The Smiley Smile Message Board

Smiley Smile Stuff => Ask The Honored Guests => Topic started by: Charles LePage @ ComicList on April 06, 2006, 01:56:18 PM



Title: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Charles LePage @ ComicList on April 06, 2006, 01:56:18 PM
Ask Peter questions. 

Feel free to review his book in the Book section once it's available to read and review.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on April 07, 2006, 09:38:14 AM
It sucks. Trust me. I've read it a hundred times, in various states of completion, and....

No, actually I don't think that. Just girding myself. But I'm looking forward to whatever feedback there is, when the thing finally hits the streets.

And if you think it sucks, well, you heard it here first.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Mitchell on April 07, 2006, 09:41:57 AM
So May 30th in hardcover, eh? Kewl.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Daniel S. on April 07, 2006, 03:15:53 PM
I'm gonna buy it. And then I'm gonna go home and read it.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Rocker on April 07, 2006, 03:56:12 PM
Hey Peter, do you know if there will be a german release?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on April 08, 2006, 08:42:47 AM
hi Floyd: I know the book is coming out in the UK. Not sure if there will be a German language edition or not. And my intel, at this point, has the book coming out on May 2 in the US, and about a month later in the UK. Not sure where that May 30 date comes from, unless that's the official UK date.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Mitchell on April 09, 2006, 04:09:59 AM
Amazon.ca lists it for May 30.

Product Details

Hardcover - 336 pages 1 edition (May 30, 2006)
Language: English
Rodale ; ISBN: 1594863202


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Joanne on April 13, 2006, 06:19:00 AM
Hi Peter,

BettyJo Productions is having a Beach Boys fan convention at the end of May in Detroit. Can you email us? I didn't see a contact on the website of yours.
bettyjoprod@yahoo.com

Thanks!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Howdy Doody on April 17, 2006, 10:38:28 AM
How much more stuff is there to write about Brian in his heydey? Is this book gonna center more on recent years and such because then I would dig reading it very much.  Let me know Peter because I will also promote it among folks in NYC who are into Brian.  The post Landy years into the present would be a fascinating read for me.  When I do concerts as well I will promote it for you too.  IM me and give me all the details if you can.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on April 17, 2006, 07:39:41 PM
Hi Mr. Doody: I don't really IM so we're going to have to commune here, or via email. Anyway, the book takes in the whole shebang, from Wm. Wilson's appearance on these shores in the late 18th c to Brian's show at the Hollywood Bowl on Sept. 3, 2005. Some events are covered in more detail than others, but there's definitely quite a lot of post-heyday stuff.

Hope that helps.

pac


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on April 17, 2006, 08:05:12 PM
Mr. Doody

[giggle]


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Rocker on April 23, 2006, 04:18:23 AM
Hey Peter,
with those things said about a possible reunion, would you write another book or do a "new version" of yours, if the reunion should happen?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on April 23, 2006, 09:58:09 AM
Hi Charles: Since my book hasn't even come out yet it's really hard for me to think about doing anything else other than getting it out and about and hopefully read and understand and maybe even enjoyed, here and there. And when it comes to the reunion thing. . . I'll believe it when I see it, for one thing. And even if it does happen, I can't help wondering how significant it will be, really. After all, Brian has already performed "Pet Sounds" in its entirety. This version of the BB's, such as it might be, is still nothing like the original BB's, given the importance of Carl's voice in the PS mix (who's going to sing "God Only Knows" in this group? Bruce?) And who's the band going to be? I know the BW band hasn't been approached to be a part of this alleged event. Does that mean this is going to be the Mike and Bruce show with Brian and Al brought onboard to sing? And can all those Hawaiian shirt guys play all those elaborate "PS" songs with the care and expertise of BW's band?

No answers here, just questions. And maybe there's some enormous emotional signficance for Brian, et. al, in coming back together, and not ending things with the rancor they've had for the last ten years or so. But as someone viewing from afar, I can only say that Brian's creative and emotional health have only seemed to get stronger since he left the Beach Boys. And that Mike and Bruce (the latter of whom observed to me in an email, in response to a music-geek query, "this is a BUSINESS to me")  seem far more engaged by the financial aspects of working with Brian than by the creative ones.

Ultimately these guys all deserve to be happy with themselves, their music and their relationships. If this is a step in MIke, Al and Brian's journey toward feeling okay with one another, at long last, than maybe it's the best possible thing. That would represent a huge step for all of them. If they can pull it off at this point in their lives, I'm all for it. But if this reunion is going to be just another iteration of the same old jealousies, hatred and greed, I couldn't think of anything worse.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Rocker on April 23, 2006, 12:07:10 PM
Hi Charles:


??

But thanks for sharing your point of view. I didn't think of Bruce as being that much into the financial aspect.
The Hawaiian-shirt thing is another point.... Would they really perform Pet Sounds in that outfit???


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on April 26, 2006, 08:47:04 AM
Hey Peter.

Really looking forward to buying (and reading!) your book.

Just wondering--how in-depth do you get into Brian's role in the post-SMILE era Beach Boys?

So many sources make it seem like Brian basically dropped out after SMILE and had no involvement with the Beach Boys again until 15 BIG ONES, and as a fairly new BB fan (three-and-a-half years or so), I believed that wholeheartedly... until I bought WILD HONEY, FRIENDS, 20/20, SUNFLOWER, etc. within the last couple of years.

I'd be interested in knowing just how involved he was in the making of those albums, what he was doing at the time, was he really just zoning out in his bedroom, and how connected he was to the band (and to reality itself, really) during that period.  I mean, clearly, he's on those albums, so he was with them on occasion, at least.

And do you delve deeply into Brian's return in 1976?  Domenic Priore seems to think, based on his recent SMILE book, that Brian intentionally sabotaged 15 BIG ONES and LOVE YOU by wrecking his voice so that he'd sound as awful as possible, because, deep down, he really didn't want those albums to succeed and he wanted to get back at the Beach Boys for not supporting him over the years.  I'm curious to know if you came to the same conclusion.

 


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on April 26, 2006, 10:18:29 AM
Hi Glenn, thanks for your note. And yes, I get into Brian's post-"Smile" work/life in pretty vivid detail, I think. He was very much present for the late '60s albums, though with a rapidly fading sense of commitment and control over what was going on. Regarding the "15BO" and "Love You" era, my sense is that he was quite tentative on the former, less so on the latter. He's told me personally that those two albums are his most favorite of all BB albums, and maybe he really felt that at the moment he said it, but I think his feelings on that issue are subject to change from day to day. I agree with Dominic, however, that Brian's ragged voice in that era tells us something about his deeper (perhaps  subconscious) feelings regarding his career and relationship with the Beach Boys. But it's all very complex and paradoxical and so we can only surmise what was really going on at the time.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on April 26, 2006, 12:41:19 PM
Thanks, Peter!

I'm buying the book the day it comes out!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: al on May 05, 2006, 04:30:48 PM
Peter - is the book still on track? I see Amazon UK have cancelled orders (apparently).


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on May 06, 2006, 08:26:54 AM
Huh? That's news to me. I've been trading emails with the UK editor just this week and they're on track for their pub date, as far as I know. I have no idea why Amazon has got its cyber-panties in a cyber-twist over our weeks-long delay. But I believe I'm going to look into it right now.

To repeat: everything I hear from my publisher is that those late-stage negotiations are being concluded even as we speak, and CAW will be available for sale and shoplift in June. Slightly later (August) in Australia.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Third Coast on May 08, 2006, 06:01:16 PM
Peter, I'm really looking forward to the book. My question:  I read somewhere that you r book mentions that Brian hasn't completely finished a track since 1968. If that's so, what do you think of his latest M.O. in the studio, i.e., using a more sparse arrangement? In other words, is this a new style for him, or does it just show his habit of not finishing his work?

Thanks!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on May 09, 2006, 09:51:08 AM
Hi Mr. Coast: I can't really say one thing or another about how Brian's working these days, because I don't know for certain what he's doing, or with whom, or to what end. I sort of like the idea of his doing more sparse arrangements though, if only because it'd be so interesting to hear him work in a more organic format, particularly after these last years/decades of highly polished stuff. Also interesting to note that one of the beefs people have had with recent recordings (think: GIOMH) is that the tracks ended up being tinkered with by other hands, in order to make them suitable to their ears. So maybe a stripped-down BW tune comes closer to his initial sonic sensibility? Perhaps. Arguably.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: andy on May 09, 2006, 04:28:41 PM
Definitely perhaps.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on May 16, 2006, 02:59:09 PM
Buy.com says that the book is supposed to be available today, but that it will take 1 to 2 weeks to ship.  I ordered it yesterday with the impression that it would ship today--but it didn't.

Anyone know if the book is available yet?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on May 17, 2006, 09:50:09 AM
Here's the latest on the release date: Books should be shipping from Amazon and other online dealers on June 16. Official pub date probably in early July, but the actual on-the-street, in-the-bookstores  date closer to mid-June.

Thanks for your patience...and continued interest!

pac


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Daniel S. on May 17, 2006, 05:22:21 PM
I pre-ordered my copy on Amazon a few weeks ago.

I also ordered this book on Phil Spector that's new. It's a collection of interviews and articles on Spector.


(http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/1726/thephilspectorreader6xw.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: runalot on June 14, 2006, 09:27:17 PM
Damn! Why does this book seem like it's taking FOREVER to get released!

Hurry!

(I went to a couple of book stores to see if they had some copies accidently put on shelves.)

And now a word from our sponsor:

(http://www.cityonfire.com/mp3/050502146.jpg)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on June 15, 2006, 10:57:56 PM
Where's that from? Looks interesting...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: runalot on June 15, 2006, 11:00:56 PM
It came up on a google search one time... some magazine or something. Yeah, it does look cool.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on June 16, 2006, 02:01:02 AM
It from Rolling Stone I think a record review for Love You or 15 Big Ones.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on June 16, 2006, 08:06:00 AM
Hey UKers: "Catch A Wave" should be in your bookshops by next week. This according to the UK publisher.

Us Americans -- including yrs truly -- will have to wait 'til July.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on June 18, 2006, 12:52:35 AM
Sure looks badass.

I do wonder why "mafia" is above Brian's name though...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on June 20, 2006, 04:39:26 PM
The artist, perchance ?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: scooter on June 20, 2006, 04:47:16 PM
Damn! Why does this book seem like it's taking FOREVER to get released!

Hurry!

(I went to a couple of book stores to see if they had some copies accidently put on shelves.)

And now a word from our sponsor:

(http://www.cityonfire.com/mp3/050502146.jpg)

from rolling stone or its' offshoot-the Record--a short lived  RS like mag published in the late 70s/early80s or thereabouts...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on June 21, 2006, 04:08:34 AM
Hey UKers: "Catch A Wave" should be in your bookshops by next week. This according to the UK publisher.

Us Americans -- including yrs truly -- will have to wait 'til July.

Don't you believe it, Peter - I've ordered via amazon.co.uk, who told me the book would be mailed 6/18, estimated delivery 6/19-20. As of right now, it's not been sent, according to the amazon order tracker.

Ohhhhhhhh... great - just checked the site itself, and the new, revised delivery schedule is 4-6 weeks !! It sure as foda didn't say that last week. 

:thud


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on June 21, 2006, 08:59:28 AM
Sure looks badass.

I do wonder why "mafia" is above Brian's name though...

Or is it "Massia"?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: iancorben on June 23, 2006, 08:49:27 AM
Hello Peter. CAW has arrived in Southampton, UK today - I asked on the off chance and it was on the trolley ready to go out on the shelf. I have it and it will be great reading this weekend. Have a great one folks - ring your local Waterstones. Price £18.99. Must cancel my Amazon order - still saying 4 weeks!! Have a great weekend. Ian


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on June 24, 2006, 04:43:41 AM
My amazon order is already cancelled. Now what's the betting the book turns up on the site as a "1-2 days delivery" ?  :angry


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Smilin Ed H on June 25, 2006, 02:58:44 AM
Got mine in Waterstone's yeasterday.  Tempted by Michael Gray's Dylan Encyclopaedia too!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: John Manning on June 26, 2006, 03:14:23 AM
Got mine in Waterstone's, Glasgow, UK, Saturday -  paid full whack but it looks worth it.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: No. Fourteen on June 26, 2006, 06:17:50 AM
There was a nice little review for the book in the Boston Globe Ideas (literature) section yesterday:

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2006/06/25/from_vibrations_to_visions/


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: runalot on July 09, 2006, 11:05:41 PM
OK... once and for all... WHEN is this book going to be released on shelves?? Anyone? (Last I heard on this thread was on July).

Damn. Seems like it's taking FOREVER.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on July 09, 2006, 11:41:18 PM
Been out in the UK for about  two, three weeks.  8)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: John Manning on July 10, 2006, 02:32:26 AM
Been out in the UK for about  two, three weeks.  8)

Have you read it yet AGD? Noticed it credits your own book - probably Peter's just covering his back  ;)

I liked it. Thought it probably the most readable of all the biogs to date.  Also like the slightly different slant it takes presently Brian's difficulties over the years and wish Peter had quoted Peter Reum even more on that score. That, I feel, is one of the book's strengths.

Also found the book to be quit well balanced, despite coming from an author who's obviously very much a fan.

Now a favourite, alongside Kingsley's BBs Reader, LLVS, Leaf's Myth (which badly needs updating with no sycophantic smaltz please!) and the first edition of AGD's own which is small enough to smuggle into the smallest room for a secret read.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on July 10, 2006, 02:58:48 AM
I like it a lot and would recommend it to anyone from newbie to hard-core. Sure, there are factual nits to pick, but no BB book's ever going to be without those. A well-written, generally balanced view of Brian's life and work work. Easier to assimilate than Tim White's equally essential tome, and updates the last decade or so admirably. But don't listen to what i have to say - go buy it, and read it yourself. It's a book about Brian & The BB, ergo it's worthwhile... more than most.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on July 10, 2006, 03:22:28 PM
Buy.com says it's coming out 7/25/06.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: runalot on July 10, 2006, 07:40:33 PM
Thanks. Can't wait. They better have it at my local bookstores or I swear I'm gonna...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on July 10, 2006, 09:15:01 PM
Runalot: Dude, tell me about it. 'Cause if it's any consolation Rodale hasn't gotten me MY copies of the book yet. The UK publisher got me a few of their edition, but when it comes to the good ol' USA....everyone else has theirs (my agent; my editor; the publicist; their friends and relatives) but little ol me is still waiting.

Any day now, they say. Any day now.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on July 10, 2006, 11:19:39 PM
Peter something I am curious about is what you think of the other Beach Boys as it relates to Brian's story. Carl and Dennis especally?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: runalot on July 11, 2006, 12:22:33 AM
... it's time for me to meditate.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on July 11, 2006, 04:51:57 AM
Maybe I shoulda ordered my copy from Amazon UK...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Margarita on July 12, 2006, 07:29:11 AM
I had called my local Barnes & Noble on Monday to ask about your book.  The very helpful clerk took down my e-mail address and said that I would get notification when the book was available in the store.

Well, I got the following today:
Quote
Thank you for your order. Due to an unexpected delay, this part of your order is now scheduled to arrive 08/02/2006:
         1 copy of Catch a Wave: The Rise, Fall, and Redemption of the Beach Boys' Brian Wilson, 1594863202
         
If you need to change this order in any way, please call us at the phone number below and reference the order number above. If we do not hear from you, we will assume that you still want to purchase this merchandise and will notify you when it arrives. Please accept our apologies for the delay.

For the record, Borders told me that they had a release date of 7/10 in their computer, but the books had not yet arrived in the store and they had no idea when they would be in.

***sigh***


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: TV Forces on July 12, 2006, 08:39:47 AM
I've been waiting for this book since I first heard about it late last year.  So last weekend I ordered it from amazon.com.  ($10 cheaper then any book store would be.)  But now I got an e-mail saying it will ship in "1 to 3 weeks."  And I pre-ordered the thing!  They must have not received many copies.  I hope it comes soon!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on July 12, 2006, 09:35:11 AM
guys: I'm sorry about the delays. More sorry than you can imagine, because I myself don't really know what the solid dates actually are. See also my flailing around in the last few weeks on my blog at peteramescarlin.com.

But I did hear that books shipped a week or more ago. It could be that your local Borders -- and Amazon, for that matter -- will have copies before they're currently saying they are. It could also be that my Rodale sources are either misinformed or too optimistic. But the thing is out there, and headed your way. And thanks again for even caring.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Susan on July 12, 2006, 07:24:38 PM
My Amazon order still claims to be gonna ship this weekend, with an estimated delivery by Friday the 21st.  I will be folk festivaling through the weekend so i won't know exactly when it gets here, but i'm sure hoping it gets here soon!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on July 13, 2006, 12:48:50 PM
Hang in there, people - the wait is worth it.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: brother john on July 13, 2006, 08:59:49 PM
I got mine from the Gurdian bookshop online, and have had it for over a week! ::)

I think its great! The only thing that peed me off was that the GUardian advertised it with the excellent big BW face cover (the US edition, I now realise) and it arrived with the crappy and inferior UK cover (WTF are these publishing dudes thinking of??!!??)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: TV Forces on July 14, 2006, 08:08:12 AM
Amazon is messed up.  It's telling me:
Delivery estimate: July 14, 2006 - July 18, 2006

But today is the 14th and it's telling me it hasn't been shipped yet.
Plus today, the website changed the book from "Ships in 1-2 weeks"
to "Ships in 2-3 weeks."   Huh?

Also, it tells me another item I ordered should arrive around
TEN DAYS FROM NOW, but their own tracking link tells me it
arrived in my state yesterday afternoon.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: John Manning on July 14, 2006, 08:26:46 AM
HMV in Glasgow's Sauchiehall St has copies, at about £14.99, hidden away at the back of ground floor...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on July 14, 2006, 09:26:00 AM
Well guys, I don't know what to say about all that, except for that I had a drink with the exec editor of Rodale yesterday and he swore that all the books had shipped ten days ago, or so, and that they should be landing all around the country by now, though your results may vary depending on where you are, and so on.

And while I'm here, and in self-promotion mode, I'll point to a couple of recent reviews, one in this week's Entertainment Weekly (Pirates on the cover) and the next in next week's People (Vince and Jen on the cover). EW gave the book an 'A,' and People decreed four (out of four) stars.

Self-promotion is now officially over.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Smilin Ed H on July 14, 2006, 10:14:02 AM
Was there a Guardian review?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: punkinhead on July 14, 2006, 11:00:43 AM
perhaps i've missed the boat on this one, but what is the book going to cover? is there a link to somewhere i can see the chapter titles?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: brother john on July 14, 2006, 12:49:21 PM
perhaps i've missed the boat on this one, but what is the book going to cover? is there a link to somewhere i can see the chapter titles?

Its called 'Catch a Wave: The Rise, Fall and Redemption of the "Beach Boys" Brian Wilson', which should be something of a clue... Brian Wilson is the guy who wrote Smile... :)

I think its a great book (Peter!) and if I can find time I'd like to post a review here. I'd recommend anyone to buy it!


BJ



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: punkinhead on July 14, 2006, 10:17:32 PM
wo...when did capt obvious step in? just playin...i just wanted to know if it went into depth of different albums or skipped a lot or whatever


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: brother john on July 15, 2006, 11:06:10 AM
wo...when did capt obvious step in? just playin...i just wanted to know if it went into depth of different albums or skipped a lot or whatever

Sorry dude... I was just kinda taken aback by your question. Its a biography: if you like Brian Wilson, buy the book! Its better than one or two of the other recent BW-related publications, and its insight into, and empathy with Mr Wilson, is greater than any of the other books I'vre aread on the subject. :) ::) ^-^


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: TV Forces on July 15, 2006, 11:23:47 AM
Today I got an e-mail from amazon about the book, now saying:
Shipping estimate: July 14, 2006 - July 25, 2006
Delivery estimate: July 19, 2006 - August 2, 2006

But I don't put too much into that, because they are still
claiming next Friday is the earliest I'll get another book from
them that arrived yesterday.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on July 15, 2006, 12:40:25 PM
If TV Forces actually got an American copy of the book -- the big photo of Brian, witht he green, black and yellow flag design on the side -- I'm gonna drink even more beer tonight than I was already planning to drink.

And can I just say how sorry I am -- and probably even more aggrieved -- by this long game of delay and delay and delay? I don't really get it either, but all I can say now is that it looks like it's coming to an end and the actual book will actually exist in the actual world. And that will be a huge relief for me.

I'll also say that your ongoing interest in the book, despite all of the aforementioned, is hugely affirming for me. And I only hope the book comes close to living up to your expectations.



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Rerun on July 15, 2006, 12:57:21 PM
I saw Entertainment Weekly gave the book an "A."


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Susan on July 15, 2006, 02:25:42 PM
My morning email from Amazon put the book's ship date off until 30 July...just increasing the anticipation, i guess!!

Peter, i'm sure none of us will be disappointed.  And it's not your apology to make - it's not YOUR fault the darned thing isn't shipping on time! 

Drink all the beer you want...
;-)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on July 15, 2006, 03:07:37 PM
... but all I can say now is that it looks like it's coming to an end and the actual book will actually exist in the actual world.

It already does... on this side of the Atlantic.

 :woot


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Margarita on July 15, 2006, 03:37:00 PM
AGD, you know I luv ya like crazy, but if you tell us one more time how the UK already has the book, I'm gonna...I'm gonna...do something.  I swear.  Really.  As soon as I think of something to do...  ::)

Peter, I hope that whoever is responsible for the delay in stores getting the book is beaten firmly with a rake.  Your book is getting great reviews--my mother just called to tell me that it got 4 stars in People--and it's not good for folks to seek out the book only to not find it. 

Of course, this is the Beach Boys were talking about here...what would any kind of related release be without some type of delay, confusion, conflicting info, etc. 
Come to think of it, speaking of AGD, I think we went through the same hassle of not being able to find the updated version of his book.  I happened to find it in Borders one day, while Amazon still insisted that it wasn't available!

Whenever it comes out, it will be worth it.  And it will be great if I get it in time to read on my next vacation, starting August 11th!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: TV Forces on July 15, 2006, 07:00:22 PM
i'm sorry if i somehow gave off the impression that i received the book already.
i haven't.

and i reread my post and i'm still not sure how someone came to that conclusion.
i still anxiously await it.

amazon seems to have changed the release date to the 28th or so.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: aeijtzsche on July 15, 2006, 09:24:12 PM
I've been to at least 5-10 bookstores in the Hollywood/Beverly Hills area, and nothing so far, last night we asked a Barnes and Noble what they had as far as info, and the guy pulled up the info and right away said "Whoa, something weird is going on with this book." 


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Susan on July 15, 2006, 10:18:17 PM
Well geez, Josh - did he say anything else?  Like...what was weird?  Or when they might get it?  You've only told us half the story!  Waaaaaaaaaaa!!!  :-(


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: I. Spaceman on July 15, 2006, 10:28:10 PM
I've been to at least 5-10 bookstores in the Hollywood/Beverly Hills area, and nothing so far, last night we asked a Barnes and Noble what they had as far as info, and the guy pulled up the info and right away said "Whoa, something weird is going on with this book." 

Not exactly a good sign, is it?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: aeijtzsche on July 15, 2006, 10:59:07 PM
It was something like, they had ordered 16, but the allocation was not available due to limited supplies, the pub. date was still listed as late July, but the book had already been shipped?  In any case, no, not a good sign when the first thing the bookstore employee says "this is weird."


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Susan on July 16, 2006, 12:25:53 AM
Phooey.  I guess we'll all be glad when it finally shows up in real life.  Thanks, H.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on July 16, 2006, 03:10:05 AM
Hey, there's some really good stuff on page... why are you all looking at me like that.

And what's with the baseball bats ?  :o


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on July 16, 2006, 03:59:35 AM
It was something like, they had ordered 16, but the allocation was not available due to limited supplies, the pub. date was still listed as late July, but the book had already been shipped?  In any case, no, not a good sign when the first thing the bookstore employee says "this is weird."

Bit like the doctor holding your x-ray up to the light and going "hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...".


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Malc on July 16, 2006, 06:47:20 AM
Not that I'm gloating over here with AGD you understand ... but the first shop I tried over here in the UK had it nestled nicely on the shelf (albeit in completely the wrong place !) ... and I'd worked my way though it within a 48-hour period. I loved the book - and despite a few raised eyebrows on my behalf ("All Summer Long" released in 1965 ?) I rate it right up there as one of the VERY BEST in my collection.
A fascintaing insight, covering areas not realy looked at in too much depth before ... and maybe we see a little more of the real Carl within the pages aswell.
EXCELLENT JOB Peter ... now here's hoping that Jon Stebbins book on David Marks hits the shelves in the very near future aswell !


