not very long after it was released.   But I did finally tire of the hipsters on drugs music and was driving in the car one day and the radio was playing Good Vibrations.  A couple of days later I hard a new release......a most beautiful song about music with stunning vocals and production.........So with the release of I Can Hear Music and 20/20 ...I was back as a BB fan and have never looked back.   

I have a suspicion that this is what happened to the BeachBoys in the later sixties.  People like me, who were real music junkies....were inundated with tempting new sounds and ideas and didn't have the money or time or interest in the old stuff.

But fortunately, the BeachBoys survived, and were there for me when I was ready to listen again.

donald that's a good story and it gives a valid perspective as to why the Beach Boys were not selling as well in the USA. Though "I Get Around" was big, it was really with "Barbara Ann" that they broke big overseas. Thus in say 1969 they were still a fairly "new" group.

donald...i think there is a lot of truth in what you posted. same thing happened with me. when i think of post 1966 singles by the group...i can hear music is at the top of my list also. have always said that over the years. i think, simply put, you hit the nail on the head about their late 60's decline.....as far as the general music listening/buying public was concerned.

I thought the Wild Honey single was terrific, nailing both of my musical obsessions of the day: Soul [blue-eyedin this case] and what we called Psychedelic. It stood right there with the most progressive Pop of the day, imo, and Windchimes on the B sides was, and still is to me, one the most progressive/"avant garde" songs ever pressed as a single.

 Brian undeniably was the most major player in the band in the early years.  He wrote the songs, figured out the harmonies, etc etc etc, Mike didn't put enough imput to be considered the major player IMHO. Was Brian sexually abused? I was not there,  but I don't get the feeling Murry was an abuser.  A tweaked neurotic stage mom that paled mommie dearest, yes..but not a molester, he wanted the boys to be successful and he did what he had to, to make sure they stayed in the spotlight' they were young kids, they needed some kind of figure to keep them on the right track, he just had a terrible way of doing so.   Mike, Carl, Bruce, Al and possibly Denny had alot on the line, they all had families by then, mansions, expensive cars and toys that had to be paid for, and especially Mike, because he not only had this stuff, but also alimony payments as well as child support.  Brian was acting more and more bizarre,  I am sure they were all scared, and keeping with the formula would have been the most logical thing to do at the time, as fans were still into the music and that was the sure way to keep the profit margins up.  They could have kept with the formula, right along with putting out Brian's beautiful music.  Was Mike "right"?  Way back when, yeah, probably...but all his litigation and nonsense since then  is not "right" at all.

 
Mike  Love was one hell of a front man , still gives the high 5's

 Look.........

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbW53wanNPY