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Margarita on July 19, 2006, 12:17:15 PM
I have been checking bordersstores.com every day...the site allows you to list up to six stores; when you look up an item, a little box will indicate the availability of the item at the stores on your list.  So I checked today, and it is showing availability at 4 out of the 6 stores on my list.  I put in a hold request for the closest store; I won't be able to go there until later this evening.  So check your local Borders...they may very well have it!

ETA: don't get too happy.  The store that I had sent the hold request to didn't have it after all.  However, another store did have it and is holding a copy.
I think it's probably better to call the store directly than to go the on-line route, since then you'll know right away what the deal is.
BTW, I also checked with the local Barnes & Noble...they offered to order it for me and said I should have it in 2-3 weeks.  No thanks!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: maxfrost on July 19, 2006, 08:20:50 PM
Hey!  Just wanted to let everyone know that the Borders in Providence RI had a stack of 'em for sale today. Pick up my copy this evening and am already loving it.   


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on July 20, 2006, 07:55:08 AM
To Max: Sfx: The Hallelujah Chorus.

In a related note, this Sunday's New York Times Book Review has a fairly substantial piece on the book, too. A review by Bruce Handy which is fairly positive, and says some nice things. But also some lengthy ruminations on a bunch of other topics. Also he says something he intends to be critical ("Greil Marcus would be proud") that made me feel really happy. So go figure.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: TV Forces on July 20, 2006, 12:51:29 PM
Still waiting on my Amazon.com order.
They are saying July 25th is the new release date.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on July 20, 2006, 06:35:27 PM
Got my copy today at Borders in Lawrence, KS. They had one in the backroom.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Vega-Table Man on July 21, 2006, 05:40:37 AM
I gave up on Amazon and cancelled my order there, but I do now have a copy on the way from an eBay book dealer. I got the shipping notice this morning. Can't wait to start reading this one!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dr. Tim on July 21, 2006, 02:41:06 PM
Got mine today, at least the Borders stores in NJ seem to have it.  Just getting started going through it at lunch. So far it's a very good quick read, solid reportage, scrupulously sympathetic to all concerned without any whitewash or fan-based sucking up.   So here's another testimonial for you.   (EDIT:)  Now halfway through, up to the Smile fallout.  All I said still goes.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: aeijtzsche on July 21, 2006, 05:38:06 PM
There are copies showing up in LA bookstores now.  Looks like the proliferation has begun...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on July 21, 2006, 05:40:42 PM
Hey, there's some really good stuff on page... why are you all looking at me like that.

And what's with the baseball bats ?  :o


Baseballs on....baseball's on...baseball's ON....BASEBALL'S ON!!!!  :lol


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on July 21, 2006, 08:16:00 PM
proliferation? I sort of like the sound of that. No matter how sinister...



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: runalot on July 21, 2006, 11:04:40 PM
Got your book.

Maharishi gave it to me. And i wonder if it set me free. And it did... And he'll tell you "sometimes it goes real fast and other times it goes
Real slow... Any way you do it it's bound to work i know...

j/k

I'm hoping this sunday when I do some bookstore-hopping.



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: TV Forces on July 22, 2006, 05:19:21 PM
I got an e-mail from Amazon that they shipped out my copy today!

FINALLY!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: runalot on July 22, 2006, 08:18:09 PM
Finally got mine today from B&N =)



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: aeijtzsche on July 22, 2006, 09:28:58 PM
OK, read it in two sittings.

I think it's strength is in it's balanced, nuanced portrayal of everybody.  There is no villainization, only frank honesty and rather unjudgemental examinations of everybody.  In particular, Peter does a wonderful job of presenting Murry as he really was.

No shocking new twists, but I think this book is the best contextualization of the Beach Boys saga.  I would have liked to have seen more Mike, Al, and Carl, but hopefully those guys will get their own bios one of these days...



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: SMiLEY on July 23, 2006, 04:52:11 AM
It got a very good review in today's NYT book reviews!!!

Congratulations!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jon Stebbins on July 23, 2006, 10:14:01 AM
I guess since everybody else is weighing in I can now too. I read Peter's book more than a month ago. I must say on balance I found it to be very compelling reading. The detail freak in me was very disappointed in the amount of factual errors and chronological details that are in there. Especially in the early years. Too many of the old wrong facts and myths got presented here again. For some reason the BB's history hasn't had the same meticulous care directed at these elements as say the Beatles, Dylan or the Stones. I don't know why, but that's certainly the case. I was also feeling that Peter missed explaining the pure phenomenon of the early Beach Boys and how much Dennis' image had to do with their massive popularity at the beginning. I'm talking record sales and concert attendance due to his enormous teen-girl fan base...which was definitely the BB's most loyal. He got more fan mail than the others combined in '64 -'66. I don't think this is ever truly acknowledged... which puts the context of their early popularity onto shaky ground right from the start of the book.

The good news is it evolves into a great book after that. The middle years(Pet Sounds through Smile) is the best thing I've ever read on the period. He totally got it right. From there it reveals many details and insights about Brian and the BB's that I didn't know, or that hadn't been written about. Peter's writing is truly excellent throughout. After being annoyed and rolling my eyes alot through the first 50 pages, I was completely riveted from 1966 on. I think the one thing other than early details that grated on me, was that on balance Dennis comes off as a creepier person than I found him to be while researching my book on him in '97 to 2000. No doubt there are many creepy elements to Dennis, and one could fill a few chapters with them if turned loose, but there's also volumes of why he was wonderful, kind, generous, loyal, brave, and in many ways selfless. I didn't get this sense of balance between the two Dennis'. Just the creepy one. But the Brian that is painted by Peter must be the closest thing to "real" I've ever read. One pass through this book seemed to bring me closer to Brian than I've ever been. And its a complex place to be.

I've been holding back on commenting on Peter's book because I wanted to see what other people were saying first. I think I'm too familiar with the subject to be anything close to an objective reviewer. But my assessment was... I hugely enjoyed reading it, although I wish it had better fact checking. It was a much darker book than I expected...but also a more honest book than I expected. Most people won't notice or care about the jumbled details and they'll just enjoy what's good about it. Peter is a talented writer and he created something that entertains and informs, plus something that has its own unique style and point of view. Congrats to him on making it happen.   


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on July 23, 2006, 12:45:06 PM
So for those of you who have gotten Peter's book and have read it, I have a question:

When my copy finally arrives (assuming it does--bloody Buy.com still hasn't shipped it!), will there be any reason to also get a copy of the Stephen Gaines book, "Heroes and Villains"?

Has Peter written the definitive book on this subject, or does the Gaines book fill in a lot of gaps not covered by Peter?

Thanks!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on July 23, 2006, 02:02:06 PM
Hi guys: First of all, thanks to everyone for checking out the book, and reading it, and responding. That's as good as it gets for a writer, and I appreciate it more than you guys may know. So thanks.

I'm a little puzzled by Jon's references to my many factual errors, however. The Dennis stuff is a matter of interpretation, and so on, and while I'm surprised to think he sounded creepy (I think he was a good-hearted, brilliantly talented, very troubled man) I'm not going to get into that. And while I know I made a few gaffes here and there with details, I'm a little surprised to hear that the first part of the book is riddled with them. A lot of that material came straight out of the mouths of the people who actually lived the story -- Brian, Mike, Al, Dave, various  neighbors, friends, collaborators and so on. I talked to dozens of those people. Certainly, memories varied, and there were times I had to make a judgment call about what the actual truth seemed to be. So as ever, the "Rashomon" rule (everyone has their own version of what happened) seems to hold sway.

My main objective writing the book was always to tell Brian's story, and to explain the significance of his achievements both to pop music and to the larger context of American popular culture. Obviously I worked hard to get the details right -- and I think it's safe to say that the vast, vast majority of the details are correct -- but just as obviously, some mistakes slipped through. But it's the music, and its larger meaning, that matters the most to me.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bill Tobelman on July 24, 2006, 12:06:28 PM
Hi Peter, I had the chance to check out your book at a bookstore this past weekend. It looks great and reads very well. I'm going to order a copy later this week.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Rerun on July 24, 2006, 02:54:13 PM
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/commentary/0,6115,1217918_7_0_,00.html



Haven't had a chance to pick it up yet...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: petsite on July 24, 2006, 04:51:27 PM
Just got Peter's book today and I think it is fan-f'in'-tastic. I don't understand people's complaints about errors (both factual and timeline wise). Some have even said to me through e-mails that we already know everything Peter talks about. SO freakin' what????

I am a HUGE history buff. I must own 20-30 books on the Titanic, from it's sinking to it's discovery. Friends who don't understand my obsession with history say "Ship hit's an iceberg, ships sinks, 1500 people killed, 750 survive. How many different ways can you say this?"

ALOT! I know the survivor's stories. I know the stories of those whose family member's didn't survive, etc. Same with the BW/BB story. You know XYZ happened. You may know how X & Y feel about it. But along comes another book and he or she finds out how Z feels about it and maybe how it affected everyone involved. I am also extremly anal with facts concerning the BB. Bob Hanes will call and ask a question because I have this "affliction" for details. And every book and article written has some errors. EVERY SINGLE ONE! It is the number of them that makes or breaks the trust  of  the author in (at least this) reader's eyes.  And Peter's book is better than most with the facts.

And besides, what a GREAT READ! My hats off to Mr. Carlin!

Bob Flory


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Charles LePage @ ComicList on July 24, 2006, 05:42:18 PM
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/commentary/0,6115,1217918_7_0_,00.html



Haven't had a chance to pick it up yet...

Don't feel bad, neither have I.  But soon, I will have it!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: JRauch on July 25, 2006, 09:19:20 AM
Ordered your book today, and I´m really looking forward to it. I haven´t read any other BB-book yet, but judging from the reviews, this one looks "essential".


P.S. They said it will be delivered in about 7 - 15 days.  ::) Can´t wait til the bottle crossed the ocean.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bubba Ho-Tep on July 25, 2006, 01:05:32 PM
Saw the book in Borders today (along with, for the first time anywhere, the GV single!) but couldn't buy since I'm still waiting for Amazon to get the lead out.

RRRRRRR.... >:(


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on July 25, 2006, 04:48:49 PM
I bought it at Barnes and Noble today.

I'll cancel my order at Buy.com.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Zander on July 26, 2006, 08:55:50 AM

When my copy finally arrives (assuming it does--bloody Buy.com still hasn't shipped it!), will there be any reason to also get a copy of the Stephen Gaines book, "Heroes and Villains"?


Yes! It's a throughly good read and though it is a little dated and a little National Enquirer-esq, it is one of the best books. Especially the first two chapters on Dennis. It was the first book I bought on the Boys and I still go back and read it once in while!

Go to www.beachboys.com for a full review!  ;D


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on July 26, 2006, 07:20:12 PM

When my copy finally arrives (assuming it does--bloody Buy.com still hasn't shipped it!), will there be any reason to also get a copy of the Stephen Gaines book, "Heroes and Villains"?


Yes! It's a throughly good read and though it is a little dated and a little National Enquirer-esq, it is one of the best books. Especially the first two chapters on Dennis. It was the first book I bought on the Boys and I still go back and read it once in while!

Go to www.beachboys.com for a full review!  ;D

Thanks!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on July 26, 2006, 07:28:37 PM
Mr. Carlin--

I was flipping through your book last night and ended up reading the section on the Surf's Up album and the work that went into completing the title track.

You wrote that the second half of the 1971 version of the song, the part with Brian on lead vocals, was culled from the "Inside Pop" TV special from 1966.  But I've read accounts that state this wasn't the case--that the 1966 recording of Brian playing the song on piano (the full version of which appeared on the Good Vibrations box set) was actually recorded AFTER the TV special was filmed.  That seems right to my ears--the Inside Pop performance, which I've seen via the "American Band" documentary, doesn't sound like the same performance as the one included in the box set.

Am I missing something here?

Thanks!




Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: TV Forces on July 26, 2006, 07:55:49 PM
I finally got my copy from Amazon today, I'm happy to report.

Time to dig in!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: TV Forces on July 26, 2006, 09:31:21 PM
I just breezed through the first 52 pages, which makes up the first three chapters.  So far it's very entertaining and I'm just lovin' it.  Thank you Peter.  I thought I knew it all, and learned some new things.  I like how fast it's moving..  in Tim White's "The Nearest Faraway Place," Brian isn't even born until about page 170 or so.   

My only gripe so far is the glaring omission of Mike Love's contribution to the Beach Boys through co-writing with Brian.  Peter talks about Gary Usher and Roger Christian..  but no mention at all of Mike helping out.  Now I'm not a Mike fan at all..  but all he gets (so far) is how he shared writing credits with Brian on "Surfin'" and helped Brian with the lyrics of "Don't Back Down."  Heck, Peter talks more about Bruce Springsteen then Mike assisting Brian with songs.. no mention of helping with "Warmth of the Sun" or anything.

Other than that, this book is awesome.  I didn't know the band auditioned for Al Jardine's mom for extra money to rent instruments when the Wilsons were out of town.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: aeijtzsche on July 26, 2006, 09:32:10 PM
Mr. Carlin--

I was flipping through your book last night and ended up reading the section on the Surf's Up album and the work that went into completing the title track.

You wrote that the second half of the 1971 version of the song, the part with Brian on lead vocals, was culled from the "Inside Pop" TV special from 1966.  But I've read accounts that state this wasn't the case--that the 1966 recording of Brian playing the song on piano (the full version of which appeared on the Good Vibrations box set) was actually recorded AFTER the TV special was filmed.  That seems right to my ears--the Inside Pop performance, which I've seen via the "American Band" documentary, doesn't sound like the same performance as the one included in the box set.

Am I missing something here?

Thanks!


Both the performance that appeared on air and the studio recording were recorded "for" inside pop.  That is to say, Brian recorded the CBS piano/double-tracked vocal that Steve and Carl used for the Surf's Up LP under the "guise" of the TV special.  However, there are some who think that was simultaneously an experiment to see if Brian could go solo.

But no, the performance that ended up airing is not the performance that was commited to tape and brought in as part 2 of Surf's Up in 71.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on July 26, 2006, 09:46:53 PM
Okay guys, let me to try to figure this out.

Regarding "Surf's Up" : I'll defer to Aeijtzsche on that one....if only because I may have goofed up what I wrote. I think I knew that the version on the record was not the version on the tv special. But if it didn't come out that way in print, I blew it somehow. Sorry about that.

Regarding Mike: Read on, man. I give MIke all credit for 'TWOTS," and the other great lyrics he contributed. Just as he give him full credit for the stuff he was involved in that was less great. Lawsuits, and so forth.

And can I just add that I'm thrilled you guys are reading the book, and responding to it, and etc?  And I'm pre-emptively sorry for whatever other mistakes are in there?



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on July 27, 2006, 03:23:26 AM
However, there are some who think that was simultaneously an experiment to see if Brian could go solo.

I guess some forgot about "Caroline, No" earlier in that year.  :p


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: TV Forces on July 27, 2006, 05:09:29 AM
No mention of the Today album?  Brian's first masterpiece?
Unreal.

I can't wait until my work day is done so I can go home and read some more.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: No. Fourteen on July 27, 2006, 06:18:53 AM
Mr Carlin,

I'm 70 pages into the book, and really enjoying it.  Thanks so much.  I'm curious about your pages on the infamous "Rhonda" session.  There are a few details that you describe that compelled me to pull out the tape and listen again.  Without spoiling anything, I had never picked up on the Loren-related stuff that occurs, but sure enough there it is.  Did you piece together the events just by reviewing the recording, or did you get specific recollections through your interviews regarding that session? 

Again, thanks very much!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: donald on July 27, 2006, 06:28:31 AM
Bought it at Borders yesterday, apparently they've had it for a while.

Although I ordinarily have some restraint and try to read a book through without skipping around, I just could  not do that with this one.  Guess I was eager for some kind of revelation, something I didn't know.   And I found some interesting passages, new twists on the old story here and there.

I have to say it is generaly a good  read and well crafted.

And Peter, I had been wondering how you managed to get to a place where you could get those interviews and have access to archives and anecdotes yet unpublished.  I didn't know you were an established writer and journalist who had already written about the band.

You did a great job for someone whose interest in the band  came on the heels of the release of Endless Summer.

I'm looking forward to sitting back this weekend for a couple of hours and really digging into the book.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: TV Forces on July 27, 2006, 08:34:06 AM
Hi Peter.. another question..   

During the part on the Rhonda section, you mention Lorren..  but a few pages later, Lorren says he met Brian through Tony Asher.. who Brian didn't meet until later that year.

You were write to point out later, the contradiction between Lorren's and Brian's stories on his early drug use.. though most of the time I'll tend to believe anyone but Brian because of how often he changes his story or says something we all know to be false.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: jlaird on July 27, 2006, 09:41:39 AM
Just got it yesterday, I'm really excited as this book looks like it's going to be fantastic!!!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on July 27, 2006, 11:28:31 AM
Hi TV: The assertion that Loren met Brian through Tony comes directly from Loren. I figured he was the best resource on that, so there it is. And I think Brian had met and chatted briefly with Tony at Western months before they actually sat down and started working together. So maybe that's the confusion?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: TV Forces on July 27, 2006, 12:25:02 PM
Lorren is a pretty shady dude..   but I can already tell this is one of those books where I'm going to hope it never ends.  The brief run through of Wilson family history was a lot more entertaining and memorable then Tim White's 100 page account of the lives of Brian's great great great great great great great great grandpa.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dave in KC on July 27, 2006, 02:32:05 PM
Peter, just into the first chapter today and love it. But on another topic, what did you do to get Bill O'reilly mad at you today? He said some nasty stuff about you on his radio program.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on July 27, 2006, 05:11:34 PM
Hi Dave: It's my dayjob. I'm a tv critic, and wrote a piece about Fox News (pegged to a press conference I attended here in L.A., a long story) that noted, in passing, that O'Reilly will on occasion make personal attacks on people. That made him angry, so now he's apparently callling me names (which he actually did another time a few years ago).

But I hadn't heard this time around. What'd he say?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Wilsonista on July 27, 2006, 05:19:13 PM
Just writing my new favorite book on Brian Wilson would have been enough to make you my new hero. But inciting the ire of  Bill O'Rielly?  That elevates you to sainthood! :rock


I bet Bill's too chickenshit to have you on his show.  :)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on July 27, 2006, 06:34:21 PM
I dunno. Seems weird to me that he would defend himself against my observation about his making personal attacks by launching a personal attack against me. I mean....cognitive dissonance.

I don't like it when Keith Olbermann does it, either, btw. He was goofing with an O'Reilly mask here the other day, and did a Nazi salute. Not funny, by my estimation. Like, it's so easy to rip on O'Reilly. And that's the best you can come up with?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: busy doin nothin on July 27, 2006, 07:01:37 PM
I got the book in my local Borders today.  It seems like an excellent, very thoroughly written work and I very much look forward to settling down to read it.  I was very annoyed, however, to read how much some later BB albums -- especially M.I.U. -- were trashed in the book.  For the life of me I cannot understand why a biographer would be so dismissive of his subject's work (especially given that Brian contributed, or co-contributed, 8 songs to MIU).  Believe it or not, there are a number of BW/BB fans who really love MIU (myself included).  Just check out the MIU review thread on this site and you'll find out.

I've seen this phenomenon in a number of biographies -- for example, Matthew Bruccoli dismissing many of F. Scott Fitzgerald's short stories, Joseph McBride trashing 1941, Always, and Hook (three of my favorite Spielberg movies).  If you're going to write a book about someone, certainly you should say if their work flopped (as MIU did).  But why write a lengthy screed about how crappy it is?

That complaint aside, as I said, I look forward to the book and based on my perusal so far it appears to be very well-researched and written.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Charles LePage @ ComicList on July 27, 2006, 07:09:28 PM
I don't like it when Keith Olbermann does it, either, btw. He was goofing with an O'Reilly mask here the other day, and did a Nazi salute. Not funny, by my estimation. Like, it's so easy to rip on O'Reilly. And that's the best you can come up with?

http://newsbusters.org/node/6605

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/565.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/living/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/living/115386991813780.xml&coll=7


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on July 27, 2006, 07:14:00 PM
Yeah, see.

This is all tempest in a teapot type stuff, and I'd just as soon be talking about Brian or finding more errors in my book, or having some kind of painful medical procedure performed. I mean, honestly.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on July 28, 2006, 02:32:42 AM
For the life of me I cannot understand why a biographer would be so dismissive of his subject's work (especially given that Brian contributed, or co-contributed, 8 songs to MIU).  Believe it or not, there are a number of BW/BB fans who really love MIU (myself included).  Just check out the MIU review thread on this site and you'll find out.

I've seen this phenomenon in a number of biographies -- for example, Matthew Bruccoli dismissing many of F. Scott Fitzgerald's short stories, Joseph McBride trashing 1941, Always, and Hook (three of my favorite Spielberg movies).  If you're going to write a book about someone, certainly you should say if their work flopped (as MIU did).  But why write a lengthy screed about how crappy it is?

It's called having a critical perspective.  In the whole BB canon, MIU is firmly in the basement, due in no small part to the fact that Brian was a most unwilling participant, and at the top of another slippery slope down. A biography that says everything an artist does is wonderful isn't a biography, it's a hagiography.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Charles LePage @ ComicList on July 28, 2006, 02:38:19 AM
Yeah, see.

This is all tempest in a teapot type stuff, and I'd just as soon be talking about Brian or finding more errors in my book, or having some kind of painful medical procedure performed. I mean, honestly.

Understood!  It just caught my interest, as I had no idea what you did when you weren't a BB author.  I guess I need to get off my butt and get the book!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: TV Forces on July 28, 2006, 04:50:27 AM
I happen to like Bill O'Reilly.  He's done a lot of good.  I know there are people out there that hate the fact that there is a show that shows both sides of a story and let's the audience decide for themselves..  but I'm not one of them.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: donald on July 28, 2006, 06:57:58 AM
Strangely enough, liberal as I am about so many things, I find myself agreeing with O'Reilly on a number of issues.

I worry.  Am I a closet nazi or does he actually have a degree of common sense about some things?

I can't  STAND Rush Limbaugh.   Nor that smug Kerry bashing bastard Joe Scab brow on msnbc.

I maybe should take this to another thread?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Charles LePage @ ComicList on July 28, 2006, 07:07:40 AM
I maybe should take this to another thread?

Please?  :)  It would be good Sandbox stuff, but I think here Peter wants to talk about his BB work.  IMO, of course.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bicyclerider on July 28, 2006, 08:29:05 AM
My book, on order (pre publication) from Amazon, still hasn't arrived - but I think there's a difference between a critical biography, say, written by a music critic, and a literary biography, which would be more objective and interject less of the author's opinions and stick more or less to facts.  Most biographies of musical figures tend to be critical biographies, and therefore you always have to take the opinions expressed with a grain of salt, as you - and many other critics/fans - might disagree with the opinions expressed.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dr. Tim on July 28, 2006, 08:35:03 AM
Back on topic (sort of):   Hey Peter -  the appearance you describe on A Current Affair some years ago in the book, wasn't the interviewer ---  Bill O'Reilly?

For the rest of you: He hosted the show for a couple years before the 24-hour Fox News thing got up and running.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on July 28, 2006, 09:46:56 AM
I don't remember who the 'current affair' interviewer was. I just recall Mike sitting on a balcony somewhere becoming severely choked up because Landy wouldn't allow him to write more hit songs with his cousin. It was very sweet.

Mega-dittos on the critical biography thing. There's just no way i'm going to write about 'MIU' as if it deserved a place in the canon alongside 'Pet Sounds.' I wouldn't expect anyone to agree with me 100 percent of the time. If only because my opinions change from time to time. But that's the joy of writing a subjective book about works of art. I have my say, and you can either agree or use my argument as exhibit 'a' in your argument to the contrary.  'Cause by now you'd have realized how wrong I am about so many things.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: sailonsailor on July 28, 2006, 11:08:19 AM
The only positive thing I'd say about MIU is that I do believe PITTER PATTER is an underrated song. A really good beat, as they used to say on American Bandstand. Mr. Carlin, enjoyed your book. I thought you did a great job on getting a perspective of Brian's mindset from PS to LOVE YOU, and pointing out that pre-Landy he wasn't quite as damaged as advertised and did what he wanted to, somewhat. Oh, and kudos for scoring a blurb kudo from Sarah Vowell. I love her.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: HeyJude on July 28, 2006, 11:17:33 AM

It's called having a critical perspective.  In the whole BB canon, MIU is firmly in the basement, due in no small part to the fact that Brian was a most unwilling participant, and at the top of another slippery slope down. A biography that says everything an artist does is wonderful isn't a biography, it's a hagiography.

I agree that whatever critical perspective an author takes is better than no critical perspective. I haven't yet read the book, so I can't pass judgement either way on the book. But I think it is worth pointing out that "MIU" seems to often be the pick for worst BB album, yet when some fans actually step back and pick apart other albums like "15 Big Ones" or "KTSA" song-by-song, they start to find that those albums are as wonky if not moreso. I find "15 Big Ones" to be markedly worse than "MIU." Of course, I don't need to explain this to AGD, who literally wrote the book on picking the albums apart song by song! :) Of course, I can't fathom how one could find "Looking Back With Love" to be any stronger than "MIU", but there's that critical perspective thing! :)

I would find a ringing endorsement of "MIU" as he the second coming if "Pet Sounds" to be rather troublesome, but at the same time I would say it's about as easy to rip into "MIU" or pretty much any post-1976 BB album as it is to rip into the dreaded O'Reilly.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: HeyJude on July 28, 2006, 11:24:51 AM
I don't remember who the 'current affair' interviewer was. I just recall Mike sitting on a balcony somewhere becoming severely choked up because Landy wouldn't allow him to write more hit songs with his cousin. It was very sweet.

I was recently going through a whole bunch of TV reports, etc. about the BB's, and came across that "A Current Affair" report. I don't think the interviewer was O'Reilly (didn't he host one of the other tabloid shows, like "Inside Edition"?). In fact, they never actually show the interviewer. I have two different versions of the report, and each version has a different person (whoever was hosting the show on that day) narrating the segement. Interestingly, both versions have the exact same footage and narration. One version is narrated by Maury Povich and is presented as a segment simply on the whole Brian/Landy conservatorship thing, while the other version is the exact same piece narrated by a female anchor and, because of the recent popularity of Wilson Philips at the time, is presented as a story about how "two members of the hit group Wilson Philips are dealing with turmoil in their family" or some such sensationalist tag.

I too found the footage of Mike tearing up (talking about how his first memory of Brian is Brian singing "Danny Boy" when he was a young boy) to finally show some humility and a softer side of Mike. Of course, my feelings were quickly washed away when the next TV clips I watched consisted of footage of Mike Love at a 1988 presidential rally singing literally "I'm picking up Bush Vibrations", followed by a segment featuring Mike on "The Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous." :)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: HeyJude on July 28, 2006, 11:32:17 AM
I happen to like Bill O'Reilly.  He's done a lot of good.  I know there are people out there that hate the fact that there is a show that shows both sides of a story and let's the audience decide for themselves..  but I'm not one of them.

I'm not one of them either. But what does that sort of show have to do with O'Reilly? Okay, I know, this sort of debate shouldn't take over the board. BB content: Mike Love has, in the past 9 months or so and apparently somewhat regularly, appeared on TV shows of two of the biggest loads I can think of, O'Reilly and Imus. I've just heard a rumor the long-awaited Beach Boys reunion will take place on "Hannity and Colmes." :)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: busy doin nothin on July 28, 2006, 12:42:15 PM
For the life of me I cannot understand why a biographer would be so dismissive of his subject's work (especially given that Brian contributed, or co-contributed, 8 songs to MIU).  Believe it or not, there are a number of BW/BB fans who really love MIU (myself included).  Just check out the MIU review thread on this site and you'll find out.

I've seen this phenomenon in a number of biographies -- for example, Matthew Bruccoli dismissing many of F. Scott Fitzgerald's short stories, Joseph McBride trashing 1941, Always, and Hook (three of my favorite Spielberg movies).  If you're going to write a book about someone, certainly you should say if their work flopped (as MIU did).  But why write a lengthy screed about how crappy it is?

It's called having a critical perspective.  In the whole BB canon, MIU is firmly in the basement, due in no small part to the fact that Brian was a most unwilling participant, and at the top of another slippery slope down. A biography that says everything an artist does is wonderful isn't a biography, it's a hagiography.

Mega-dittos on the critical biography thing. There's just no way i'm going to write about 'MIU' as if it deserved a place in the canon alongside 'Pet Sounds.' I wouldn't expect anyone to agree with me 100 percent of the time. If only because my opinions change from time to time. But that's the joy of writing a subjective book about works of art. I have my say, and you can either agree or use my argument as exhibit 'a' in your argument to the contrary. 'Cause by now you'd have realized how wrong I am about so many things.

A couple of thoughts.

I am not in any way suggesting that if Peter doesn't like the album he should still praise it, or that he should say everything Brian or the Beach Boys did is wonderful.  The biography should (indeed must) report that MIU was a critical and commercial flop.  And it also should report the internal band problems that accompanied its recording.

But Peter goes far beyond that.  In fact, he goes beyond saying that MIU is the worst album in the Beach Boys canon.  He in effect says (I don't have the exact quote handy) that it may be the worst album ever released by a major artist.

Now of course Peter has a right to this opinion, although I find it hard to believe he really thinks that way.  Or if he does, I question whether he truly loves the work of Brian Wilson.  Because the inclusion of My Diane, by itself, on MIU -- as honest and soul-wrenching a song as Brian ever wrote -- means that any true Brianista could not consider it the worst album ever released by a major artist.  (I mean, how about Summer in Paradise, which features no Brian involvement whatsoever?)

Besides which, this opinion was not stated as being the result of Brian's (alleged) forced involvement in the project.  It was given without qualification, as a bottom line assessment of the finished product.

I don't read biographies of artists I admire (whether musicians, writers, filmmakers) to hear how crappy some of their work is.  I certainly want a true picture of the facts of the artist's life, negative as well as positive.  But the Beach Boys' post-Pet Sounds output has been so utterly neglected and forgotten in the public mind, the last thing we need is another biographer trashing it (as Leaf and Gaines did).  Imagine a budding Brian Wilson fan, who only knows the fun 'n' sun hits, reading Peter's book (which, admirably, does have a good deal of praise for Carl and the Passions, another neglected BB album).  Why would Peter want to turn this person off of MIU, make it so he (or she) won't even want to give the album a chance?  That person might just love it (as I do, and at least a few others on this site also do).

If you don't have anything nice to say (in terms of opinion), I think it's better not to say anything at all.



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on July 28, 2006, 03:00:28 PM
If you don't have anything nice to say (in terms of opinion), I think it's better not to say anything at all.

Stuff and nonsense - a big part of Brian's career problems of late have been that he's been surrounded by yes-people. As a case in point I cite the vocals on GIOMH: surely someone, at some point must have felt like pressing the talkback and saying "Brian, you know you can do that better. Take two."

But no-one did...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: HeyJude on July 28, 2006, 03:56:11 PM
If you don't have anything nice to say (in terms of opinion), I think it's better not to say anything at all.

Stuff and nonsense - a big part of Brian's career problems of late have been that he's been surrounded by yes-people. As a case in point I cite the vocals on GIOMH: surely someone, at some point must have felt like pressing the talkback and saying "Brian, you know you can do that better. Take two."

But no-one did...

Very true, and perhaps it has something to do with the adament placement on every BW release since 2000 of "Produced by Brian Wilson." If Brian is really producing the stuff himself, who is there to tell him "Take Two"? I suppose Darian if he's there or Mark Linett. But they aren't going to tell Brian "Hey Brian, that vocal sucked!" Supposedly, though, Darian did do that a bit with BWPS. But think about this: What if the vocals on GIOMH are the later vocal takes? Maybe the earlier takes were even worse? The worst travesty on GIOMH in my opinion was replacing Carl's bridge vocal on "Soul Searchin'", arguably Carl's best spot in the song, with Brian's strained, shouty vocal. Just release the Beach Boys version and be done with it!

I know fans loved seeing "Produced by Brian Wilson", especially instead of Steve Levine, or Terry Melcher, or Joe Thomas. I don't advocate for anybody to just take full control over an album of Brian's, but he could use a producer or co-producer if he's going to continue to make new music. I probably don't have a lot of fans in agreement with me, but I'd love to see Jeff Lynne produce an entire Brian album, and even write some of the material.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on July 28, 2006, 04:41:22 PM
My biggest problem with "MIU" is the cynicism. For the first time you can hear them straining to sound like themselves. Or some earlier, more successful version of themsleves. "I wanna go surfin' where I dig it the most, in Hawaii." Help me, Jesus. For one thing, none of those guys were surfing anywhere by 1978. For another, they didn't realize that literal surfing -- the sport -- had nothing to do with why people loved their earlier work. It was the way they sang about it. . . the risk, the beauty, the promise of transformation. It was the whole dream of the west, wrapped up in one spiffy youthful New Frontier image. Trying to re-claim that world as their own in '78 was just sad....particularly because the music beneath those words was so lame and pedestrian. And ripped off, in places, from their better songs (see also: 'Go to hawaii!' nicked from 'Hawaii,' and "When I Grow Up"'s '...won't last forever' at the end of the dismal, soupy, schlocky, 'Winds of Change.' I'm not even that big a fan of "My Diane," to tell the truth, 'cause the rhythm seems so lethargic and plodding. I know others disagree, and yes, it's nice to hear BW up there on the high falsetto, which he actually pulls off with emotion, etc. etc. I'll give it another spin.

But everyone makes crappy albums eventually, and I wouldn't be quite so harsh on this one except for the cynicism thing, which was not only bad enough in this context, but even worse when you realize (in retrospect) that it was just the start of a long and dismal era in which a band that had once set standards for musical adventure and spiritual derring-do was now in the business of cashing in on their own history.

I'm sorry if that sounds too harsh. I'm calling it like I see it.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: busy doin nothin on July 28, 2006, 06:07:42 PM
My biggest problem with "MIU" is the cynicism. For the first time you can hear them straining to sound like themselves. Or some earlier, more successful version of themsleves. "I wanna go surfin' where I dig it the most, in Hawaii." Help me, Jesus. For one thing, none of those guys were surfing anywhere by 1978. For another, they didn't realize that literal surfing -- the sport -- had nothing to do with why people loved their earlier work. It was the way they sang about it. . . the risk, the beauty, the promise of transformation. It was the whole dream of the west, wrapped up in one spiffy youthful New Frontier image. Trying to re-claim that world as their own in '78 was just sad....particularly because the music beneath those words was so lame and pedestrian. And ripped off, in places, from their better songs (see also: 'Go to hawaii!' nicked from 'Hawaii,' and "When I Grow Up"'s '...won't last forever' at the end of the dismal, soupy, schlocky, 'Winds of Change.' I'm not even that big a fan of "My Diane," to tell the truth, 'cause the rhythm seems so lethargic and plodding. I know others disagree, and yes, it's nice to hear BW up there on the high falsetto, which he actually pulls off with emotion, etc. etc. I'll give it another spin.

But everyone makes crappy albums eventually, and I wouldn't be quite so harsh on this one except for the cynicism thing, which was not only bad enough in this context, but even worse when you realize (in retrospect) that it was just the start of a long and dismal era in which a band that had once set standards for musical adventure and spiritual derring-do was now in the business of cashing in on their own history.

I'm sorry if that sounds too harsh. I'm calling it like I see it.

Peter -- I see what you are saying about cynicisim, but I don't really agree with it.  I think MIU was really the Al and Brian show, not the Mike Love show, and I don't see Al as a cynical person.  I honestly think Al was trying to produce a good, solid album when he (with Altbach) took the reins of MIU.  I don't believe he was cynically trying to recapture the earlier sound; I think he genuinely wanted to make a really good Beach Boys album.  I am perfectly willing to consider Mike cynical, and I'm sure he was, but I just don't think Mike was a driving force behind this album.  The way I see it, musically, the album is mostly Brian -- She's Got Rhythm, Hey Little Tomboy, Wontcha Come out Tonight, Sweet Sunday, My Diane, and Matchpoint all have BW fingerprints all over them musically, if not lyrically, and I believe he contributed significantly to Belles of Paris and Pitter Patter.  The first six songs I listed above there just blow me away, and I also happen to like BOP and PP.  This is still Brian Douglas Wilson we're talking about, back when he still had most of his powers left, and he was the driving force musically behind half the album.  I happen to like Kona Coast and Winds of Change, though I understand people who don't.  Frankly Al's two covers do the least for me on the album.

Whether you like the album or not is of course a matter of taste.  I was just troubled by how severely you savaged it in the book.  I do not consider any Beach Boys album until Still Cruisin to be cynical; even the '85 album has some truly magical moments, mostly courtesy of Brian, as you pretty much acknowledged in the book.

My point is, there are plenty of non-believers out there more than happy to savage everything the Boys did post 1966, and I hate for an otherwise thoughtful, sensitive portrait of Brian and the group to give those people fodder.  And I would hate for a young, would-be Brianista to be turned off their later stuff by the criticism of a Beach Boys expert (which is what David Leaf's writings did to me in my younger days).

If you don't have anything nice to say (in terms of opinion), I think it's better not to say anything at all.

Stuff and nonsense - a big part of Brian's career problems of late have been that he's been surrounded by yes-people. As a case in point I cite the vocals on GIOMH: surely someone, at some point must have felt like pressing the talkback and saying "Brian, you know you can do that better. Take two."

But no-one did...

Andrew -- I am not suggesting that no one should say no to Brian.  I personally agree with you 100% on GIOMH.  But if I were writing a bio of Brian I would not criticize GIOMH musically.  I just wouldn't want to publish negativity about his music.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Charles LePage @ ComicList on July 28, 2006, 06:25:11 PM
Stuff and nonsense - a big part of Brian's career problems of late have been that he's been surrounded by yes-people. As a case in point I cite the vocals on GIOMH: surely someone, at some point must have felt like pressing the talkback and saying "Brian, you know you can do that better. Take two."  But no-one did...

Fortunately, as I understand, Darian did for Brian's BWPS vocals.  Just the same, I don't think his vocals on GIOMH are bad, just not as good as they could have been in some cases.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on July 28, 2006, 06:45:02 PM
Agreed Chuck, as I personally think the vox on Orange Crate Art were worse, esp. the horrible abomination known as "Hold Back Time". Everytime that song plays, a kitten dies.

If you don't have anything nice to say (in terms of opinion), I think it's better not to say anything at all.

Stuff and nonsense - a big part of Brian's career problems of late have been that he's been surrounded by yes-people. As a case in point I cite the vocals on GIOMH: surely someone, at some point must have felt like pressing the talkback and saying "Brian, you know you can do that better. Take two."

Just what was the story behind the sessions? I know a bit from talking with you and others, but mainly on the end result, not on the sessions.

Quote
In the whole BB canon, MIU is firmly in the basement, due in no small part to the fact that Brian was a most unwilling participant, and at the top of another slippery slope down.

Ehhhh....worse than Still Cruisin or Summer in Paradise?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Charles LePage @ ComicList on July 28, 2006, 06:52:01 PM
I'm sorry if that sounds too harsh. I'm calling it like I see it.

I'm not much of a MIU fan either.  It's as close to a totally bad BB album as I've ever heard, though it's not, well, totally bad.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on July 28, 2006, 07:39:29 PM
I like about half of M.I.U. but I agree the quotes from earlier songs are dumb. Brian sings really good om these sessions though and in the film footage I saw he was having a really good time. I know outakes show him bored but performance wise he did a great job vocally that he would never again match. Again about half of it works and half doesn't but they don't sound cynical quite yet. I think the KTSA is a little more calculated, but from the 85 LP on I think The Beach Boys recorded maybe a half dozen songa that I like.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on July 28, 2006, 07:50:16 PM
[I'd love to see Jeff Lynne produce an entire Brian album, and even write some of the material.

You know as we are also Beatles fans we remember his work with George and I for one loved it. I think he and Brian should do something becaue I am one of the few people who really liked Let It Shine. I wonder why so many others didn't.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on July 28, 2006, 09:13:01 PM
Quote
if I were writing a bio of Brian I would not criticize GIOMH musically.  I just wouldn't want to publish negativity about his music.

Sounds like a pretty toothless bio to me.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: HeyJude on July 28, 2006, 10:06:45 PM
I'd love to see Jeff Lynne produce an entire Brian album, and even write some of the material.

You know as we are also Beatles fans we remember his work with George and I for one loved it. I think he and Brian should do something becaue I am one of the few people who really liked Let It Shine. I wonder why so many others didn't.
Quote

I know AGD has said in the past that back when the BW '88 came out, the word was that Brian "hated" "Let It Shine." Then again, supposedly it was at Brian's instigation that the song was added to his live setlist for a time in 2000.

"Let It Shine" does have a strong Lynne influence, as Lynne injected his sound into the backing track and Lynne supposedly wrote pretty much the whole song apart from the vocal intro. My take is simply that the song is one of the stronger songs on the album, and at the end of the day, I think the strongest songs on the album should be judged as such regardless of who wrote or produced it. "Let It Shine" is borderline Brian Wilson covering a Jeff Lynne song with Lynne producing, but it still sounds good.

Given that Brian, under the right circumstances, can still arrange and sing and stack his vocals well in the proper studio setting, I'm not at all opposed to another new Brian album where somebody like Jeff Lynne writes or co-writes some of the songs, even if some of the songs have little Brian input on the songwriting end; the songs just need to be good compositions. I don't know about other BW fans, but I for one will not freak out if a BW album comes out without a "Produced by Brian Wilson" tag or without Andy Paley or Van Dyke Parks or Steve Kalinich's name anywhere on the credits.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: HeyJude on July 28, 2006, 10:16:17 PM
My biggest problem with "MIU" is the cynicism. For the first time you can hear them straining to sound like themselves. Or some earlier, more successful version of themsleves. "I wanna go surfin' where I dig it the most, in Hawaii." Help me, Jesus. For one thing, none of those guys were surfing anywhere by 1978. For another, they didn't realize that literal surfing -- the sport -- had nothing to do with why people loved their earlier work. It was the way they sang about it. . . the risk, the beauty, the promise of transformation. It was the whole dream of the west, wrapped up in one spiffy youthful New Frontier image. Trying to re-claim that world as their own in '78 was just sad....particularly because the music beneath those words was so lame and pedestrian. And ripped off, in places, from their better songs (see also: 'Go to hawaii!' nicked from 'Hawaii,' and "When I Grow Up"'s '...won't last forever' at the end of the dismal, soupy, schlocky, 'Winds of Change.' I'm not even that big a fan of "My Diane," to tell the truth, 'cause the rhythm seems so lethargic and plodding. I know others disagree, and yes, it's nice to hear BW up there on the high falsetto, which he actually pulls off with emotion, etc. etc. I'll give it another spin.

But everyone makes crappy albums eventually, and I wouldn't be quite so harsh on this one except for the cynicism thing, which was not only bad enough in this context, but even worse when you realize (in retrospect) that it was just the start of a long and dismal era in which a band that had once set standards for musical adventure and spiritual derring-do was now in the business of cashing in on their own history.

I'm sorry if that sounds too harsh. I'm calling it like I see it.

I haven't read the your book yet, but I think you make good points here. My take is that it's just less clear exactly when the cynicism crept in. I would certainly say that the downturn for the group began before "MIU." I again point to "15 Big Ones" as perhaps even more disappointing than "MIU." The production on 15BO is horrible, the cover versions are largely a cop-out (at least "MIU" is largely original material) and generally not very good, and I wouldn't rate most of the originals on 15BO as particularly more inspiring than the MIU stuff.

So I guess my problem with saying MIU is the worst is not that the album is that great. It is one of their worst. I just feel there are several other albums in their catalog that are as weak if not weaker. As I said, I haven't read your book so I don't know how you characterize the project. But some fans I think overemphasize Al and Mike's input into the album and end up downplaying the fact that Brian, whatever his condition or attitude, was responsible for a good hunk of "MIU" both in terms of songwriting and recording.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on July 29, 2006, 12:54:48 AM
I like your thought here Hey Jude. Brian did do a lot on MIU and 15 Big Ones is a good comparison. MIU had better vocals and more originals but oddly I like 15 Big Ones better. I think it's because it the last album where The Beach Boys were all involved somewhat equally. Yes Dennis and Carl didn't write for it but they are at least playing and singing on I think every track. I also think the at least a half dozen songs are good. Susie is great (earlier of course), It's OK, Rock and Roll Music, Back Home, hat Same Sone, and Still of the Night are also tracks I enjoy. The rest is fairly bad but again my take on 15 Big ones is that it is the last time everyone was there and getting along half decently.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on July 29, 2006, 02:04:38 AM
Peter, I applaud you going directly to so many sources since it seems that many "bios" have not. I know the emphasis is on Brian but why, then, not more from the Boys' on Brian and events.

Love the beginning of the book when we hear from family/friends and, imo, is some of the fairest and deepest treatment of some of the players so far. 


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MusicLover1970 on July 29, 2006, 03:42:40 AM

I probably don't have a lot of fans in agreement with me, but I'd love to see Jeff Lynne produce an entire Brian album, and even write some of the material.

Please keep wannabeatle Jeff Lynne away from Brian ;D

Maybe Rick Rubin would be the right big-name producer for Brian?




Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: JRauch on July 29, 2006, 03:48:43 AM
Hell no. "Rick Rubin helping an old star" became a tired cliche. I think Brian is perfectly able to produce his own albums. He just needs someone like Darian, who kicks his ass.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Rocker on July 29, 2006, 06:58:36 AM
I just ordered my copy. But because I'm on vacation next week, I won't hold it in my hands til the week after next.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on July 29, 2006, 07:35:32 AM
The thing to keep in mind when considering the merits (or not) of M. I. U. is this little phrase: "contractural obligation".

When the band signed for Caribou in early 1977, they thought that with Love You they'd fulfilled the terms of the  deal with Reprise. Turns out someone couldn't count too good and they still owed the label an album. So, you've got this multi-million deal already inked, then you're told you still owe an album to what you thought was your previous label. What to do... what to do... ah, let's fling together some old tracks and mine the past and that'll do. Let's run the album by us one more time:

She's Got Rhythm - based on a riff from a Ron Altbach instrumental from the Almost Summer soundtrack...
Come Go With Me - a 15BO discard, re-recorded by Alan later in 1976...
Hey, Little Tomboy - originally recorded during the 15BO sessions, remixed and sweetened at MIU....
Kona Coast - blatant "Hawaii" ripoff by Mike & Al...
Peggy Sue - back to the 15 BO tapebox again...
Wontcha Come Out Tonight - a new song. Not good, but new...
Sweet Sunday Kinda Love - also new, and Carl sounds bored to tears...
Belles of Paris - offensive, if original, travelogue...
Pitter Patter - new, and IMHO, none too shabby...
My Diane - recorded fall 1976 for New Album, sweetened at MIU...
Matchpoint Of Our Love - new song with inane lyric...
Winds Of Change - not even a BB song: written circa 1975 by Altbach & Eddie Tuleja, possibly when King Harvest was still a going concern.

Kinda makes 20/20 look cohesive, huh ?  :)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on July 29, 2006, 02:01:30 PM
Andrew's review and my comments. We agree half the time

She's Got Rhythm - based on a riff from a Ron Altbach instrumental from the Almost Summer soundtrack... but still good.
Come Go With Me - a 15BO discard, re-recorded by Alan later in 1976...Also good.
Hey, Little Tomboy - originally recorded during the 15BO sessions, remixed and sweetened at MIU....took out the funniest part so very average.
Kona Coast - blatant "Hawaii" ripoff by Mike & Al...sung well but really dumb
Peggy Sue - back to the 15 BO tapebox again...bad version. I thought this arrangment was taken from the Christmastime is Here Again song. Perhaps it's the other way around but still sounds more 1977 then 1976.
Wontcha Come Out Tonight - a new song. Not good, but new...Disagree I like it. It's not a major song but Brian sounds really good on it, and so Mike

Side 2
Sweet Sunday Kinda Love - also new, and Carl sounds bored to tears...agreed
Belles of Paris - offensive, if original, travelogue...I wouldn't even give it that much credit.
Pitter Patter - new, and IMHO, none too shabby...not bad, not great. It looked like Mike and Al had fun when I watched the film of this session.
My Diane - recorded fall 1976 for New Album, sweetened at MIU...Dennis' lead was recorded at M.I.U. as the film shows. Good song and great vocal by the lead singer.
Matchpoint Of Our Love - new song with inane lyric...but a fantastic lead vocal from Brian. Kind of a different more contemporary sound. A little Vegas, but not bad.
Winds Of Change - not even a BB song: written circa 1975 by Altbach & Eddie Tuleja, possibly when King Harvest was still a going concern....pretty if not something to keep playing over and over. Al could have sung better on it, and there are plent of songs they didn't write at least it's not an oldie.

To me it wasn't a contract filler, the Xmas one was. This was the best they could do at the time but I still think Adult Child would have made a better choice then M.I.U. or Love You.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on July 29, 2006, 04:53:09 PM
I'm pretty sure Jeff Deutsch was present during the recording of this album [in connection with Preiss' book]; he used to contirbute here and I've seen him lurking occasionally, maybe he could weigh in with some eyewitness input.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: al on July 29, 2006, 06:02:06 PM
My biggest problem with "MIU" is the cynicism. For the first time you can hear them straining to sound like themselves. Or some earlier, more successful version of themsleves. "I wanna go surfin' where I dig it the most, in Hawaii." Help me, Jesus. For one thing, none of those guys were surfing anywhere by 1978. For another, they didn't realize that literal surfing -- the sport -- had nothing to do with why people loved their earlier work. It was the way they sang about it. . . the risk, the beauty, the promise of transformation. It was the whole dream of the west, wrapped up in one spiffy youthful New Frontier image. Trying to re-claim that world as their own in '78 was just sad....particularly because the music beneath those words was so lame and pedestrian. And ripped off, in places, from their better songs (see also: 'Go to hawaii!' nicked from 'Hawaii,' and "When I Grow Up"'s '...won't last forever' at the end of the dismal, soupy, schlocky, 'Winds of Change.' I'm not even that big a fan of "My Diane," to tell the truth, 'cause the rhythm seems so lethargic and plodding. I know others disagree, and yes, it's nice to hear BW up there on the high falsetto, which he actually pulls off with emotion, etc. etc. I'll give it another spin.

But everyone makes crappy albums eventually, and I wouldn't be quite so harsh on this one except for the cynicism thing, which was not only bad enough in this context, but even worse when you realize (in retrospect) that it was just the start of a long and dismal era in which a band that had once set standards for musical adventure and spiritual derring-do was now in the business of cashing in on their own history.

I'm sorry if that sounds too harsh. I'm calling it like I see it.

Peter -- I see what you are saying about cynicisim, but I don't really agree with it.  I think MIU was really the Al and Brian show, not the Mike Love show, and I don't see Al as a cynical person.  I honestly think Al was trying to produce a good, solid album when he (with Altbach) took the reins of MIU.  I don't believe he was cynically trying to recapture the earlier sound; I think he genuinely wanted to make a really good Beach Boys album.  I am perfectly willing to consider Mike cynical, and I'm sure he was, but I just don't think Mike was a driving force behind this album.  The way I see it, musically, the album is mostly Brian -- She's Got Rhythm, Hey Little Tomboy, Wontcha Come out Tonight, Sweet Sunday, My Diane, and Matchpoint all have BW fingerprints all over them musically, if not lyrically, and I believe he contributed significantly to Belles of Paris and Pitter Patter.  The first six songs I listed above there just blow me away, and I also happen to like BOP and PP.  This is still Brian Douglas Wilson we're talking about, back when he still had most of his powers left, and he was the driving force musically behind half the album.  I happen to like Kona Coast and Winds of Change, though I understand people who don't.  Frankly Al's two covers do the least for me on the album.

Whether you like the album or not is of course a matter of taste.  I was just troubled by how severely you savaged it in the book.  I do not consider any Beach Boys album until Still Cruisin to be cynical; even the '85 album has some truly magical moments, mostly courtesy of Brian, as you pretty much acknowledged in the book.

My point is, there are plenty of non-believers out there more than happy to savage everything the Boys did post 1966, and I hate for an otherwise thoughtful, sensitive portrait of Brian and the group to give those people fodder.  And I would hate for a young, would-be Brianista to be turned off their later stuff by the criticism of a Beach Boys expert (which is what David Leaf's writings did to me in my younger days).

If you don't have anything nice to say (in terms of opinion), I think it's better not to say anything at all.

Stuff and nonsense - a big part of Brian's career problems of late have been that he's been surrounded by yes-people. As a case in point I cite the vocals on GIOMH: surely someone, at some point must have felt like pressing the talkback and saying "Brian, you know you can do that better. Take two."

But no-one did...

Andrew -- I am not suggesting that no one should say no to Brian.  I personally agree with you 100% on GIOMH.  But if I were writing a bio of Brian I would not criticize GIOMH musically.  I just wouldn't want to publish negativity about his music.

You could write one on that basis but I can't imagine anyone wanting to read it. AGD made the excellent point earlier about your original comment, but Peter has every right - nay, DUTY to chart the decline of The Beach Boys albums. I bought MIU on the day it was released and after playing it sat there in disbelief. It is a piece of crap in comparison to what came before. Only in hindsight and in the light of the further crimes against good albums has MIU picked up any points at all. I don't read a book to be told that everything is wonderful when it clearly wasn't. I can look at a record company blurb for that. Don't you have functioning critical faculties that can listen to Pet Sounds on the one hand and MIU on the other and realise there is a large gap in quality between them?

If I have a complaint about the book it is that I would have liked more about the music - much more could have been written about the 64-66 period which seems oddly rushed, and generally later the music plays second fiddle to the personal goings on, but that is probably right. It is certainly the best written biography so far, but I suppose the fact that it is a Brian WIlson bio rather than a Beach Boys one excuses to an extent the lack of real musical examination.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on July 30, 2006, 01:29:15 AM
Peggy Sue - back to the 15 BO tapebox again...bad version. I thought this arrangment was taken from the Christmastime is Here Again song. Perhaps it's the other way around but still sounds more 1977 then 1976.

Both later versions use the 1976 instrumental track.

My Diane - recorded fall 1976 for New Album, sweetened at MIU...Dennis' lead was recorded at M.I.U. as the film shows. Good song and great vocal by the lead singer.

There's reason to doubt this - I've heard people better qualified that I saying Dennis' part was shot in a Seattle studio. Been a while since I've seen the Our team video, but Dennis is not shown with any other BB's present. And the lead was recorded fall 1976, along with the rest of the basic track and Brian's bvs.



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on July 30, 2006, 02:00:21 AM
Might I add that the original version, without the strings, sounds better. Also, and maybe it's just me, but it sounds like the MIU version is slightly faster.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Smilin Ed H on July 30, 2006, 04:21:04 AM
I've always thought that too.

 I find MIU really difficult to take and if it wasn't for the handful of good songs on LA, I would've said it's a straightforward slide downhill from here.  I like My Diane.  Don't think it's great, but it's the last BW song for the BB of any substance.  I also like Pitter Patter and, up to a point, Winds of Change.  It's pretentious but at least it has ambition and the rest of the album is truly lame.  I think the good production on the album just serves to highlight how poor the whole affair is.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: busy doin nothin on July 30, 2006, 03:09:57 PM
My biggest problem with "MIU" is the cynicism. For the first time you can hear them straining to sound like themselves. Or some earlier, more successful version of themsleves. "I wanna go surfin' where I dig it the most, in Hawaii." Help me, Jesus. For one thing, none of those guys were surfing anywhere by 1978. For another, they didn't realize that literal surfing -- the sport -- had nothing to do with why people loved their earlier work. It was the way they sang about it. . . the risk, the beauty, the promise of transformation. It was the whole dream of the west, wrapped up in one spiffy youthful New Frontier image. Trying to re-claim that world as their own in '78 was just sad....particularly because the music beneath those words was so lame and pedestrian. And ripped off, in places, from their better songs (see also: 'Go to hawaii!' nicked from 'Hawaii,' and "When I Grow Up"'s '...won't last forever' at the end of the dismal, soupy, schlocky, 'Winds of Change.' I'm not even that big a fan of "My Diane," to tell the truth, 'cause the rhythm seems so lethargic and plodding. I know others disagree, and yes, it's nice to hear BW up there on the high falsetto, which he actually pulls off with emotion, etc. etc. I'll give it another spin.

But everyone makes crappy albums eventually, and I wouldn't be quite so harsh on this one except for the cynicism thing, which was not only bad enough in this context, but even worse when you realize (in retrospect) that it was just the start of a long and dismal era in which a band that had once set standards for musical adventure and spiritual derring-do was now in the business of cashing in on their own history.

I'm sorry if that sounds too harsh. I'm calling it like I see it.

Peter -- I see what you are saying about cynicisim, but I don't really agree with it.  I think MIU was really the Al and Brian show, not the Mike Love show, and I don't see Al as a cynical person.  I honestly think Al was trying to produce a good, solid album when he (with Altbach) took the reins of MIU.  I don't believe he was cynically trying to recapture the earlier sound; I think he genuinely wanted to make a really good Beach Boys album.  I am perfectly willing to consider Mike cynical, and I'm sure he was, but I just don't think Mike was a driving force behind this album.  The way I see it, musically, the album is mostly Brian -- She's Got Rhythm, Hey Little Tomboy, Wontcha Come out Tonight, Sweet Sunday, My Diane, and Matchpoint all have BW fingerprints all over them musically, if not lyrically, and I believe he contributed significantly to Belles of Paris and Pitter Patter.  The first six songs I listed above there just blow me away, and I also happen to like BOP and PP.  This is still Brian Douglas Wilson we're talking about, back when he still had most of his powers left, and he was the driving force musically behind half the album.  I happen to like Kona Coast and Winds of Change, though I understand people who don't.  Frankly Al's two covers do the least for me on the album.

Whether you like the album or not is of course a matter of taste.  I was just troubled by how severely you savaged it in the book.  I do not consider any Beach Boys album until Still Cruisin to be cynical; even the '85 album has some truly magical moments, mostly courtesy of Brian, as you pretty much acknowledged in the book.

My point is, there are plenty of non-believers out there more than happy to savage everything the Boys did post 1966, and I hate for an otherwise thoughtful, sensitive portrait of Brian and the group to give those people fodder.  And I would hate for a young, would-be Brianista to be turned off their later stuff by the criticism of a Beach Boys expert (which is what David Leaf's writings did to me in my younger days).

If you don't have anything nice to say (in terms of opinion), I think it's better not to say anything at all.

Stuff and nonsense - a big part of Brian's career problems of late have been that he's been surrounded by yes-people. As a case in point I cite the vocals on GIOMH: surely someone, at some point must have felt like pressing the talkback and saying "Brian, you know you can do that better. Take two."

But no-one did...

Andrew -- I am not suggesting that no one should say no to Brian.  I personally agree with you 100% on GIOMH.  But if I were writing a bio of Brian I would not criticize GIOMH musically.  I just wouldn't want to publish negativity about his music.

You could write one on that basis but I can't imagine anyone wanting to read it. AGD made the excellent point earlier about your original comment, but Peter has every right - nay, DUTY to chart the decline of The Beach Boys albums. I bought MIU on the day it was released and after playing it sat there in disbelief. It is a piece of crap in comparison to what came before. Only in hindsight and in the light of the further crimes against good albums has MIU picked up any points at all. I don't read a book to be told that everything is wonderful when it clearly wasn't. I can look at a record company blurb for that. Don't you have functioning critical faculties that can listen to Pet Sounds on the one hand and MIU on the other and realise there is a large gap in quality between them?

If I have a complaint about the book it is that I would have liked more about the music - much more could have been written about the 64-66 period which seems oddly rushed, and generally later the music plays second fiddle to the personal goings on, but that is probably right. It is certainly the best written biography so far, but I suppose the fact that it is a Brian WIlson bio rather than a Beach Boys one excuses to an extent the lack of real musical examination.

I am trying to make a distinction here.  I think a biographer MUST do the following: (1) describe accurately the circumstances under which an album was recorded, good, bad or indifferent; (2)describe the reaction, both commercial and critical, to an album; and (3) describe the effect of the album's reception on the biographical subject.  In the case of MIU, all three of these components were decidedly negative.  I have no problem with quoting from negative contemporary reviews of the ablum (or even negative subsequent reviews), to show its critical standing (or lack thereof).  My problem is with a biographer going beyond all that, as Peter did, and stating at length his personal belief that this is one of the worst albums ever recorded.  I don't see why Peter would want to do that.  If Dennis thought the album was merda (as I believe he did), then quote Dennis.  Quote Robert Christgau or whoever reviewed it for Rolling Stone.  But don't tell the reader your own personal opinion.  Let the reader make up his or her own mind, based on the historical record you present in the biography, along with the readers' own listening to the album.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on July 30, 2006, 04:03:46 PM
I am trying to make a distinction here.  I think a biographer MUST do the following: (1) describe accurately the circumstances under which an album was recorded, good, bad or indifferent; (2)describe the reaction, both commercial and critical, to an album; and (3) describe the effect of the album's reception on the biographical subject.  In the case of MIU, all three of these components were decidedly negative.  I have no problem with quoting from negative contemporary reviews of the ablum (or even negative subsequent reviews), to show its critical standing (or lack thereof).  My problem is with a biographer going beyond all that, as Peter did, and stating at length his personal belief that this is one of the worst albums ever recorded.  I don't see why Peter would want to do that.  If Dennis thought the album was merda (as I believe he did), then quote Dennis.  Quote Robert Christgau or whoever reviewed it for Rolling Stone.  But don't tell the reader your own personal opinion.  Let the reader make up his or her own mind, based on the historical record you present in the biography, along with the readers' own listening to the album.

I agree but Peter has also done a good job of presenting varying/competing viewpoints in many other areas imo.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on July 30, 2006, 04:17:38 PM
BDN: If you're looking for a book that isn't ever going to say something critical about the work of his subject, then obviously 'Catch A Wave' isn't the title you're after. Probably the cloest you'll get is Byron Preiss's 1978 bio, which was authorized by the band and thus concluded with a stirring affirmation of the then-latest album's aesthetic and spiritual brilliance. As coincidence would have it, that album is 'MIU.'

But for all that I adore about Preiss's book, (which I bought when it first came out, back when I was a sophomore in high school) I can never read that section without thinking about the pitfalls of being an authorized biographer. Because, as someone said earlier in this thread, chances are they're after something closer to a hagiography. And as much as I hate to read that kind of stuff, I'd be even less enthusiastic about writing it.

But back to BDN, and his fear that the writer's opinion will somehow diminish that of the reader. Which readers are we speaking of? Surely BDN was grown up and confident enough in his own apprisals to reject my opinion of 'MIU' out of hand. Like any thoughtful reader, he considered his own feelings, measured them against my argument and opted to stick with his own interpretation. Which is precisely how any thoughtful reader should examine a review. So why the fear that other readers are somehow less able to do the same thing? Even if they haven't heard 'MIU,' say, they surely have heard enough of the other BB/BW ouevre to figure out where they agree/disagree with my analyses. And if they think that I'm usually full of crap, then they can proceed through the unknown terrain confident that my compass points south virtually all of the time. That's how I read a lot of critics. You're free to read me like that, too.



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on July 30, 2006, 04:47:30 PM


There's reason to doubt this - I've heard people better qualified that I saying Dennis' part was shot in a Seattle studio. Been a while since I've seen the Our team video, but Dennis is not shown with any other BB's present. And the lead was recorded fall 1976, along with the rest of the basic track and Brian's bvs.


Quote

That is interesting. I thought it may have been recorded in 76 at Brother but you can hear him rehearse the vocal. Now that doesn't mean it wasn't just him pretending to rehearse it but the clip always made me question the fall '76 date. Alan Boyd or someone who saw the "Our Team" outtakes said Dennis was there during the filming of She's Got Rhythm. I also hear him (but he isn't in the scene) on Our Team itself.




Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on July 30, 2006, 04:50:56 PM
As a writer myself I have no problem with Peter saying he hates the LP. I have not read his book yet but if it was me I would put how I felt but also state why others differ with my view. The book was sent to me on Friday so just want to mention how much I am looking forward to it.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on July 30, 2006, 11:18:11 PM
OK, so I'm being totally silly, but how about this for a biography with a non-critical slant ?

Adolph Hitler - reasonable watercolorist, WW1 vet, politician, responsible for the introduction of the VW.

One of the things I enjoy most about almost any biog is working out the author's slant. I don't think there can be a completely impartial biography, and Peter is indeed reflecting the views of the vast majority of BB - and music - fandom. Good records by a major band on a major label don't stall at #151, even if the company isn't promoting it much. One year earlier, Denny's solo album cracked the top 100. Now there's a good record. Only my opinion, of course.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on July 30, 2006, 11:41:28 PM
I get your point but I think I can safely say that dictators and musicians shoould not be judged under the same terms. I don't agree with being non critical either but for instance I dislike Love You and a lot of people like it. If I write about Love You I am going to have to state what others feel without diluting my view. In the case of MIU there have been many that indeed hate it but I have seen some moderate to good reviews of it too. You didn't really trash MIU in your book and actually I think you are really good at evenly describing songs you don't care for (ie Kokomo). BTW Sunflower stalled at the same place as M.I.U. and that is my favorite of all. I know they were bigger in 1978 but Sunflower got far more press and even Brian did interviews to promote it. Something like Kokomo goes to #1 and Break Away goes to #64 what's good isn't always popular. Why did the Small Faces bomb in the US when Herman's Hermits made it?

P.S. P.O.B. IS a great record.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: donald on July 31, 2006, 05:41:50 AM
Kokomo over Sunflower.   Hermans Hermits over Small Faces.  Why?

Well, why were the Archies on the Top Forty and The Jefferson Airplane was not?

I lived through a time...and in fact am still living through a time, listening now to oldies stations, where crap rules and good music is forsaken.


I know that the Archies were a Jeff Barry product directed at a preteen market and I don't hold that against him   But it is revealing regarding Kokomo and Hermans Hermits.  An audience of children or unsophisticated listeners.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on July 31, 2006, 08:00:05 AM
Good records by a major band on a major label don't stall at #151, even if the company isn't promoting it much.

I'd agree with this wholeheartedly, but then I think of SUNFLOWER...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jon Stebbins on July 31, 2006, 08:33:24 AM
Kokomo over Sunflower.   Hermans Hermits over Small Faces.  Why?

Well, why were the Archies on the Top Forty and The Jefferson Airplane was not?

I lived through a time...and in fact am still living through a time, listening now to oldies stations, where crap rules and good music is forsaken.


I know that the Archies were a Jeff Barry product directed at a preteen market and I don't hold that against him   But it is revealing regarding Kokomo and Hermans Hermits.  An audience of children or unsophisticated listeners.



I get your point Donald, I especially agree with you that oldies radio today is all wrong in what they emhasize...but remember Jefferson Airplane were in the top 40 with two major hit singles long before the Archies were a concept. Many hippies were calling them "sell out" in '67 because they were commercially succesful. Who cares? Somebody To Love was a great record, as was Sugar Sugar. Small Faces, very pop, Itchycoo Park, big top 40 hit. Hermits?? They made some great, great records too. They covered Donovan and Ray Davies before that was common, and made at least a half a dozen classic single recordings. Their filler was crap...but the good stuff was really good. Not very deep...but very cool pop music. Unsophisticated listener? To me that's someone who labels something no good because of a misguided percepetion. I can remember in '67 when Airplane and Dead fans were always trashing the Monkees music as having no substance for instance and Zappa came to their defense. On balance the Monkees made some of the best music of their era, psychedelic, country pop, pure bubblegum too...they were actually progessive in their productions and their genre mixing. The average Dead fan would never have noticed that the Porpoise Song was a glorious trip and some of the Monkees music was very, very hip. Its called prejudice. To me Sugar Sugar was a perfect R&B meets Bubblegum moment..maybe the best one ever, well at least the best one since I'm a Believer. Kokomo? I can relate! Not my cup of tea, actually makes me cringe...but so many people dig it that it must be an 80's classic. Anyway, I think there's room for the Airplane and the Hermits if you really like music. 


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on July 31, 2006, 08:37:52 AM
I still don't get all the animosity aimed at Kokomo.  It's certainly not the Beach Boys at their best, but it's damn catchy!  And I felt that way loooooooong before I became a serious Brian Wilson/Beach Boys fan.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: donald on July 31, 2006, 10:13:22 AM
Jon, I agree there is room for all sorts of music and as I said, the preteen market was and is important in commercial radio.   I liked the Monkees, as many people obviously did if you look at their success.   They weren't as "cool" as some others, but those songs were damn good.
And as with the Archies, they kept the Brill Building folks employed for a few years after the golden era.

I just think there is a place of least common denominator where that smaller demographic  looking for a little something more in their music is likely to be disappointed.

Thus Kokomo, Hermans Hermits etc appeal to a larger, more diverse group of listeners overall.

An old friend, who was a bit of a musical snob, once said that  most people just wanted something to tap their foot to.

But I guess this would be a topic for another thread. 

Back on topic,  I am presently enjoying Peter's book,  almost as much as the one  that guy wrote about Dennis Wilson.   :-\


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Aegir on July 31, 2006, 02:19:48 PM
I like Kokomo. I like the Archies. Does that make me a mindless sheep? I hate mindless sheep, but I guess I'm being hypocritical.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on July 31, 2006, 03:00:48 PM
Good records by a major band on a major label don't stall at #151, even if the company isn't promoting it much.

I'd agree with this wholeheartedly, but then I think of SUNFLOWER...

Um.

Er.

The exception that proves the rule ?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on July 31, 2006, 03:58:01 PM
Good records by a major band on a major label don't stall at #151, even if the company isn't promoting it much.

I'd agree with this wholeheartedly, but then I think of SUNFLOWER...

Um.

Er.

The exception that proves the rule ?
;D

Quote
So why the fear that other readers are somehow less able to do the same thing? Even if they haven't heard 'MIU,' say, they surely have heard enough of the other BB/BW ouevre to figure out where they agree/disagree with my analyses. And if they think that I'm usually full of crap, then they can proceed through the unknown terrain confident that my compass points south virtually all of the time. That's how I read a lot of critics. You're free to read me like that, too.
Heck, some people may read that and say..."if that album sucks THAT bad, I MUST hear it, just to see how bad it is." Then they might be pleasantly surprised.  :-\


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: al on July 31, 2006, 04:59:09 PM
Good records by a major band on a major label don't stall at #151, even if the company isn't promoting it much.

I'd agree with this wholeheartedly, but then I think of SUNFLOWER...

Um.

Er.

The exception that proves the rule ?
;D

Quote
So why the fear that other readers are somehow less able to do the same thing? Even if they haven't heard 'MIU,' say, they surely have heard enough of the other BB/BW ouevre to figure out where they agree/disagree with my analyses. And if they think that I'm usually full of crap, then they can proceed through the unknown terrain confident that my compass points south virtually all of the time. That's how I read a lot of critics. You're free to read me like that, too.
Heck, some people may read that and say..."if that album sucks THAT bad, I MUST hear it, just to see how bad it is." Then they might be pleasantly surprised.  :-\

Or if all they've heard before is Summer In Paradise......in which case it will sound like a work of genius .....(well, no it won't, but it will sound better than hearing it in the right order!)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on July 31, 2006, 07:07:26 PM
Good records by a major band on a major label don't stall at #151, even if the company isn't promoting it much.

I'd agree with this wholeheartedly, but then I think of SUNFLOWER...

Um.

Er.

The exception that proves the rule ?


 :-D


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dr. Tim on July 31, 2006, 10:20:56 PM
Where I was back on page 6 of the thread:
Got mine today, at least the Borders stores in NJ seem to have it.  Just getting started going through it at lunch. So far it's a very good quick read, solid reportage, scrupulously sympathetic to all concerned without any whitewash or fan-based sucking up.   So here's another testimonial for you.   (EDIT:)  Now halfway through, up to the Smile fallout.  All I said still goes.  NOW THE FINAL EDIT: Done.  It's all good.  I esp. like how the remaining psychological threads are all tied together in the final pages, the survivors' careful "dancing around" to avoid more fights, Mike's blunderbuss approach, the fights that still continue, the closing of the Smile tour and that chapter in their lives.  A nice package.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Emdeeh on August 01, 2006, 04:25:14 PM
My copy finally showed up in the mail today. I preordered the book from Amazon back in April -- after this experience, I won't be preordering anything from them again.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dan Lega on August 02, 2006, 07:02:34 AM
My copy finally showed up in the mail today. I preordered the book from Amazon back in April -- after this experience, I won't be preordering anything from them again.


    That is terrible, Emdeeh.  I ordered mine from Amazon on Tuesday of last week and it arrived just a few days later -- on Friday!  And this was with free shipping.  It doesn't make any sense that it took so long to get your copy out.

          Love and merci,   Dan Lega


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bubba Ho-Tep on August 03, 2006, 06:11:29 AM
My copy finally showed up in the mail today. I preordered the book from Amazon back in April -- after this experience, I won't be preordering anything from them again.


Same here. I pre-ordered way back when it was first listed and only got it this Tuesday, while Borders and even Best Buy had it on the shelves for over a week.

Up to Pet Sounds era. So far, so good. Amusing anecdotes of Brian in his school days. This is a terrific read. Well done, sir.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 03, 2006, 07:21:46 AM
This is good finally got it a few days ago too from Amazon who were very late. I feel he makes Brian more "real" then other books.  Peter two questions, I though the Kalinich LP was only one album cut in 69. Can you fill us in on the two albums what the difference was when the second was cut etc? Also you mention Murry's weight gain in the 70s. I have never seen a picture of him past 66-7. Where did you see an older Murry?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bicyclerider on August 03, 2006, 10:01:03 AM
I preordered mine from Tower, two days ago I got an email saying it was backordered!  I cancelled the order and went to my local Borders and bought it.  I've just glanced through the SMile sections, and I have a bunch of questions, mainly to do with chronology, but it's well written.  What came through to me was Mike's continuing anger and resentment towards Brian, whether it was not crediting Mike with song lyrics, or paying Brian monies from touring while he stayed at home (under Landy's care), or, at the end of the book, with Brian making money off of a "Beach Boys" project, Smile.  That guy's got issues!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 03, 2006, 05:01:19 PM
Reading about Mike's childhood may explain some of the issues. It did for me.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 04, 2006, 01:48:07 AM
Just the one album, titled A World Of Peace Must Come, which includes the track "America, I Know You".


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 04, 2006, 11:06:02 PM
Thanks Andrew I thought that was what Kalinich told me too. I have to dig up our interview.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 05, 2006, 01:04:22 AM
Sorry if I seemed a bit terse - yesterday was not a good day.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on August 05, 2006, 01:14:11 AM
Didn't seem terse at all, buddy!

Have you heard of any of the Kalinich material yourself? How is it?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on August 05, 2006, 08:26:05 AM
Peter,

On page 92 you say that the first thing Brian asked Van Dyke, before even their first night of collaboration, was to finish the unfinished lyrics for Good Vibrations.  Specifically, was that Tony Asher's unfinished lyrics for Good Vibrations then?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jon Stebbins on August 05, 2006, 08:50:11 AM
Sorry if I seemed a bit terse - yesterday was not a good day.

Since when is sharing correct info being terse? Seemed pretty straight forward to me. Sorry your day wasn't good... dude.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: c-man on August 05, 2006, 08:57:57 AM
Sorry if I seemed a bit terse - yesterday was not a good day.

Andrew, I've seen you sounding much terser!  ;)
P.S.: do I get any kind of award for worse grammatically-constructed sentence?

Craig


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: c-man on August 05, 2006, 08:59:15 AM
P.S.: do I get any kind of award for worse grammatically-constructed sentence?

Craig

Maybe I will for THIS sentence (i.e. "worse" instead of "worst")...

Craig


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 05, 2006, 03:42:53 PM
Didn't seem terse at all, buddy!

Have you heard of any of the Kalinich material yourself? How is it?

Ummmmmm... interesting. Yeah, that's the word.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 05, 2006, 03:46:58 PM
Sorry if I seemed a bit terse - yesterday was not a good day.

Since when is sharing correct info being terse? Seemed pretty straight forward to me. Sorry your day wasn't good... dude.


Well, when I re-read it, it looked to me like I was sitting on my high horse and saying "Carlin - yer wrong !".  Like I never made a mistake in BB history, right ?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on August 05, 2006, 05:28:35 PM
Hey guys: Regarding Kalinich and the album(s) he may or may not have made with Brian. The two albums worth of material reference is based on my conversations with SK himself, who was speaking (I think, based on memory, not the notes of our conversations) of stuff they did from the late '60s through the early '70s and maybe beyond. Whether they had ever titled, sequenced or even fancied the second lp's worth of stuff as an actual album isn't swimming back into my memory just now. But what I heard was very weird and cool and, no disrespect to SK's poetry intended, but, if you just pulled out Brian's music and played that by itself....well, it was pretty abstract and strange and yet also Brian-esque and kind of mind-boggling. In my memory.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: c-man on August 05, 2006, 05:42:16 PM
if you just pulled out Brian's music and played that by itself....well, it was pretty abstract and strange and yet also Brian-esque and kind of mind-boggling. In my memory.

Similar at all in quality to, say, "My Solution" or the "Fairytale" stuff?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 05, 2006, 10:02:16 PM
Thanks Peter for the responce. I know I mentioned this earlier but I am real curious about what Murry looked like in the 70s. Did you see any pictures to base your description of him in his final years?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Emdeeh on August 05, 2006, 10:22:02 PM
Hi, Peter. I'm about 2/3 of the way through the book and I noticed a factual error on p. 187. Yeah, it's just a little thing, but... Carl Wilson had BLUE eyes, not brown. As a matter of fact, his eyes were a light grayish sea-blue color (and totally gorgeous too, but then I'm female and I notice). Check out the cover of *Youngblood* for a good look at Carl's peepers.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 06, 2006, 01:13:52 AM
Hey guys: Regarding Kalinich and the album(s) he may or may not have made with Brian. The two albums worth of material reference is based on my conversations with SK himself, who was speaking (I think, based on memory, not the notes of our conversations) of stuff they did from the late '60s through the early '70s and maybe beyond. Whether they had ever titled, sequenced or even fancied the second lp's worth of stuff as an actual album isn't swimming back into my memory just now. But what I heard was very weird and cool and, no disrespect to SK's poetry intended, but, if you just pulled out Brian's music and played that by itself....well, it was pretty abstract and strange and yet also Brian-esque and kind of mind-boggling. In my memory.

Peter, the impression I got was that Steve read the poems and then Brian improvised the music - that or it was a synchronous performance. It kinda reminds me of the spacier bits of The Fairytale.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on August 06, 2006, 05:04:14 PM
Funny about Carl's eyes. I'm sure I peered deeply into a portrait -- a group portrait, I seem to recall -- to make sure I was getting the brothers' eyes right. Or so I thought. Some peoples' eyes seem to change according to lighting, setting, etc. And then there's post-production tinting, which can change things either on purpose or not. I said somewhat defensively.

Regarding Murry's weight: That came initially from Rick Henn, who was describing how Murry's mood/health changed in later years. I think it was seconded by Barbara Wilson, and maybe one or two others who were on the scene at the time.

And in the Kalinich sessions...some of the music sounded improvised, other bits less so. I seem to recall there were multiple parts being played, sometimes in a professional recording studio with professional musicians. But I heard this stuff once, more than a year ago now, so my memory is vague.

 


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Emdeeh on August 06, 2006, 08:45:09 PM
I got my information on Carl's eye color firsthand, having met with him and wife Gina on a number of occasions. Carl's son Justyn has the exact same color eyes as his dad, btw.  :3d In fact, the majority of the Beach Boys (Brian, Carl, Dennis, Mike, Al, David, and Bruce) are blue-eyed.

I enjoyed the book, it's a good read.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 06, 2006, 11:06:49 PM
It's so cool that you can answer our questions about little details. Thanks


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Rocker on August 07, 2006, 03:40:26 AM
Just got the book yesterday and can't wait to start reading the whole book.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bicyclerider on August 07, 2006, 03:17:24 PM
I"d like to make some comments about the Smile section - at least the 1966-67 Smile section, and Peter can respond or not as he sees fit.

1. At times the chronology jumps around .  This may be artistic license to tell the story a certain way, but I found it confusing.  For example,  on page 90 there's mention of David Anderle working for the Beach Boys and starting up their own label - my understanding is this was much later than February 66 (more like September 66), which is the time at which this fact is introduced.  On pages 104-6 Peter talks about Vosse, Siegel, and the CBS special, which brings us to Dec 15, 66 - and then goes back to October 22nd to talk about the Michigan concert.  On 112 we hear about the lawsuit being filed against Capitol (Feb/March 67) - and then we go back to recording Prayer in September 66. The Fire Session is discussed (Nov 31st) after the December Cabinessence lyric confrontation.  A minor quibble though.

2. Some of the descriptions of the Smile songs are not correct in terms of their 66-67 incarnations.  Heroes, when first written, did not have the Bicycle Rider section(page 94), at least as far as we know - this was first written for Worms, then was attempted to be grafted onto Heroes in Jan 67, and then finally rewritten in a minor key and recorded in February.  The earliest version of Heroes we know of for sure is the Heroes verses/I'm in Great Shape/Barnyard version played by Brian for humble Harv Miller.

Cabinessence did not have a Carl Wilson lead verse vocal(page 115) in 66-67 either, as far as we know- that was added in 68 for 20/20.

3. Peter places the Terry Melcher party at which Brian and Van Dyke met and Brian decided he would be a good lyric writer in mid July.  Most accounts put this party in February.  What's the source for the mid July date?  My understanding is that they met at the party, and over the next few months Brian has him to the house, gets him his car, and they start hanging together and write Heroes.  Then Brian puts Dumb Angel on hold while he finished Good Vibrations, and they start up again in June/July.  I assumed that Brian and Van Dyke were writing together during Brian's "six weeks off " from the studio.  He records Heroes in May, so according to Peter's chronology this would be a pre Van Dyke Heroes (the tape is wiped so we'll never know what this Heroes consisted of).

The nice thing about mid July is that there's no "gap" between deciding to work together and Brian going into the studio and recording Smile stuff like Wind Chimes and Wonderful.  Plus, Van Dyke has mentioned that he worked on Smile with Brian for about six months, or in some accounts five months.  If he stopped in December after the Love lyric confrontation, that would mean he would have had to start in July or June.  But I've always thought that was because the actual collaboration didn't start until June although they met and decided to work together months earlier.

4. Van Dyke's entrance and exit - I mentioned the conflicting reports about the entrance, now the exit - I completely agree that Van Dyke leaving in December after the confrontation with Mike makes the most sense.   It fits with how long Van Dyke has said he was collaborating with Brian, and also with his accounts of leaving after the Fire sessions (OK, that was a week before the lyric battle, but still close - up to but not including the Fire sessions is how he put it I believe).  When he returned it was not as an album lyric collaborator but as a session player and facilitator to help Brian finish the single Heroes and Villains, which had become his focus in January/February.  He was no longer "hanging out" with Brian.  His last session was actually March, not April (there was some confusion in Priore's book about Van Dyke attending Vegetables sessions in April - there's no documentation of that, and Van Dyke must be remembering the "cornucopia" Vegetables session which was earlier, likely November 66).  His last session fits in with Van Dyke remembering leaving when Brian moved and when the lawsuit was filed - in effect two "leavings" that Van has at times telescoped into one.

5. Cam asked about finishing the lyrics to Good Vibrations - my understanding is that this happened after Mike had already written lyrics and Brian wasn't completely happy with them, and Van Dyke didn't want to get in between Mike and Brian (whcih is ironic considering what happenned later).  I have interviews with Van Dyke somewhere where he says as much.

6.  The cello parts to Good Vibrations were added in June, were they not?  And if Brian was formally introduced at Melcher's part in mid July, it seems strange that Van Dyke would already be on such good terms with Brian that he would have heard the Good Vibrations work in progress and suggested to Brian to add a cello part.  Again, this suggests the Melcher party came earlier.

7.  The great lyric confrontation - this has alwyas confused me.  It seems strange that Mike questioned this lyric to the point of forcing Brian to call Van Dyke to defend the lyric - and then Mike records the lyric.  Was the lyric recorded first, and listening to it on playback Mike decided this was ridiculous, he'd had enough, and called Brian on the carpet (I guess this scenario is the most probable)?  Why not do that before you sing the lyric?  And if he did, why did he then record it after the confrontation when Van Dyke admitted he had no idea what the words meant?

I hope Peter doesn't consider all this excessive nitpicking (but isn't that what this board is all about?) - again, rest assured I found the book extremely well written and the most balanced book yet on Brian and his career.



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on August 07, 2006, 03:33:25 PM
Hey bicycle: The narrative jumps a bit here and there in order to make thematic ideas more clear. Chronology being all well and good, and you don't want to confuse readers, etc. But since I was way more interested in the bigger themes behind what was happening and what it all meant -- I've yammered about that before -- and wanted to emphasize the feelings and ideas, I would on occasion indulge in a little back n forth in order to maintain thematic clarity.

Regarding where and when VDP and Brian met...I got that from VDP and Brian. They both talk about the party being in July. Doesn't mean they didn't meet, chat, etc in June or earlier. In fact, I'm sure they knew each other casually as felllow denizens of the L.A. recording studios. As VDP says, one reason Brian was interested in him was because he'd come up with the cellos-playing-triplets idea for 'GV,' and so Brian knew he was good. And yes, he also says that's where Brian invited him to do the 'GV' lyrics, only VDP didn't want to dive into a partially-completed thing, but rather work on something fresh and new that they would start and finish together.

Regarding the 'cabinessence' throw-down. Again, VDP tells the story very vividly, and Mike doesn't deny any of it. Does it make sense for Mike to sing it and then complain later? Maybe not. But then again, how many things in the BB story make perfect sense? And isn't it possible that a guy can sing a song, with barely concealed doubts, and then be pushed to the brink by something else -- a demand to sing it again, say, or to go on and sing even weirder words elsewhere? I have no idea what set Mike off, other than the words themselves. But it could have been anything. And as I hope the book makes evident, their whole scene was so fraught with dysfunctional patterns the Wilsons and Loves had learned from their moms and dads and their joint screwed up family, that it's foolish to sit here now and say: but gee, that doesn't make sense and therefore it couldn't have happened. Because it usually did, no matter how little sense it made.



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Rocker on August 07, 2006, 06:01:03 PM
Well, now that I've read more, Peter, I have to say that I now believe to have a better understanding of what "Pet Sounds" meant to Brian. But quite early you say that Brian called the song "Carol, I know" and Asher changed it to "Caroline, no", when in fact it was the other way around, since Brian heard it as "Caroline,no". Asher mentioned this on the Pet Sounds-Audio DVD I believe. Anyway, I really love your book. I kinda hope it never ends, because it's so much fun reading it.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on August 07, 2006, 07:43:37 PM
Well, when it comes to 'caroline' versus 'carol i...' I paid closest attention to what I heard from the guys I was interviewing, who in this case turned out to be the guys who wrote the song. Whether someone misspoke to me, or elsewhere, or if memories change, or what, I can't tell you. But there it is.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on August 07, 2006, 07:58:30 PM
5. Cam asked about finishing the lyrics to Good Vibrations - my understanding is that this happened after Mike had already written lyrics and Brian wasn't completely happy with them, and Van Dyke didn't want to get in between Mike and Brian (whcih is ironic considering what happenned later).  I have interviews with Van Dyke somewhere where he says as much.

If this request occured as early as July it would seem likely the unfinished lyrics were Asher's as Carl and Mike have always said Mike's lyrics were written at the last minute.  July doesn't seem last minute to a September completion. Did Van Dyke say whether he actually saw/heard any unfinished lyrics or was the offer dismissed at the party I wonder?

7.  The great lyric confrontation - this has alwyas confused me.  It seems strange that Mike questioned this lyric to the point of forcing Brian to call Van Dyke to defend the lyric - and then Mike records the lyric.  Was the lyric recorded first, and listening to it on playback Mike decided this was ridiculous, he'd had enough, and called Brian on the carpet (I guess this scenario is the most probable)?  Why not do that before you sing the lyric?  And if he did, why did he then record it after the confrontation when Van Dyke admitted he had no idea what the words meant?

I think it more likely Van Dyke considers the point he left the project as the point at which his involvement with the project ended [a return would not be an end] which was after March 2 but I suppose only Van Dyke can answer that.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 07, 2006, 10:36:53 PM
Yeah I think Mike finished the song the day it was cut.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on August 08, 2006, 04:40:13 AM
RE: "last minute": Mike Love: "Finally, I actually had the acetate and I was able to write a poem to the finished track which are the words to Good Vibration."

"The words to the verse weren't written yet, I wrote those the night before we recorded them on the way to the recording session on the freeway."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/soldonsong/songlibrary/indepth/goodvibrations.shtml

A dub of the completed track wouldn't be possible until Sept. 21 or later I don't think.

[Later that day]

Soooooo......I guess Van Dyke was asked to rewrite/finish Tony Asher's lyrics.....


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: runalot on August 08, 2006, 07:56:52 PM
In Peter's book, there is mention of a BB album that had a picture in its sleeve with a super-imposed pic of Brian Wilson (to appear as if he's with the band).

Anyone know what photo this is??

Thanks.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Leo K on August 08, 2006, 08:20:24 PM
Carl an the Passions...So Tough.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: runalot on August 09, 2006, 09:20:45 PM
Is this the one where he's in his robe? (on the steps?)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jon Stebbins on August 09, 2006, 10:18:28 PM
Is this the one where he's in his robe? (on the steps?)

No. Its like Leo said...the one inside the BB's LP titled Carl and the Passions So Tough. Easy to find. They cropped it from another group photo from '72 that happened to include Brian...and stuck it in one that didn't.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: HeyJude on August 10, 2006, 12:28:46 AM
Is this the one where he's in his robe? (on the steps?)

No. Its like Leo said...the one inside the BB's LP titled Carl and the Passions So Tough. Easy to find. They cropped it from another group photo from '72 that happened to include Brian...and stuck it in one that didn't.


I think the original photo featuring Brian (from which Brian was cut out and stuck onto the "So Tough" pic) is used at the current placeholder page for www.beachboyscentral.com. I don't know if it's the exact same pose, but if it isn't, it's pretty close. He seems to be wearing the same shirt in both and has nearly the same pose.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Alan Boyd on August 10, 2006, 01:21:20 PM
Brian's image for the SO TOUGH group shot does indeed come from the same earlier photo that we used on the website temp page - the original artwork files for SO TOUGH, which we recently obtained from Warner Brothers, contain the original photo negatives. cropping instructions, paste-up elements and revised internegatives for the doctored group shot.

Alan


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on August 10, 2006, 04:23:26 PM
I guess that was just another time when manipulative outsiders kept Brian from pursuing his real dream of working with Mike.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: petsite on August 10, 2006, 04:27:00 PM
Had the day off due to being under the weather (sometimes wonder if the meds make me feel worse than the disease?!). Anyway, read Peter's book through for the fourth time. It still kicks butt. Great job!

One slight PS - Sunshine was recorded at Mike's house with Jeff Peters engineering, not at Western. I know, picky. picky! :p

Bob Flory


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on August 10, 2006, 05:10:05 PM
I think I was told by someone (Alan Boyd? Steve Desper?) that "Sunshine" began at Western, perhaps as a cover of another song. Maybe the basic track was done there? Now I'm away from my notes and I can't remember precisely. But that's what I remember. And obviously what ended up in the book.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: c-man on August 10, 2006, 05:25:34 PM
I think I was told by someone (Alan Boyd? Steve Desper?) that "Sunshine" began at Western, perhaps as a cover of another song. Maybe the basic track was done there? Now I'm away from my notes and I can't remember precisely. But that's what I remember. And obviously what ended up in the book.

"Sunshine" came from "Little Girl", a Phil Spector song that Brian recorded at Western in July '79.
I think there may have been an earlier version, from Lovesongs Studio (Mike's place), but the
version used as the basic for "Sunshine" is from Western.  I remember Bruce saying they took
a section of the "Little Girl" track, copied it several times, and spliced all the copied sections
together to make a full track, then overdubbe on top of it.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: HeyJude on August 10, 2006, 05:26:17 PM
Didn't the song begin as a cover of "Little Girl"? I know there's an abortive vocal take of "Little Girl" floating around, with Carl just singing a couple of lines. It sounds like the same song as "Sunshine", just at a faster tempo with drums, and of course different lyrics. I've always assumed the "Little Girl" recording predated "Sunshine." I don't know where it was recorded, though.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on August 10, 2006, 07:31:36 PM
 Wow. You guys know way too much about this stuff.  I said as admiringly as possible.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: petsite on August 10, 2006, 08:53:17 PM
It was recorded (or A version of it was recorded) at Lovesongs during the session for Skatetown (I've heard the version of Skatetown with just the backing vocals).

During the begining of Little Girl, Brian is telling Carl "Wait a minute". Then Brian gives the count and the track starts. Carl then adds his vocal. After the first verse, Carl says "That's it Jeff." The track rolls on for another 2 minutes until Brian yells "Carl....CARL!" and the track ends.

That's all I know, anyway.  That was Spring of '79. They may have gotten the idea to turn it in to Sunshine by the summer when Brian was at Western.

By the way, the melody at the begining, the "DUM DUM DUM BE DUM BE DO" was lifted from the old Corsairs doo wop hit  Smokey Places. I think that they had considered covering that tune and instead lifted the opening for Sunshine.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: maxfrost on August 10, 2006, 09:24:20 PM
All this talk of the doctored "Carl & The Passions" photo got me to thinking.  Has anyone ever seen a picture of Brian with the Blondie and Ricky lineup?  Either promotional or otherwise?   I don't think I have ever come across one.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 11, 2006, 01:25:20 AM
No that would be cool though. Brian went on stage once in April 73 so if any photos were taken that day that's all I could think of where one may have been taken.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: shelter on August 11, 2006, 02:32:32 AM
I finally found a Dutch webstore that has it, so I ordered it today. Can't wait to read it.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: c-man on August 11, 2006, 04:52:58 AM
All this talk of the doctored "Carl & The Passions" photo got me to thinking.  Has anyone ever seen a picture of Brian with the Blondie and Ricky lineup?  Either promotional or otherwise?   I don't think I have ever come across one.

The Leaf book has a photo of Brian and Carl jamming onstage with The Flame.  You can see Blondie in the photo.  I think that's the closest I've ever seen. 


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jon Stebbins on August 11, 2006, 09:33:38 AM
I have a photo of Brian, Blondie and Ricky together...in fact I took the photo myself. However, it's from 2000. They were all at the CWF event in Malibu that year. I'll dig around and post it when I find them.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 11, 2006, 10:23:32 AM
Oh yeah I even asked people when it was taken on here. I think it was th 2-70 tour not an L.A. club.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: c-man on August 11, 2006, 10:33:17 AM
I think I was told by someone (Alan Boyd? Steve Desper?) that "Sunshine" began at Western, perhaps as a cover of another song. Maybe the basic track was done there? Now I'm away from my notes and I can't remember precisely. But that's what I remember. And obviously what ended up in the book.

"Sunshine" came from "Little Girl", a Phil Spector song that Brian recorded at Western in July '79.
I think there may have been an earlier version, from Lovesongs Studio (Mike's place), but the
version used as the basic for "Sunshine" is from Western.  I remember Bruce saying they took
a section of the "Little Girl" track, copied it several times, and spliced all the copied sections
together to make a full track, then overdubbe on top of it.

I neglected to mention that the 7/79 sessions at Western were done to 4-track...so when part of "Little Girl" was copied to use as the basis for "Sunshine", it was also transferred to 24-track.  Why were they still cutting to 4-track this late in the game?  Obviously to get Brian back in the same "feel" production-wise as he was in his glory days.  And obviously it didn't work.

Craig


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Steve Mayo on August 11, 2006, 01:47:06 PM
i got my copy of the book a couple of days ago. i have enjoyed flipping thru it reading about certain events. the book does a great job either filling in holes from other books or backing up claims from those books. i will start actually reading it this weekend.

not to sound picky but i don't think alan had a beard at the 1971 feb carnegie show. i believe he started growing it around june of that year.

and "let's go to heaven in my car" was in police academy 4 not 3.

but i really think i am going to enjoy this book very much. thank you for all your efforts!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 11, 2006, 04:28:22 PM
I think I was told by someone (Alan Boyd? Steve Desper?) that "Sunshine" began at Western, perhaps as a cover of another song. Maybe the basic track was done there? Now I'm away from my notes and I can't remember precisely. But that's what I remember. And obviously what ended up in the book.

"Sunshine" came from "Little Girl", a Phil Spector song that Brian recorded at Western in July '79.
I think there may have been an earlier version, from Lovesongs Studio (Mike's place), but the
version used as the basic for "Sunshine" is from Western.  I remember Bruce saying they took
a section of the "Little Girl" track, copied it several times, and spliced all the copied sections
together to make a full track, then overdubbe on top of it.

I neglected to mention that the 7/79 sessions at Western were done to 4-track...so when part of "Little Girl" was copied to use as the basis for "Sunshine", it was also transferred to 24-track.  Why were they still cutting to 4-track this late in the game?  Obviously to get Brian back in the same "feel" production-wise as he was in his glory days.  And obviously it didn't work.

Craig

For the Western sessions, they dug out an old valve 4-track console, got Chuck Britz to run it and got as many of the old session hands as they could. Yes, it was a ploy to try and make Brian feel comfortable, and therefore productive. No, it didn't really work. One other interesting point: while Brian was in the booth, they ran a 2-track to capture what he was saying, allegedly because it was thought highly possible that this would be the last time Brian ran a BB session.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on August 11, 2006, 05:00:23 PM
For the Western sessions, they dug out an old valve 4-track console, got Chuck Britz to run it and got as many of the old session hands as they could. Yes, it was a ploy to try and make Brian feel comfortable, and therefore productive. No, it didn't really work. One other interesting point: while Brian was in the booth, they ran a 2-track to capture what he was saying, allegedly because it was thought highly possible that this would be the last time Brian ran a BB session.

I've read this account before, and it still perplexes me.

With Chuck Britz engineering, some of The Wrecking Crew participating, Brian Wilson producing, and The Beach Boys singing, I wonder why these sessions were unsuccessful? It looked like a formula for success (now somebody has to mention 15 Big Ones). Was it the material, performance, or both? Also, weren't these the sessions where Carl Wilson was quoted as saying that Brian was "singing like a bird" for a couple of days?

Also, in 1980, Brian Wilson was only 38 years old, and the group wasn't too far removed from the Endless Summer/Brian Is Back campaign. When it is mentioned that these sessions were being recorded/documented as possibly Brian's last as producer for the group, were they really thinking about writing off the poor guy - or the band?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: c-man on August 11, 2006, 05:14:18 PM
I think it's mostly twofold:  Brian, though only 38, was obviously "not well"...and, the material
was apparently all covers.  I'm sure the hope was that this would be a warm-up to him producing some great new material, but with his problems, he probably just couldn't focus.

Andrew, I was just thinking about the 2-track session tape today...and wondering if Alan's come across it...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: petsite on August 11, 2006, 08:50:29 PM
Quote
With Chuck Britz engineering, some of The Wrecking Crew participating, Brian Wilson producing, and The Beach Boys singing, I wonder why these sessions were unsuccessful? It looked like a formula for success (now somebody has to mention 15 Big Ones). Was it the material, performance, or both? Also, weren't these the sessions where Carl Wilson was quoted as saying that Brian was "singing like a bird" for a couple of days?

Also, in 1980, Brian Wilson was only 38 years old, and the group wasn't too far removed from the Endless Summer/Brian Is Back campaign. When it is mentioned that these sessions were being recorded/documented as possibly Brian's last as producer for the group, were they really thinking about writing off the poor guy - or the band?

Brian was in a downward spiral that would almost take his life numerous times during the next 3 years. Also, he had no real interest in producing and writing for the group. Stan Love said of Brian at this time that "The group was mad at Brian and he was mad at them." And Steve Desper told Leaf that Brian was "tolerated" at the KTSA sessions, but not looked to for leadership. They really did think that their judgement was superior to his. And with Brian in the shape he was in, they were right. But, they should have been looking at how to help him. The fact that almost 3 years went by before help was finally engaged to help Brian speaks volumes in and of itself.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 12, 2006, 12:09:38 AM
The '79 Western sessions came about because, given the relatively dismal showing of the 1st Caribou LP, CBS pretty much told the band "next time - more Brian !", so evidently someone came up with the idea of old studio/board/engineer/musicians. Wasn't Brian's idea.

As for the 2-track, I'd be surprised if Steve Desper doesn't have a copy. I'd also be surprised if it was anything other than difficult listening.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 12, 2006, 12:12:29 AM
For the Western sessions, they dug out an old valve 4-track console, got Chuck Britz to run it and got as many of the old session hands as they could. Yes, it was a ploy to try and make Brian feel comfortable, and therefore productive. No, it didn't really work. One other interesting point: while Brian was in the booth, they ran a 2-track to capture what he was saying, allegedly because it was thought highly possible that this would be the last time Brian ran a BB session.

I've read this account before, and it still perplexes me.

With Chuck Britz engineering, some of The Wrecking Crew participating, Brian Wilson producing, and The Beach Boys singing, I wonder why these sessions were unsuccessful? It looked like a formula for success (now somebody has to mention 15 Big Ones). Was it the material, performance, or both?

Because it was 1979 and not 1963-4-5. Bit like the reunion specials of much loved TV shows.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: HeyJude on August 12, 2006, 12:46:31 AM
I just finished reading the book (I think; I usually have the bad habit of picking a spot in the middle, or this case near the end, of a book and reading to the end and then going back to the beginning and starting fresh), and it's quite enjoyable. I have the usual nitpicks that any obsessive fan/student of the band would have, but I'll save those.

I have one question that I hope Peter Ames Carlin can comment on: You mention in passing in the book that there was attempt to oust Al from the band all the way back in 1990. Can you elaborate on this at all, and/or talk about who or where this information came from? I've heard that the relationship between Mike and Al may have been strained as early as the late 80's, and there are of course the rather vague stories of Al being "suspended" or at least not participating in the "Summer in Paradise" sessions a few years later in 1992, but I've never heard of this attempted ousting of Al back in 1990. Your wording in the book seems to suggest Carl prevented this from happening, but I'm just curious about any details surrounding this, as it is mentioned so briefly in passing in the book.

Curiously, there was a short string of Beach Boys shows during 1990 that Mike missed when he toured in Japan with one of his side bands, the first and probably last time he missed any BB shows apart from the short stint in 1970. Al took over handling Mike's leads during this short strings of shows in May-June 1990. Curiously, there exists a recording of a show from June 2, 1990 in Barrie, Ontario where Mike is absent and Al handles Mike's leads. Then, a recording from only four days later, June 6, 1990 in Tennessee, features Mike back with the band, but Al is absent! During the show, somebody asks where Al is, and Mike (seemingly jokingly) simply states that Al is on "sabbatical", whatever that means. I wonder if this string of events has anything to do with what you mention in the book occuring in 1990.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 12, 2006, 03:22:57 AM
I think Brian did some of those Mikeless shows in 1990 am I correct?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 12, 2006, 03:37:51 AM
Curiously, there was a short string of Beach Boys shows during 1990 that Mike missed when he toured in Japan with one of his side bands, the first and probably last time he missed any BB shows apart from the short stint in 1970.

Don't forget his six-month sojurn at a TM center in Switzerland (Leysin ?) in 1977/8: he missed quite a few gigs then. The band's then manager (brother Steve ?) went loopy, as they'd just signed a new contract with CBS.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: c-man on August 12, 2006, 08:13:35 AM
Peter - just finished my initial browse of your book.  Great job!  Regarding the collapse of the 1995 Beach Boys project with Don Was, and Carl not liking the way "Soul Searchin'" turned out, I'm pretty sure that's because the Beach Boys vocals were added to a rather bland-sounding Don Was-produced backing track (that no one outside the group's inner circle and Cindy Lee Berryhill has actually heard).  Sometime later, Brian, Andy, and Mark L. went back to their original pre-Was track and "flew in" the Boys vocals from the Was version, creating the really kickin' production that leaked out as part of the "Wilson-Paley" bootlegs.  Carl reportedly never heard that version...if he had, I think he would've liked it a lot...I mean , how COULDN'T one not like it...it's just great, and I feel it really could've been a hit for them in 1996.

Craig


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on August 12, 2006, 08:53:09 AM
Hey Hey: I heard about Al's 1990 ouster from some combination of insiders, now I can't remember who right now (Not meaning to be coy, but I wrote that stuff a year or more ago, the info is buried somewhere here in my archives), and also saw a few references to it in copies of business letters I have about Brian's participation in band projects in the late '80s and early '90s.

I was also aware that the "Soul Searchin'" from the bootleg wasn't the backing track they had sung to. I never heard the Was production, either. But Brian and I think someone else (Paley?) said Carl didn't like his vocal, or didn't like the songs, and Mike made it pretty clear to me that there wasn't a whole lot of enthusiasm in the BB's to be working on a Brian-dominated album. Whether that says more about external circumstances -- legal, business, whatever -- I dunno. But I find it astonishing, and all too predictable.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Smilin Ed H on August 12, 2006, 09:34:35 AM
"Curiously, there was a short string of Beach Boys shows during 1990 that Mike missed when he toured in Japan with one of his side bands, the first and probably last time he missed any BB shows apart from the short stint in 1970. "

Just out of interest, what's the fewest number of genuine BBs (and I include Bruce) to ever play a BB gig BEFORE it became the Mike and Bruce show? Two?




Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 12, 2006, 10:00:31 AM
If you include Bruce - and why not ? - I think it would be three: Carl, Alan & Bruce during one of Mike's 1990 absences, or Mike, Alan & Bruce during Carl's final illness, although that is open to question as David can be regarded as an original as well.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: HeyJude on August 12, 2006, 10:43:02 AM
If you include Bruce - and why not ? - I think it would be three: Carl, Alan & Bruce during one of Mike's 1990 absences, or Mike, Alan & Bruce during Carl's final illness, although that is open to question as David can be regarded as an original as well.

There were also some Mike/Al/Bruce shows earlier, such as some shows in 1981/1982 when Carl had left. There were occasionally shows where neither Dennis nor Brian were present. There was also a short string of shows, or at least one show, around September of 1990 that Carl missed because of an appendectomy (if I'm recalling correctly) which featured only a Mike/Al/Bruce lineup. Strange that in 1990 you could have seen a Mike/Al/Bruce/Carl show, or a Bruce/Al/Carl show, or a Mike/Bruce/Carl show, or a Mike/Al/Bruce show. The common theme seems to be that there always seemed to be an attempt to keep at least three "official" Beach Boys on stage. It always struck me as strange that other bands would usually cancel or postpone a show if one of the core members wasn't able to make it, but I guess doing 150-180 shows per year, every year, meant that occasional absences were unavoidable and tolerated.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: c-man on August 12, 2006, 10:43:34 AM
If you include Bruce - and why not ? - I think it would be three: Carl, Alan & Bruce during one of Mike's 1990 absences, or Mike, Alan & Bruce during Carl's final illness, although that is open to question as David can be regarded as an original as well.

Three does seem to be it, but earlier still...Mike, Alan & Bruce reportedly did some shows in early '82 without any of the Wilson Bros., and Carl, Alan & Bruce did at least one gig in '83 without Mike, Dennis & Brian.
As for the late '90s, in early '97, before Carl dropped out & David rejoined, Mike, Alan & Bruce played a few shows (including Finland) w/out Carl.  Come to think of it, they also did some Carl-less gigs here-and-there in '95 and '96.  


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: c-man on August 12, 2006, 10:45:20 AM
Strange that in 1990 you could have seen a Mike/Al/Bruce/Carl show, or a Bruce/Al/Carl show, or a Mike/Bruce/Carl show, or a Mike/Al/Bruce show.

Or an Al-Bruce-Carl-Brian show.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on August 12, 2006, 11:58:09 AM
<<Mike made it pretty clear to me that there wasn't a whole lot of enthusiasm in the BB's to be working on a Brian-dominated album.>>


What was WRONG with those guys?!?!?!?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: petsite on August 12, 2006, 01:40:03 PM
I saw the group in March of 1982 with Dennis/Al/Bruce/Mike where Bruce played the white grand piano stage right. Mike had told me eariler that Brian was indeed in Houston but decided not to attend the show.

As a quick aside, Mike was doing "Looking Back With Love" and  "Be My Baby" that night from his "new" solo LP. As he announced the mini-set he said (I will always remember this) "I gonna do a couple of tunes from my new solo LP Looking Back With Love. If you have to take a piss, now would be a good time!"

Classic. This was also the first time I saw Mike without his beard. He looked ten years younger. Bennis was VERY wasted and had no beard (thought he had one just 2 months before) and long, stringy hair. He was a mess.

Also, has anyone else noticed that Dennis during the last several years of touring would always wear a BB tshirt that was being sold out in the lobby of the venues? I am guessing he would show up shirtless and snag one before hitting the stage (after all they were free to him).


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Rocker on August 12, 2006, 02:09:07 PM
<<Mike made it pretty clear to me that there wasn't a whole lot of enthusiasm in the BB's to be working on a Brian-dominated album.>>


What was WRONG with those guys?!?!?!?

I was about to ask the same. They always tried to get Brian back to working, because they wouldn't get a record-deal without him. Then they have the chance and even very strong material, and they let it go.  Maybe it was too difficult to play this material live?  ::)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jeff Mason on August 12, 2006, 03:19:07 PM
<<Mike made it pretty clear to me that there wasn't a whole lot of enthusiasm in the BB's to be working on a Brian-dominated album.>>


What was WRONG with those guys?!?!?!?

I was about to ask the same. They always tried to get Brian back to working, because they wouldn't get a record-deal without him. Then they have the chance and even very strong material, and they let it go.  Maybe it was too difficult to play this material live?  ::)

They wanted the record deal -- not Brian working on it.  So they would cozy up to get it and then try their own stuff.  I think that Brian poisoned their trust in him with his unique approach in the 70's -- lots of great and completely uncommercial music there.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Rocker on August 12, 2006, 03:25:36 PM
<<Mike made it pretty clear to me that there wasn't a whole lot of enthusiasm in the BB's to be working on a Brian-dominated album.>>


What was WRONG with those guys?!?!?!?

I was about to ask the same. They always tried to get Brian back to working, because they wouldn't get a record-deal without him. Then they have the chance and even very strong material, and they let it go.  Maybe it was too difficult to play this material live?  ::)

They wanted the record deal -- not Brian working on it.  So they would cozy up to get it and then try their own stuff.  I think that Brian poisoned their trust in him with his unique approach in the 70's -- lots of great and completely uncommercial music there.

But stuff like "Soul searchin" is great AND commercial at the same time. They had to know this. And with Brian there they'd have even more publicity -> bigger hit. I guess I'll never understand the thinking of the BBs. Crazy Brian's thinking is easier for me to understand.

BTW Carl wanted to put his "Run don't walk" on the album, do you think Brian would have produced it? I guess not.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: kshane on August 12, 2006, 05:51:46 PM
Peter, I'm enjoying your book very much. In the section about Pet Sounds, you mention that a number of critics regard the inclusion of Sloop John B to be the one huge flaw on the album, and then you go on to defend Brian's inclusion of the song. I've re-read that section several times, and it's not altogether clear to me. Could you explain further why you feel that the song warranted inclusion on the album? I'm not saying it doesn't. I'd just like to understand your position a little better.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dr. Tim on August 12, 2006, 07:42:55 PM
OF course Peter will answer for himself, but as I understand it more than a few critics feel Sloop John B with its "bad trip" vibe fits in just fine with the "grown up" melancholy of the original LP, even if it was recorded some time earlier, and apparently Peter is in that corner.  As just another prole who grew up with the album, I ve always been used to it being there and never thought twice about it until I read the Badman book.

One of the scholars here (I forget who) pointed out that Sloop John B was always slated to be on the LP, it appears on an early track lineup list for Pet Sounds. 

Small bit of trivia: While Al and/or Brian may have first heard the song as done by the Kingston Trio, it was previouisly popularized by the Weavers on one of their 50's Decca sides, and appears on their "Best of" LP for that label.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 13, 2006, 12:47:44 AM
It's funny but I think the Granatta book totally says it shouldn't be there. I think Pet Sounds would be less of an achievement without it. It acts as a great intermision between the two sides and musically fits right in. One thing I will say is that I think Peter's book mentions that he didn't think Al actually introduced Brian to the song but I think he did. Afterall even if there are tapes of Brian singing it with Rich Sloan, AL went to high school with Brian and may have played it to him then. I think Dave or Al once said that a more folky version was in the setlist in 62-3


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: c-man on August 13, 2006, 05:36:16 AM
It's funny but I think the Granatta book totally says it shouldn't be there. I think Pet Sounds would be less of an achievement without it. It acts as a great intermision between the two sides and musically fits right in. One thing I will say is that I think Peter's book mentions that he didn't think Al actually introduced Brian to the song but I think he did. Afterall even if there are tapes of Brian singing it with Rich Sloan, AL went to high school with Brian and may have played it to him then. I think Dave or Al once said that a more folky version was in the setlist in 62-3

And even if Brian WAS already familiar with the song, it was still Al's idea for them to do it in '65, and to do it with the more modern chord progression that Al interjected.  Kind of like if someone came to Brian today with an idea to do the "Star Spangled Banner" in a modern context...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on August 13, 2006, 10:57:06 AM
I hope my argument for the rightness of "SJB" being on 'PS' is elaborated upon to the fullest extent in the pages of 'Catch A Wave.' But here's a brief blow-by of what I"m thinking.

1. The instrumental and vocal arrangements fit nicely with the other tunes.
2. The song's internal story -- feeling lost and displaced, yearning for home -- tell a variation of the same story told in many of the other songs ("That's Not Me," "I Know There's An Answer," "IJWMFTT," etc)
3. The contrast between the song's lost-and-heartbroken text and its ecstatically beautiful musical backdrop also fits with the other songs. And, as an individual piece, presents a whole new angle. In a sense, the song itself is a vignette in the story of the album: the point at which our hero, BW, shows us what he can do with music. Because we aready know "SJB," and we can immediately tell the difference between the standard folk arrangement and what we hear here. Thus we get a vivid depiction of how BW can take raw, awful feelings (sorrow; loneliness; etc) and channel them into a veitable rainbow of sounds. This is him at work, doing what he does, being himself.


Regarding Al and the song. I believe the tapes I heard of Brian, et. al, singing the song in high school pre-date the point at which he began to sing with Al. Or maybe not, who knows, but the point is that SJB was a well-known tune to these kids, and thus BW obviously knew it. So did Al come up with the striking 'PS' arrangement? Uh....hard to imagine. Maybe he had the idea of adding some relative minors here and there (Hey, we could slide down to an E-minor instead of going back to the G!) But gee, how many other jaw-dropping arrangements did AJ come up with on his own? And how many did Brian do? What does this pattern suggest to us?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on August 13, 2006, 11:34:13 AM
Regarding Al and the song. I believe the tapes I heard of Brian, et. al, singing the song in high school pre-date the point at which he began to sing with Al.

Peter,
      You can't casually throw in a line like that and get away with it! :police:  Did you hear tapes ABOUT Brian singing in high school, or did you actually hear tapes OF Brian singing in high school? If it's the latter, could you elaborate - songs, quality, etc. Thanks...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: c-man on August 13, 2006, 12:01:52 PM
So did Al come up with the striking 'PS' arrangement? Uh....hard to imagine. Maybe he had the idea of adding some relative minors here and there (Hey, we could slide down to an E-minor instead of going back to the G!)

I think the minor chord changes are exactly what Al contributed to the song, and all he claimed to.  To me, this falls ino the realm of "adaptation", not "arrangement".  The "arrangement", especially the sparkling guitar & glockenspiel line, is surely Brian's.  When I do my essay on this track for my website (www.beachboysarchives.com), I plan to credit it thusly:

Written: Words/Music - traditional, adapted by Carl Sandbeg with George Wathall as THE JOHN B.
            SAILS; Lee Hays as I WANNA GO HOME (WRECK OF THE JOHN B.); Jimmy Rodgers as THE
            WRECK OF THE JOHN B.; newly adapted by Alan Jardine and Brian Wilson   
Arranged: Brian Wilson


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Reum on August 13, 2006, 12:16:03 PM
There are indeed tapes of Brian singing Wreck of the John B from high school. Brian was a big fan of the Weavers, who included Lee Hays and Pete Seeger. He knew the Weavers music from hearing it the home in Hawthorne. While Murry didn't like the Weavers' politics, he enjpyed their vocal interplay. Brian's early takes of Sloop John B follow the Weavers version almost word for word and is stylistically similar. Later in '67, Brian sang On Top of Old Smokey with Pauk McCartney and the Philips from the Mamas and Papas, and in the 90s cut a word for word version of the Weavers version of Goodnight Irene.

Alan probably has no idea of how much Brian liked the Weavers. They were a huge influence on 50s and early 60s music.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Rocker on August 13, 2006, 01:51:46 PM
Later in '67, Brian sang On Top of Old Smokey with Pauk McCartney and the Philips from the Mamas and Papas

Did you hear a tape or something? A tape of this recording would be very interesting....


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Emdeeh on August 13, 2006, 03:20:39 PM
I'm with Craig on this one.

I'm all for giving credit where it's due, even when it's minor credit. Giving a collaborator their fair share of credit is the right thing to do imho, and doesn't take anything away in the least from Brian's remarkable accomplishments.



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: c-man on August 13, 2006, 03:33:53 PM
I'm with Craig on this one.

I'm all for giving credit where it's due, even when it's minor credit. Giving a collaborator their fair share of credit is the right thing to do imho, and doesn't take anything away in the least from Brian's remarkable accomplishments.


Right.  Even though Brian may have been very familiar with "Sloop" from the Weaver's version, and had sung it years before, it's doubtful he would've ever considered recording it with the Beach Boys...it just isn't "Beach Boys" sounding material in its folky incarnation.  Alan overcame that challenge by (a) playing it for Brian on the piano instead of the guitar, and (b) adding the minor chords.  It then became interesting enough to Brian for him to run with it and create a "symphonic rock" arrangement. 

I agree with Peter, it belongs on "Pet Sounds".  For years, we believed that Capitol "forced" Brian to include it on the album, but Brad Elliott unearthed some documentation indicating that at the very least Brian was in favor of it, and maybe even planned to include it from the beginning.  I think maybe this got confused with Capitol insisting that "Good Vibrations" be included on "SMiLE", and that's where the myth started?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 13, 2006, 04:14:46 PM
I think Vibrations is essential to Smile too. I thnk Al and Brian never suggested that Al came up with any of the arrangement. All I am saying is that Al may have introduced Brian to the Weavers or at least the song. What we do know for sure is that Al told Brian it may work as a Beach Boys cut in 1965, and it was probably his idea to put any type of "folk" music in the early setlists. Al could never come up with something quite as thought out though Loop De Loop comes close. Yes Brian helped there but like Cottonfields, Al is the one who really turned the simplicity of Brian's cuts into eleaborite productions. Some perfer Brian's simple cuts and that's cool, but by 1969 Al could do some pretty complex things.

btw I always liked Al's Cottonfields better ironically because of Brian whose harmonies are very present. I know many think he isn't on there I have been told by Desper and I think Alan Boyd that Brian did an overdub on the finished song.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: HeyJude on August 14, 2006, 12:32:33 AM
Hey Hey: I heard about Al's 1990 ouster from some combination of insiders, now I can't remember who right now (Not meaning to be coy, but I wrote that stuff a year or more ago, the info is buried somewhere here in my archives), and also saw a few references to it in copies of business letters I have about Brian's participation in band projects in the late '80s and early '90s.

Peter, thanks for following up on my question. Can you elaborate at all on what this attempted "ousting" involved? Was it simply an attempt to remove Al from the touring band? Did it involve trying to but you his share in Brother? Was Al aware back in 1990 of this attempt to oust him? It would seem like it would be difficult for him to remain in the band knowing this, but then again, it doesn't seem too strange in the world of the Beach Boys. Can you share anything about how this ousting was referred to in documents you saw? I'm just curious about what this entailed, and how it would be referenced in documents involving Brian. I'm just trying to imagine a letter written to Brian asking him to appear at a session or something, followed by something like "P.S. We're trying to kick Al out of the band."


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 14, 2006, 01:51:53 AM
I don't think the time they were going to oust Bruce for Billy in 1969 has been explained either.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dan Lega on August 14, 2006, 07:32:37 AM
     I'm a little more than halfway through the book.  It's definitely a good read and I'll have more to say later on, but I just read Peter's description of "I'm Wanna Pick You Up" and I have to say I was really upset by it.  Yes, I've read a few other people write essentially the same thing on the internet, but it didn't disturb me as much as seeing it in print in a real book.  Peter, I don't have any idea how you come up with your disturbing ideas about the song.  The second line of the song goes, "Cribs and cradles and bottles and toys, are part of joys they bring".  Now from there, how anyone could misinterpret the rest of song, which perfectly describes all things that parents do with children, into being some extremely weird sexual song is way beyond my comprehension.  The song is without a doubt nothing more than a story about a dad and his baby girl, albeit with a double entendre jokey title and first line.  This song has never done anything but bring joy to me.  However, your description of it makes me shudder.

       Love and merci,   Dan Lega


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on August 14, 2006, 07:48:03 AM
Hi Dan: Sorry to freak you out, but I can only call 'em like I hear 'em. And given the mood on the vaguely lecherous mood in the rest of the album -- from "Roller Skating Child" to "Honkin' Down the Highway" -- and the commingled images of childhood/adolesence and sexuality, then that's what struck me. I'm not saying that either Brian or Dennis was sexually twisted enough to have a thing for infants or toddlers.  But I think the lines of how they defined/expressed love and affection were a little twistier than the average guy's.

ps: Dennis's kids, for instance, adored the guy. His second wife, Barbara, mother to Michael and Carl, says quickly that despite everything else, Dennis was a terrific, caring dad.

pps: Brian, for all his obvious problems, is at least guileless when it comes to his older kids. And they know it and appreciate it. And him.



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bicyclerider on August 14, 2006, 09:19:22 AM

what I found fascinating in Peter's description of Brian's high school home tapes is not the singing as the coversations he recorded, the arguments . . . definitely the precursor to the SMile era party tapes and Vegetables arguments.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dan Lega on August 14, 2006, 01:32:46 PM

    Sorry, but I think it says much more about you than about the Beach Boys to say you find some weird sexual vibe in "I Wanna Pick You Up". 

    Even if some of the other songs have a vaguely lecherous feel (which I don't think they do,) I still don't see how anything other than the obviously jokey title has anything even remotely sexual in it.  As for "Rolling Skating Child" and "Let Us Go This Way" being lecherous, yes, the songs were written by a guy in his mid 30's, but I think it's plainly clear that Brian wrote from the viewpoint of male teenager, not a 35 year old guy.  I don't find the songs lecherous at all.


           Love and merci,    Dan Lega


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jeff Mason on August 14, 2006, 01:36:40 PM
Dan, you would have a stronger case if "Hey Little Tomboy" didn't exist, esp. the boot version of it.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Rocker on August 14, 2006, 01:40:04 PM

   As for "Rolling Skating Child" and "Let Us Go This Way" being lecherous, yes, the songs were written by a guy in his mid 30's, but I think it's plainly clear that Brian wrote from the viewpoint of male teenager, not a 35 year old guy. 

Than maybe some teenager should have sung it instead of some 35 year old guys... But I don't really care and know if that's lecherous or not. Since english isn't my first language, I listen to the music first.

And btw you wrote that Peter isn't the only one who thinks so, so maybe there is a little truth in it, when other say the same (just my opinion)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: endofposts on August 14, 2006, 03:32:44 PM
Dan, Brian did an interview around the time that album was released (in Rolling Stone, I believe) in which he discussed "I Wanna Pick You Up" as being about a man wanting to treat his girlfriend like a little baby, literally shrinking a grown woman to the size of a doll and playing with her.  It's not about a baby, and that's according to Brian himself!  It's always struck me as a weird song, because it talks about a "baby" in a rather sensual way.  There are elements of pedophilia in Brian's canon, including "Hey, Little Tomboy" and "Lazy Lizzie."  Perhaps the song has pleasant associations for you, but it never has for me!  It's always given me the creeps, and that's before I read the Brian quotes in some book that reprinted it.  I haven't read Peter's book yet (someday!), but I don't think he's off the mark there. 

     I'm a little more than halfway through the book.  It's definitely a good read and I'll have more to say later on, but I just read Peter's description of "I'm Wanna Pick You Up" and I have to say I was really upset by it.  Yes, I've read a few other people write essentially the same thing on the internet, but it didn't disturb me as much as seeing it in print in a real book.  Peter, I don't have any idea how you come up with your disturbing ideas about the song.  The second line of the song goes, "Cribs and cradles and bottles and toys, are part of joys they bring".  Now from there, how anyone could misinterpret the rest of song, which perfectly describes all things that parents do with children, into being some extremely weird sexual song is way beyond my comprehension.  The song is without a doubt nothing more than a story about a dad and his baby girl, albeit with a double entendre jokey title and first line.  This song has never done anything but bring joy to me.  However, your description of it makes me shudder.

       Love and merci,   Dan Lega


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on August 14, 2006, 03:35:56 PM
Yeah, "Hey Little Tomboy" is scary; nearly as much as "Lazy Lizzie," the less said about which, the better. And then you factor in Dennis's eventual sexual relationship with a teenaged girl he met through his teenaged daughter . . . and who just happened to be his second cousin. . . and it's not a very pretty picture.

And I remember that interview with Brian, too, about the guy who wants to treat his chick like a little baby. And then you begin to see how it's not so huge a stretch, after all.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jon Stebbins on August 14, 2006, 04:03:18 PM
Jerry Lee Lewis?? Say no more. Elvis had Priscilla locked up when she was 15 or 16...right? Bill Wyman and that Mandy chick? Rock stars in their 30's and young teenage girls?? Its practically mandatory. Although the baby thing is definitely creepy when tossed in with the rest of the "lecherous" parade...and I was one who pointed out the pedophilic overtones on Love You in my DW book back in 2000. That said, I love I Wanna Pick You Up... It's one of Brian's best in the later days I think.  This is certainly a touchy issue when you start disecting it. Turn the page please!!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dave in KC on August 14, 2006, 04:59:22 PM
I have always loved both songs. The thought NEVER crossed my mind in all these years. I must have quickly passed over that information in your book Jon, and Peter, I'm not that far into yours. I guess I'm just not wired like that or am I missing something? I've played IWTPYU for my daughter since she was a baby and I refuse to believe the group had any other notion in mind when they produced Tomboy.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on August 14, 2006, 05:03:42 PM
Remember,though, Brian can be rather child-like. I don't think he was conciously thinking along the lines of R. Kelly or Michael Jackson, but more along the lines of, I dunno, thinking as a child himself, only with adult feelings. I mean, he WAS going to name an album Adult Child.  Also, too, he was stoned out of his gourd most of the time, and probably thought it was funny. This *is* the same guy who took a picture of himself pretending to eat his shoes.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: the captain on August 14, 2006, 05:22:38 PM
What the f*** ever. Defend BW at all costs. I love Brian's music, but to cut him slack for the same things a person would condemn others because "it's Brian" is ridiculous.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jonas on August 14, 2006, 05:28:16 PM
I dont think its "defending" as much as a different interpretation of the music.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on August 14, 2006, 05:55:12 PM
What the foda ever. Defend BW at all costs. I love Brian's music, but to cut him slack for the same things a person would condemn others because "it's Brian" is ridiculous.

I have a response to this, but as this thread is about Peter & his book, I'll create a new topic for it.  http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,2615.0.html

I'm interested in what you guys think about this...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on August 14, 2006, 06:09:45 PM
I'm gonna weigh in one last time on this thread, if only because it's within the context of 'CAW,' which seems on-topic here.

Guys dig younger girls, it's true. And while Jerry Lee wasn't far from a teenager himself when he got into it with his woefully young cousin (13 or something?) and Brian wasn't far removed from high school while swooning over HS girls during his conversations with Tony Asher during the 'PS' writing sessions (see also: chapter five in 'CAW'), I'm going to guess that his ongoing fixation with youngsters and young love may have had more to do with his upbringing than anything else. Rememering, perhaps, the purity of those feelings when you're that young, and wishing it could be that way again. Not just in terms of puppy love in high school, but also as a very young child, when your needs are met and love doled out almost constantly, without anyone telling you to be successful or profitable of whatever.

Hence "I Wanna PIck You Up" and maybe some of those other vaguely (or not so vaguely) lecherous tunes. At least, that's the most charitable way of interpreting it.

That said, you don't have to listen to 'Love You,' and other tunes from that era, very hard to see how the always-uncomfortable relationship between Brian (and the others) and women was playing out in their early-to-mid-30s. As ever, grown-up relationships seem fraught with so many complexities it's hair-raising. Consider the first line of the first song on the first side of 'Love You': "To get you babe, I went through the wringer..." Which takes us back to so many great first lines in so many great Brian love songs. To wit: "SInce she put me down I been out doing in my head"; "Wendy, Wendy what went wrong?"; "Sometimes I have a weird way of showing my love," "and on and on and on and on and on.

It's always so much easier when the girl is either a complete abstraction ("Well east coast girls are hip!") or too young to have any authority in the relationship ("You're still a baby to me.")

I ain't saying it's sick or wrong. I'm just sayin'. And I'm glad my head doesn't work that way. But my dad kept his eyes in his head, even when he was really mad.



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on August 14, 2006, 06:15:03 PM
I think that has a lot to do with it too. I do think this issue bears further discussion, but I personally think it'd be better served in the link I posted ;)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 14, 2006, 11:57:03 PM
What the foda ever. Defend BW at all costs. I love Brian's music, but to cut him slack for the same things a person would condemn others because "it's Brian" is ridiculous.

Exactly. "Oh, that's just Brian" is absolutely NO defense against someone who tried to get his pre-teen daughter to snort heroin with him. That was the point where Marilyn said "enough".


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dan Lega on August 15, 2006, 07:36:31 AM

      Whether you think some of their other songs are lecherous or not, I still defy anyone to show me one line in "I Wanna Pick You Up", other than the opening line, that even comes close to something that hasn't been done innocently with babies for generation upon generation upon generation.  "Pat her on the butt"?  Please tell me one time you haven't held a baby and didn't pat him or her on the butt!

      Okay, I admit, I totally forgot about Brian saying the song was about someone wanting to treat his girlfriend like a little baby.  That is really weird.  Still, I defy you to show one instance in this song (again, other than the jokey opening line) that gives any impression of the sort.  I'm not talking about inferences you want to pull from other songs, I'm talking about this song only.  But why would Brian give such a weird explanation as this?  I don't rightfully know.  Perhaps because he was embarassed about writing a cute little song about a baby and thought that something as innocent as that would not sell to teenagers?  That's the only "rational" explanation I can come up with, otherwise, I really don't have the foggiest clue.  But remember, Brian is known for the "put on".  Also, he's lied about so many things over the years, and what was that weird answer he gave to what constitutes "The Elements" in SMiLE -- something like "H&V" is earth and "Good Vibrations" is air, etc.  Brian doesn't always answer every question truthfully.   

      Someone said something about "don't defend Brian with 'Oh, that's just Brian'".  I guess I am defending him, but I'm not defending him from being a lecherous old man or a child molester, because first you have to prove to me that there is evidence that Brian in his thirties was a lecherous old man or a child molester.  If there was any evidence he did these things I would not defend him.  Just as no one defends him being out of his mind and offering hard drugs to his children.  You can say Brian is lecherous because he wrote songs about teenage girls when he was in his thirties.  However, that is not really enough evidence.  As far as we know he never did anything with teenagers when he was that age, so I don't have to defend him from being a true lech.  Also, if you look carefully as songs such as "Roller Skating Child", "Let Us Go On This Way", and, yes, even "Hey Little Tomboy" you'll find that they were most likely written in the voice of a teenaged male.  There's not a single line is any of those songs that suggest that the protaganist is a much older male.  Therefore, I don't even have to defend him for writing numerous lecherous songs because in my view he didn't.  Okay, now we get to "Lazy Lizzie".  I'll admit, this does seem to be a song with strictly lecherous overtones, but it's the only one you can make an airtight case for.  And since we have no evidence that Brian really was lecherous, then I don't see why you need to condemn the man and all his other songs for one song that is a bit unsettling and unpleasant.   

       
             Love and merci,   Dan Lega


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: busy doin nothin on August 15, 2006, 08:21:34 AM
A while back I posted a comment in which I complained about Peter's very harsh criticism of MIU Album in the book.  I think Dan's concern about the "I Wanna Pick You Up" comment arises from the same fundamental problem with the book  -- it spends way too much time providing criticism of the music.  The problem with this type of criticism is that it is usually based on the lyrics.  I find analysis of rock lyrics to be very uninteresting, personally.  Peter spends a fair amount of time in the book making a case that the Beach Boys' music is "significant" American art on a scale similar to the music of Stephen Foster or works like Huckleberry Finn.  Ironically, almost the entire case for this view rests on lyrics that were written by Mike Love.

I have read the entire book carefully and spent a lot of time thinking about it.  In many respects, this book is -- or should be -- the definitive biography of Brian Wilson.  Certainly the list of interview subjects is very impressive -- from BW himself to the Lovester, Al, David Marks, numerous high school friends of Brian including Carol Mountain and Rich Sloan, Steve Love, Steve Desper, Melinda, Carnie Wilson, Danny Hutton, Van Dyke Parks, Andy Paley, and many others.  The portrait of Brian in high school is very interesting and telling.  I also found the insights of David Sandler extremely informative and something I had never read before.  Ultimately, Peter does a good job of portraying Brian's life -- at least through about the mid-eighties -- as much less fractured that it has previously been presented.  In other words, Peter shows that Brian had signs of mental illness as early as high school, and that he was not as "crazy" or messed up in the years after SMiLE as we are usually led to believe.

On the other hand, there are many important people who were not interviewed for this book.  Although Al and Mike spoke to Peter, it does not appear that they contributed much of interest.  (I did find the story, told mostly by Maureen Love, about Glee Love throwing all of Mike's belongings out the window when he at 18 got his girlfriend pregnant to be very poignant and telling.)  Brian also does not appear to have said much about the Beach Boys history.  The single biggest person who did not contribute is probably Marilyn.  If it had been my book, I certainly would have wanted to talk to Ricky and Blondie; I don't know if Peter tried.

A major problem I have with the book is the failure to provide sources.  When Peter is quoting from an interview, he makes it clear in the text.  But he makes many, many definitive statements about musical issues that have been the subject of debate for decades (often on this very board) without explaining his sources.  One example is the statement that Brian came up with the piano part on "Don't Go Near the Water" -- I'm not disputing it, I'd just like to know the source.  Also Peter describes and refers to many unreleased studio tapes and home recordings without explaining where he got them.

Another problem is the treatment of Carl, Dennis, and (to a lesser extent) Al.  Peter seems to basically agree with the David Leaf view that it was the Beach Boys who stifled Brian, forcing him not to put out SMiLE in 1967 and forcing him to be the cash cow that kept them going through the lean times.  For instance, Melinda is quoted, uncritically, as saying, about SMiLE, that Brian "show[ed] it to [his] family, and they did nothing but belittle it."  I'm sorry, but I don't see the evidence for this anywhere in the book.  If you use the term "family" and you only mean Mike (and maybe Murry), you have to make that clear.  Where is the evidence that Carl and Dennis were ever anything but supportive of SMiLE?  Certainly it's not to be found in Peter's book.  I loved the story about Peter and his friend running into Dennis and Karen Lamm on the streets of Seattle in 1976.  But that was the only time Dennis came alive in the book.  Dennis and Carl are portrayed as pretty minor characters in this story

Ultimately, sadly, even Brian fails to come alive.  How can a biography of Brian Wilson not even mention Debbie Keil?  Or make some attempt to explain the relationship between Brian and Diane Rovell?  From the mid-eighties on, Brian comes across as a cipher in this book.  The idea that the failure to complete SMiLE was the fundamental issue in his life -- and that he achieved some divine closure with the release of BWPS -- I find very hard to swallow.  What is Brian Wilson really like these days?  Having read this book I still don't know.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on August 15, 2006, 09:17:23 AM
If Dan and BDN don't like the book, that's cool. They have their own expectations and needs, and if 'CAW' didn't satisfy them, I'm sorry about that, and I hope their questions and concerns are satisfied by another writer or book sometime soon. And I think their problems can be instructive for other potential readers/purchasers. To wit:

1. Criticism: If you're looking for a book that doesn't identify and analyze the flaws in BW and the BB's music, this isn't the one you're after. A large part of the story I set out to tell is about how a band/artist who produced some of the rock era's best, most innovative music, could also produce some really awful stuff, too. Then come back and produce more great stuff. I think that's fascinating.

2. Sources: I identify them when/where it seemed important. As to the chain of events that led to my having this tape or that collection of outtakes...that's not the sort of info this book seemed to call out for. Does the average reader really want to know which collector slipped me which tape, as a result of it being slipped to him back in the 'i80s by some other, nameless collector? That's a whole other book, not the one I set out to write.

3. Carl, Dennis and Al: To the extent that they were a part of Brian's life (a lot, often) they figure in. But take a close look at the book title. See how it's about Brian? That makes everyone else a supporting character. And when it comes to whether they did or didn't always support Brian's artistic vision....my interpretation of that issue came from dozens of conversations with dozens of sources, ranging from Brian on down.

4. Diane: I have a hard time with your assertion that the book doesn't discuss or explain Brian's fixation with his sister-in-law. It's all over the 'Pet Sounds' chapter, for instance. And if it doesn't go into even more depth, or take in his exploits with Debbie Keil, etc., that's because it has nothing to do with his work. It's tabloid stuff, at best symptomatic of other problems which are discussed, analyzed, etc. But if it's sex and drugs you're after, Gaines' book is out in softcover.

'CAW' is a book about the life and work of an American artist who has defined both the greatest and most tragic threads in our national character.  It includes all manner of sex, drugs and horror, but most often as a way to describe how the work echoed or expanded upon these other, bigger themes. If that sounds interesting you should buy it or check it out of the library. If not, don't. 




Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: busy doin nothin on August 15, 2006, 11:18:23 AM
If Dan and BDN don't like the book, that's cool. They have their own expectations and needs, and if 'CAW' didn't satisfy them, I'm sorry about that, and I hope their questions and concerns are satisfied by another writer or book sometime soon. And I think their problems can be instructive for other potential readers/purchasers. To wit:

1. Criticism: If you're looking for a book that doesn't identify and analyze the flaws in BW and the BB's music, this isn't the one you're after. A large part of the story I set out to tell is about how a band/artist who produced some of the rock era's best, most innovative music, could also produce some really awful stuff, too. Then come back and produce more great stuff. I think that's fascinating.

2. Sources: I identify them when/where it seemed important. As to the chain of events that led to my having this tape or that collection of outtakes...that's not the sort of info this book seemed to call out for. Does the average reader really want to know which collector slipped me which tape, as a result of it being slipped to him back in the 'i80s by some other, nameless collector? That's a whole other book, not the one I set out to write.

3. Carl, Dennis and Al: To the extent that they were a part of Brian's life (a lot, often) they figure in. But take a close look at the book title. See how it's about Brian? That makes everyone else a supporting character. And when it comes to whether they did or didn't always support Brian's artistic vision....my interpretation of that issue came from dozens of conversations with dozens of sources, ranging from Brian on down.

4. Diane: I have a hard time with your assertion that the book doesn't discuss or explain Brian's fixation with his sister-in-law. It's all over the 'Pet Sounds' chapter, for instance. And if it doesn't go into even more depth, or take in his exploits with Debbie Keil, etc., that's because it has nothing to do with his work. It's tabloid stuff, at best symptomatic of other problems which are discussed, analyzed, etc. But if it's sex and drugs you're after, Gaines' book is out in softcover.

'CAW' is a book about the life and work of an American artist who has defined both the greatest and most tragic threads in our national character.  It includes all manner of sex, drugs and horror, but most often as a way to describe how the work echoed or expanded upon these other, bigger themes. If that sounds interesting you should buy it or check it out of the library. If not, don't. 




Peter --

I should say, first of all, that I thought the book was very well written and as I hope I suggested above, well researched.  I think you're right that my concerns are probably fundamentally at the conceptual level -- not with how well you accomplished what you set out to do, but rather with the goal you set for yourself.  I think you wrote a very solid book.

However, I still have a problem with a theme that is repeated throughout -- that Brian was the victim of his "family."  Brian certainly was a victim of Murry, but I feel you allowed the implication to permeate the book that he was also victimized by the rest of his family -- and you didn't define the term very well.  Do you really mean that Brian's problems were caused by Carl or Dennis (yes, I know about Dennis giving Brian drugs in the late 70s, but Brian was 35 years old by then)?  How exactly was Brian exploited or victimized by his brothers -- or even really by Mike?  Brian was (and is) a rich, powerful, famous fully grown man, fully capable of deciding what he wanted and getting it.  Sure, he had terrible judgment and psychological problems, but so do a lot of people.  The fact that he made big mistakes doesn't turn him into a martyr.  When exactly did anyone put a gun to his head and forbid him to release SMiLE?  Certainly it wasn't Carl or Dennis.

As for the sources, it's not just the tapes -- although you can see on this very thread that many people who know a lot about BB bootlegs have never heard some of the stuff you refer to in the book (such as the tape of Brian singing SJB in high school).  It's also many statements about musical attribution -- like Brian's piano on Don't Go Near the Water -- that it would be nice to see the sources for.

I don't think you can call Brian's relationship with Debbie Keil (or Diane Rovell) "tabloid stuff."  You allude to Brian's crush on Diane in the Pet Sounds section, but this was more than a crush -- by many accounts it went on well into the 70s.  I don't know exactly what happened between BW and DR, but if I were writing a bio of Brian that would be one of the first questions I would try to get answered.  It's an important part of his life -- as is his relationship with Debbie Keil.  If you don't mention those things it seems like you are trying to whitewash the story.  It seems as though you feel Carolyn Williams is okay to talk about because Brian was divorced at the time and they lived together -- but Debbie and Diane are not because they happened when Brian was still married to Marilyn.  I want to know the truth -- about Brian and his brothers, and the group as a whole.  I don't want to think of Brian as some feeble child-like saint who just wanted to put out SMiLE for all these years but his mean old family wouldn't let him.  I want to think of him as a vibrant, living human being who did what he wanted with his life, made some huge mistakes, but also made more beautiful music than anyone in history -- including, yes, his contributions to MIU, KTSA, and BB85, as well as his solo stuff.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on August 15, 2006, 12:46:17 PM
Hey BDN: Again, you're welcome to not like the book for whatever reasons. But I think you've imagined this idea that I say or even imply that Brian was victimized by his family. I never say that in the book, so unless you can come up with specific examples, and want me to address them, I can't really answer that. I think it's fairly obvious that Carl lost his patience with Brian sometime in the '70s and was less than eager to see his big brother re-establish control over the band. I think I make that clear in the book, but  I don't believe I ever define that as "victimization."

And again, Brian's romantic life is richly covered in Gaines's book. I cover it to the extent it helps us understand his work. But I'm way more interested in his relationship with David Sandler than I am in his relationship with Debbie Keil. I certainly acknowledge that he had affairs and that life in the Wilson house was kinda topsy-turvy that way. But getting into it more deeply than that seems like a distraction, and a stupid one, at that. So he screwed around. Wahoo. It's super-titillating to read it in Gaines's book, but it has nothing to do with what makes him an important artist, and it tells us nothing about his work. At which point I cease to care. But if you need to know specifics about someone's sex life in order to make them come alive in your imagination, you've got plenty of options, book-wise. I wanted to know more about his music.



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: endofposts on August 15, 2006, 03:55:13 PM
Did Brian ever do what he wanted to do with his life?  Many times, no.  People forget that Brian was very seriously mentally ill in the '60s and '70s.  His thought processes aren't going to be the same as someone who does not suffer from that.  I know people say that his speaking voice and demeanor were much better than they have been in recent years, judging by the few films and tapes from those years.  But that's much different than what was going on  in his mind.  For example, journalist David Dalton recounted meeting Brian in 1968.  Brian was friendly with him, but then the reason for that came out -- Brian was convinced that David was Phil Spector.  And David Dalton doesn't look the least bit like Phil Spector!  The man had delusions, heard voices, the whole bit.  I'm sure his family had nothing to do with that, but I'm sure they made decisions on his behalf he may or may not have agreed with due to his disablity, or may not  have been in his best interest.  They had to keep things going, and it was the best they could do.  They also had their own self-interests in mind, which is natural.  That doesn't make them evil, just human, and they also had problems of their own, as several people have stated.  They all came from the same dysfunctional family situation, as Melinda Wilson has said.  I haven't read Peter's book, but I can see how maybe the family might come across as non-sympathetic, which they also do in the Steven Gaines book.   The Steven Gaines book is hardly pro-Beach Boys, either.

As for Diane Rovell, I don't see it being that important, either.  It is tabloid stuff.  Brian was also so self-involved due to his illness, I'm not sure how impactful human relationships were to him, at least not as much as a more stable person.  Diane must have had huge problems of her own to resort to that, and I'm not sure how much anyone would get out of her, because it's a touchy topic for her sister and her nieces, as well.  Gaines just touches on it as it is.  As for Debbie Keil, no, I don't care either.  I don't think it would add that much.  I've always gotten the impression that Brian's male friendships had a bigger impact on him, and that's even mentioned in the Gaines book, that Brian always needed a best friend to bounce off of.  Those friendships sometimes resulted in songwriting, so, yes, they are more important in his story just from that standpoint.

I guess I need to buy and read the book!  Peter's musical analysis surely can't be any worse than Steven Gaines, who seemed to have never even listened much to the music.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on August 15, 2006, 04:16:22 PM
This *is* the same guy who took a picture of himself pretending to eat his shoes.

I wanna see that picture!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bicyclerider on August 15, 2006, 04:17:29 PM
I think Peter wanted to write a certain kind of book with his perspective on the creative life of Brian Wilson and how it was impacted by certain events and people and his own struggle with mental illness.  It certainly  succeeds on that basis, but it is colored (by necessity) by his critical bias (concerning the music) and his perspective on who and what influenced Brian.  Because of the book's relatively short length, many life episodes and people and events are given short shrift or ignored.  Personally, I feel Brian's relationships with women are very important and telling as to what needs these women were fulfilling and what needs Brian had that were being ignored.  To what degree Brian's romantic life was based on fantasy and an obsession with "innocence" is important in evaluating his crushes on Marilyn, Carol Mountain, and then Diane, Barbara, and others.  These romantic fantasies and obsessions filled his talk with his collaborators (which, to give Peter credit, he does cover in discussing Tony Asher and Andy Paley) and also fueled his creativity in writing songs - Pet Sounds in particular but Love You and Adult Child as well.  so I would have liked more coverage of this area.

My major complaint about the book is it's too SHORT!  It could easily have been twice the length, and gone into more detail about the Landy years (I was surprized Peter didn't bring up the short lived plan to finish Smile in 1988 with new lyrics by Landy having to do with therapy), more coverage about Brian's creativity during the "bedroom" years, more on the Paley era with the fall out with Carl, etc.  Everything is touched on, but we Brian obsessives want MORE!  I really feel this book is aimed at the average person who knows the big hits of the Beach Boys and that Brian had problems with drugs and mental illness, and little more.  which is OK, those people should thoroughly enjoy the book, but we Brian nuts want every detail covered and can't help but wish this was discussed or that included.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on August 15, 2006, 04:41:42 PM
This *is* the same guy who took a picture of himself pretending to eat his shoes.

I wanna see that picture!
I think I have it on my hard drive. I'll look for it. It's pretty famous.

Quote
.  For example, journalist David Dalton recounted meeting Brian in 1968.  Brian was friendly with him, but then the reason for that came out -- Brian was convinced that David was Phil Spector.  And David Dalton doesn't look the least bit like Phil Spector!

WHAT?! I've never heard that one before. Yikes...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 15, 2006, 08:52:39 PM
This *is* the same guy who took a picture of himself pretending to eat his shoes.

I wanna see that picture!

It's in both editions of the Leaf book.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 15, 2006, 09:47:35 PM
Dalton is kind of a Nick Kent if you have read any of his books on the Stones. After all he said that Brian wouldn't do the beach pyramid pictures with the group in 67. Made a big deal of this and we all know Brian took several pyramid pictures that day. Now his stories are fun but how true they are is open to debate. I too wish CAW was longer but to me what is there is overall good.

I disagree strongly though that Diane and Debbie don't have anything to do with Brian's creativity. I have interviewed Debbie and she had a lot of insight (totally non tabloid) on Brian's music, and mental state in the seventies (he seemed fairly normal and self sufficient in 1969 when they met). She was horrified to be labeled a groupie in the Landy book and took serious issue with Kent had to say about her. Diane also was a big part of the Honeys and Spring creative process as songwriter and singer. She also was helped book the Beach Boys sessions and (I think) hired musicians for them. Not to mention songs these women inspired like Funky Pretty, Night Was So Young, and My Diane.

I don't agree totally with everything Peter says about the family, but I do think he gave Love equal time to say his side of the story thus making the book fair overall. For instance while he mentions the Mike Heroes rant, he also points out that Brian probably wrote it with him and participated even laughing at times. I mean that Cassius Love thing was basically the same idea. As far as how bad his family was I think Landy and his current advisers fed Brian a lot of crap about Smile. Not that their weren't issues but the victim thing is to me B.S. He often worked super close with the others from 67-70 and when he didn't feel like it he didn't (something Peter points out quite well). The post Smile era until perhaps 1971 was a time where everyone worked together well. This was something Brian was very clear on and happy about when we spoke. Sure he and Mike continued to clash but more often then not they wrote and performed fantastically together during that time.

I think one thing that everyone misses is that we created Brian to be fed up with Smile ourselves in some ways. By asking him about it all the time when he had new music to offer must have pissed him off. He probably agreed to it to get everyone to stop bugging him. Sure it probably took a great weight off of him once he did it but I think wanting to stop being harassed about it played a big role in why he decided to go along with completing it.

Overall the book is very good and Peter taught all of us some things we wouldn’t have known otherwise.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: HeyJude on August 15, 2006, 10:15:59 PM
I don't know if Peter really wants more comments about the woulda-shoulda-coulda regarding his book, but here's my take having read it.

It certainly is important to remember two fundamental things: This is a BW bio, not a BB's bio, and it given the book's length and mainstream release, it probably is targeted more at casual fans or newly-interested fans. Those things are all fine.

At this point, I would love to see a BB's bio (as opposed to bio focusing more on one member) as reader-friendly as the books put together by Carlin or Stebbins, that focuses on all of the members and places equal focus on all eras. I'm not saying that one has to devote as large a word count to Al writing "Lady Lynda" as Brian writing "Pet Sounds", but I for one am interested in things having to do with other members.

I think most people on this board know the basic story forward and backwards, so many of us, when it comes to Peter's book, find the most interest in little tidbits of info we haven't heard before and new insights based on new interviews we haven't read. Unfortunately, in a bio covering Brian's whole life in 300 or so pages, it's probably not possible to get into intricate detail on why there was at attempted ousting of Al in 1990 (although, my second post asking for more info on this from Peter got lost among the "I Wanna Pick You Up" discussion, so if Peter replies to my questions regarding that, that would be great!). I give Peter credit for explicitly explaining in the book, at the point where he discusses the Al/Mike 1998 split, that the whole thing is just too complicated to get into. I'm sure Peter is tired of the woulda-shoulda, but I would have like to see perhaps some footnotes or endnotes in the book when things like the attempted outsting of Al were brought up, to at least offer a bit of additional info for those who are interested. Again, perhaps this would have led to page count problems. In any event, since these new little tidbits of info mentioned often in passing are some of the things that hardcore fans are finding the most interesting, that might be why some fans are so adament about following up on these tidbits asking for more background information. "What's your source?" may sound a bit accusatory, but I think most fans ask this because they'd like to see more info on that subject, not because they don't believe what Peter wrote. But I'll let other fans/readers speak for themselves on that.

I'm not too concerned with an author's favoring or not favoring a given album or era. Nearly every BB book I've read, I've disagreed with on that sort of thing. I think Jon Stebbins' DW bio is fantastic, but I certainly don't agree with every opinion he has on every song or album. Same goes to Peter's book, or Andrew Doe's, or most books that take any sort of critical look at the music. So those preferences aren't too important to me. Sure, a huge bias on an author's part might color the entire book, but I don't think anything written by Stebbins or Carlin or Doe has that problem. (I don't meant to single any authors out, these are just the three names that are familiar to this board).

Also, I think, and I hope I'm not making too many assumptions, but just about any author has their own points of interest and things they're not as interested in. I would be willing to bet that Jon Stebbins or Peter Ames Carlin aren't as interested in certain aspects of the BB's story as I am. For instance, as great as Peter's book is, and as much as it does offer some new insights and ways of looking at something like "Pet Sounds", it's been quite awhile since I've really read much in terms of actual new information about the creation of "Pet Sounds." So in this instance, I would probably like to read more in a book about something that we know less about, like the reasons for Al no longer playing in the touring BB's, or the aborted Paley/Was sessions, or Brian's early 80's life, and perhaps less about the creation of "Pet Sounds."

This is how I always look at the Beach Boys: They may never get the coverage they deserve when it comes to literature or documentary, etc. Think about it: the "Beatles Anthology" took nearly 10 hours of video to tell a story that, for the most part, covers 1962 to 1970. 10 hours for 8 years. What do we have for the BB's? Endless Harmony clocks in at something like 1 hour and 40 minutes, right? And that covers about 37 years, 1961-1998 roughly. To tell the BB's story in the same detail as something like the "Beatles Anthology", it would take thousands of pages or 30-40 hours of video (keeping in mind that the entire 40-plus year history of the BB's is not as jam packed from year to year as the 62-70 era for the Beatles).

Taking all that into consideration, I can't fault Peter's book beyond the standard sort of critical look that I would and do give any book. I mean, is any publisher really going to publish a bio on Brian or the group that basically consists of "Only Stories that Haven't Been Told in Other Books". I'd buy it, most of us would. But the general public wouldn't. And as much as I'd like to see a 10-part book on the history of the group, that would be large undertaking for even the most connected group insider to do.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Roger Ryan on August 16, 2006, 06:00:59 AM
This *is* the same guy who took a picture of himself pretending to eat his shoes.

I wanna see that picture!

In addition to being published, you can find the picture hanging in the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame Museum in Cleveland...in the cafeteria area appropriately enough (just thought a little bit of levity would lighten this heavy thread for a moment).


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: JRauch on August 16, 2006, 08:17:05 AM
Just for the balance of this thread:

Peter, your describtion of "Busy Doing Nothin" is pure brilliance. It was due to your book that I finally "got" that song. Thanks!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on August 16, 2006, 08:36:13 AM
This *is* the same guy who took a picture of himself pretending to eat his shoes.

I wanna see that picture!

It's in both editions of the Leaf book.


Which I don't have...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: mistermono on August 16, 2006, 09:51:16 AM
Peter, you mention in the book that there was a problem with Frank Holmes doing the artwork for BWPS that prompted him to walk away from the project.  Could you elaborate further?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: JRauch on August 16, 2006, 10:14:01 AM
I've heard that he wanted too much money.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 16, 2006, 11:35:07 AM
Just to set this record straight, Frank was never paid by either Capitol or the band for all his work back in 1966/7, thus when approached to use the original artwork for BWPS, this was a factor influencing the sum he requested. Brian's management declined his offer.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Mlondon on August 16, 2006, 12:53:37 PM
Just to set this record straight, Frank was never paid by either Capitol or the band for all his work back in 1966/7, thus when approached to use the original artwork for BWPS, this was a factor influencing the sum he requested. Brian's management declined his offer.

Normally you do set the record straight Andrew.
But not this time.
As I recall, this subject came up when I began the project in 2004 and I told you then that Frank
was paid by Brian himself for the art and also has made a few $$ selling lithos of the the original
cover for years (I have one myself, it's awesome!) Your reply was "I stand corrected."
Also let me tell you how thrilled I was to be given due credit in Peter's book.....oh, whatya know,
not even a mention. Oh well, maybe if it was a historically higher profile gig....

~ Mark London


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 16, 2006, 01:53:02 PM
Mark, I stand corrected. Again.  :-\

In mitigation, two years ago is a long time for me. I recall my source for today's statement (Frank in private conversation with a friend). Must have a word or two.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Mlondon on August 16, 2006, 02:15:30 PM
Can't say who your friend is, but this is coming directly from my conversation with
Frank when I flew to San Francisco to begin the "coming soon to a face near you"
announcement with him (the only actual SMilE work we did together: a T-shirt and
a now heavily bootlegged poster for the UK...thanks E-Bay!!)

P.S.
Your "do what thou wilt" quote by Aleister Crowley; Isn't that
taking the 'Rock & Roll is the Devil's Music" thing pretty deep?!

Keep up the good...er....work Andrew!

~ ML ~



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Daniel S. on August 16, 2006, 04:22:54 PM
So if it wasn't about money, how come Mr. Holmes wasn't back to do the artwork in 2004? Even if they felt the original work was too closely associated with the past, did they think of having him do new artwork for the album?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jeff Mason on August 16, 2006, 06:08:08 PM
So if it wasn't about money, how come Mr. Holmes wasn't back to do the artwork in 2004? Even if they felt the original work was too closely associated with the past, did they think of having him do new artwork for the album?

Mark never said it wasn't about the money -- he merely pointed out that Holmes was paid for his work originally.  But when it came time to *re-license* the work (which was necessary), Wilson and Holmes couldn't agree on a price.  Thus Mark did his work.  Frankly, I think I like Mark's work better.  It fits the feel better for the newer rendition.  Holmes' work is very 60's-ish, while Mark's is more consciously "Americana" a la the album's themes.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Charles LePage @ ComicList on August 16, 2006, 06:34:49 PM
Welcome to the board, Mark!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Mlondon on August 16, 2006, 09:24:26 PM


Thanks Charles & Thanks Jeff!

I haven't posted on anything in a couple of years.
I'll never compare my work to Frank's though.
I love Frank's vibe, style and approach.
To say it was a tall order to fill is an understatement.

There were times when I was doing the work, that I could
actually physically feel the anticipation of the (music)
world and my palm was sweating so much I could barely
grip my own damn pen! I had my pal Dennis Loren there
to help keep me at an even keel (Dennis was my "mac"
connection; to gather the art files and pages and organize
them in his mac for the printer... yup, I do it all on PC...big
no-no in the music biz usually!) I chose the early Americana
approach because obviously I couldn't/wouldn't try to copy
Frank, and if I chose to do random abstract/freeform paintings
as I've since seen other artists  post...well, I think that the music
is freeform/abstract enough, the package would've presented
itself as just plain confusing!

The only reason it resembled anything from the original was
because I started the project with Frank, and we were gonna
continue where he left off. By the time negotiations broke down,
I didn't have the time to start over (don't forget, I did have a huge
history/tour program to do on a deadline...this was before we even
knew there would be a studio recording) So I thought of what
visions Van may have had flying through his 1966 mind before he
invited Frank on board, and ran out and got those amazing antique
figures- one for each song, and some old agricultural catalogs and
threw my own little whammy on them.

Anyway, thanks for the welcome and letting me set the
record straight again about the most important work of
my life so far (even if I don't exist in Peter's book)

~ ML ~





Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Rocker on August 17, 2006, 03:47:31 AM
Welcome Mark ! You did a great job with the BWPS-artwork !

If they had used Holme's original I think Mike would have another point in his recent lawsuit, because it had the Beach Boys' name on it and was over the years associated with them.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dan Lega on August 17, 2006, 06:46:54 AM

     Just a little more on Frank Holmes and the deal that fell through.  (Where is the archive with all this stuff for new folks to go through?!)

     Management (essentially Melinda, I believe) kept asking Frank what dollar amount he thought he should get if they used his art.  Frank then asked how and how much they were going to use his art?  Was this a license for all time or a one time use in the program booklet?  Management came back and only asked how money he needed.  Frank asked again for clarification of how and how much they were going to use his art.  Management again asked only how much he needed.  Well, Frank threw out a ball park number -- which was equivalent to what it was costing for them to pay wages and costs of one member of the band for a month and a half.  Frank thought if they didn't like that number that they would then finally come in and discuss his questions and try to see if they could out a mutually agreeable deal.  However, management just flatly refused his offer.  No discussion whatsoever.  Just a "We think that's way too much money to ask.  Goodbye."

      ... and that was that.

            Love and merci,   Dan Lega


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Smilin Ed H on August 17, 2006, 10:32:54 AM
Pity.  The ironic (and unjust) aspect is that we all have his art on the bootlegs!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Mlondon on August 17, 2006, 12:19:50 PM
Quote
However, management just flatly refused his offer.  No discussion whatsoever.
Just a "We think that's way too much money to ask.  Goodbye." ... and that was that.

Hey Dan Lega how are ya? It wasn't quite like that. Frank got a lawyer involved.
Anyone else wouldn't think it such a bad idea, but I would not recommend it as
the best way to re-introduce or endear yourself to the Wilsons after 35 years.
To me that's like reforming your relationship with Superman with a gift of Kryptonite.

Quote
If they had used Holme's original I think Mike would have another point in his recent lawsuit,
because it had the Beach Boys' name on it and was over the years associated with them

Thanks Rocker, you may have a good point there.
To quote the immortal Hunter Thompson; "Call on God...but row away from the rocks."

Quote
The ironic (and unjust) aspect is that we all have his art on the bootlegs!

Have you seen the art Frank sells on his site? Doesn't look too bootleg to me!

Thanks Guys,

~ ML ~


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: HeyJude on August 17, 2006, 06:51:06 PM
I'm curious, because I guess I didn't pay as much attention to the artwork issue back a couple of years ago, what exactly would the use of Frank Holmes' art have consisted of? In other words, would Brian's 2004 "Smile" program and eventual album cover have used Holmes' original Beach Boys/Capitol cover artwork, with Brian's name substituted for the Beach Boys' name? Or would Holmes' potential involvement have consisted of him working on new booklet illustrations and perhaps using some of the old illustrations?

I love the Holmes' cover art (I have a litho print on the wall), but I'm glad that the 2004 artwork was all different. Frankly, it would have put me off quite a bit if the 2004 CD release had simply used the old album cover with BW's name in place of the BB's. As someone who immensely enjoy's BW's 2004 recording yet was and still am very concerned about the 2004 recording's place in history in relation to the original recordings, I was and am all for making the 2004 version very much a new/different/2004 creation, and I was glad to see that there was no attempt on the 2004 version to simply use the same artwork and erase the BB's name and insert BW.

Hopefully, if we ever see a boxed set release of the original BB recordings, we might get another chance to see the Holmes artwork.

PS: A bit of my own commentary regarding bringing a lawyer into negotiations, I would have to say given the history of Brian and the BB's and all of the supposed/alleged business issues over the years, I would never *not* at least have a lawyer available to me if I was making any business deals with them. It seems a bit strange that all of the BB's feel they are allowed to have a Rutles-style collection of lawyers, yet any of them would be put off by somebody else having a lawyer. I don't know what went down with Holmes specifically, but the actual idea of having a lawyer available is something I think anybody should do. Perhaps simple negotiations regarding artwork could be handled by an agent rather than a lawyer, but having legal advice and representation is not always a bad thing, especially when you're dealing with another side that has what I would imagine is plenty of the same.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dr. Tim on August 17, 2006, 07:49:47 PM
Some artistes/managers are very leery of dealing with a lawyer at the start of a discussion - even if they're lawyers themselves!  It sounds like the mistake, if there was one, was having the lawyer make the first contact to management.  Having one around was not the sin, but having the lawyer be the first contact was.   I could see where that would be off-putting to people who are lawsuit-scarred and are fearful of yet another one.  Many dealmakers I know prefer to get to a handshake deal, then have the lawyer be the scrivener or advise of any potential pitfalls.  Unfortunately there's no way to tell who'd get offended until they do and then when they are you can't "fix" it.   


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dan Lega on August 18, 2006, 06:34:54 AM

   Where did you read that the first contact was made by Frank's lawyer?  No one said that.  In fact, Mark said Frank and he were working together and produced a T-shirt before complications set in.


          Love and merci,   Dan Lega


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dr. Tim on August 18, 2006, 07:19:08 AM
Dan, I don't know.  Don't pretend to, never have.  I inferred it from this snippet of Mark's post above:

"Frank got a lawyer involved.
Anyone else wouldn't think it such a bad idea, but I would not recommend it as
the best way to re-introduce or endear yourself to the Wilsons after 35 years."

-- And I was just making a general comment based on that.  I don't pass myself off as one of the scholars or insiders here, just a mook with a keyboard.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Mlondon on August 18, 2006, 03:21:05 PM
I think the timeline got lost in translation.
The day I got an E-Mail saying "we need SMiLE art" was the day
I got Frank's phone number and flew up north the next morning.
We both got a fee for the announcment poster/shirt collaboration...
this was a tight deadline, the whole project came very suddenly.

After that, when Brian went to the UK for the announcment where the
poster was printed and distributed (those are the bootleg ones floating
around E-Bay) We began to negotiate for the tour merchandise (don't
forget; no album planned at this point) I don't even think Van Dyke had
been called by Brian & Darian yet.

We were waiting for an offer to come from Brian's office, and in the
meantime, Frank had come to L.A. for family reasons and met with
Van Dyke...I suggested that they might call Brian and Melinda and
go over for a basic hangout/lunch/reunion...but that didn't happen.
I was insanely busy gathering material; archival photos etc...and we
were still waiting for word from the office, when Frank became a little
impatient (understandable) and shot the letter from his lawyer.
When I heard that, I really wished he had gone and visited with the
Wilson's for an hour when he was in town. Just felt a little cold to me.

This is the way I remember it....my story....
I don't and won't speak for anyone else but myself.

Frank did show me recent SMILE art, around 8 or so more songs
that he illustrated, that was to be for a Capitol box set for I guess
sometime in the late 1980's which got canceled for whatever reasons.
He does not have the original '66 art and doesn't know who does...but
it is true that if we had used all of Franks stuff for 2004, there would
be nothing to use for Capitol if they ever did decide to do a box set in
the future. Looking back now almost 3 years later, I am glad I went
in the new direction, and yes, it would've been a little wierd to drop
Bri's name over where the Beach Boys name used to be....MY only
regret will always be that we couldn't find a way to do achieve my
original idea for the cover...which was not to do the SMiLE letters in
blue foil....but to do them in a more reflective blue mirror...so when
you picked up SMiLE for the first time, you would see your own huge
smile right in the middle of the CD, that was my vision.
Oh yeah...and the fact that the UK never asked for my direction when
they did the "special" shadow box package...I had nothing to do with it.

~ ML ~


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 19, 2006, 01:33:45 AM
Hey ML your art looks great on the vinyl version!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dan Lega on August 21, 2006, 01:35:29 PM
     So I finished Peter's book.  The best parts were the "Brian in high school" stories, and what seemed to me to be new info from David Sandler, Stan Love, and Andy Paley.  Am I right that these guys were all interviewed newly for this book?

     I'd have to guess that Cam and his cohorts are not going to like this book in the least, though.  Mike Love seems to be painted as the "villain" of the story just as much, or more, than he was in David Leaf's book.  Now this doesn't bother me in the least, as I think Mike has made some really stupid choices through the years.  But I don't think it's going to sit well with some members of this board.

      Anyway, it's a very nice addition to the growing Beach Boys bookshelf.  I'm eagerly awaiting the David Marks book now.  Hopefully both of these books will sell quite well and open the gates up for even more books about our favorite band!


                 Love and merci,   Dan Lega


 


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 21, 2006, 04:45:48 PM
I think Mike comes off better in this then the Leaf. At least his background is explored and his rebutles are included. I expected this to be a Brian centric book but it does praise everyone else in some respects far more then Leaf.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on August 21, 2006, 11:27:00 PM
I think the most revisionist thinking in Peter's book is directed at Carl. Granted he had his own considerable problems at the time, but the impression (intentional or not) is that, circa 1975/6 and after trying for some years, he just looked at Brian and went, "ah, f*** it" and concentrated on the band and his own life. Frankly, in his position, I think I'd do exactly the same.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 22, 2006, 02:14:44 AM
I think Carl is a very unexplored person and from most accounts a good one. I think Brian resented their mother favoring Carl, but I think they cared for one another.

That said I would like to present a theory on what Carl may have been thinking my equating it to my oldest friend. He is an addict and while I never would turn my back completely on him there was a point where I saw my help wasn't doing him any good.  At first I wanted to think he would get well,  but now I see him going downhill and there is nothing I can do unless he wants to get better. I call it tough love and while I would always help if asked, I am not going out of my way anymore. I think that when Brian backslid in 78-82 and then when he let Landy convince him to put distance between himself and his family Carl had enough. As far as 1995 goes I don't know what may have happened. I can guess that perhaps  Carl felt exluded from Brian's new life.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Sir Rob on August 22, 2006, 03:29:39 AM
I think Mike comes off better in this then the Leaf. At least his background is explored and his rebutles are included. I expected this to be a Brian centric book but it does praise everyone else in some respects far more then Leaf.

The picture, however, is essentially unchanged from that which most BW/BB authors have presented in the past and it's one not very favourable to Mike and the rest of the band.  Says a lot if PAC went into this venture with an open mind and seeking to give a balanced account.  Whether he did or not I'm not sure - he certainly gives the impression he's striving for balance - but to no avail, he seems to have found certain conclusions unavoidable. 


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on August 22, 2006, 03:58:21 AM
The early years are great with lots of new voices speaking for themselves. Peter, you have certainly set a high mark for future biography by casting the widest net for a balanced group of witnesses but that said I'm wondering why you speak so much about Mike and Al but have Mike and Al speak so little for themselves.  Or is it just me? 


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on August 22, 2006, 11:35:33 AM
Peter doesn't need me to speak for him. And Peter I apologize.
Peter flew to Tahoe and spent at least 1 full day with Mike.  He had numerous phone conversations with Mike, Al, & Bruce.  I know he spent days with both Al and Bruce in person.
If there was information that was pertinent to the book that those gentleman had to share or chose to share Peter would have included it.
I think the trouble Peter went to to lay a sympathetic history of the Love family, by speaking at great lenth in person with Stanley, and Maureen was an indication of his "good faith".
We all know what you're getting at dear misguided Mott. 
I do not insist that you accept what others believe or know to be so.  I only ask that you not clutter us with your same old unfounded, unresearched personally one on one,  and pesonally speculative "point of view".
Sometimes a cigar is really a cigar and the truth is what everyone else believes.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Wilsonista on August 22, 2006, 04:24:57 PM
Not to mention speaking to Michael himself about his upbringing....

Bob, may I just say that you don't post often enough for my liking. I have always enjoyed your contributions to discussions regarding Brian Wilson and the BB. And I enjoy them because you have always been unafraid to tell it like it fucking is - a rare thing in this weird reverse "politically correct" world we live in these days.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dancing Bear on August 22, 2006, 05:10:47 PM
I'll keep that in mind when Dan Lega, Sir Rob, Bob Hanes and Rob McCabe disagree with any fact or opinion stated in "Catch a Wave". If you're gonna claim it as THE final statement then you'd better buy the whole thing as the truth, not just the sections that favour your crusade.

Btw, where's McShane?  ;D


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Wilsonista on August 22, 2006, 05:42:16 PM
I very much enjoyed CAW, thank you very much. The only slight disagreements I have are regarding the occasional song - I loved "Hey Little Tomboy", Peter hates MIU but so what? AGD likes LBWL and I think it's a festering piece of dog sh*t.

Peter told the story the best that anyone is going to tell it and he totally gets (and has always gotten) the signifigance of Brian's music and what made it great and what makes it matter. 

Oh and BTW, I think some of the conclusions in CAW vis a vis certain aspects of the story are awfully similar to the ones reached in the now-mocked David Leaf version. Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dancing Bear on August 22, 2006, 06:49:11 PM
Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.

I'm sure there are other possible analogies with the "a cigar really is just a cigar" quote outside your small "Mike was useless after '65 / Mike was the least talented member / if Mike ever wrote a good lyric it was a fluke" world. I can easily think of ten Brian Wilson-related cigars.

But then we'd be going off-topic.  :-D


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on August 22, 2006, 08:36:30 PM
Reverend, I've seen what appeared to be a cigar but was actually bubble gum or chocolate but I don't know anything  so....

Anyway....I'm curious why so little of the lengthy interviews with Mike, Al and Bruce made it to print when the interviews with others were used to such excellent effect.



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on August 22, 2006, 10:25:34 PM
I think the Mike interview is featured well in the last chapter and in the first chapter.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on August 22, 2006, 10:55:12 PM
[quote author=MBE
I think the Mike interview is featured well in the last chapter and in the first chapter.
=======================================
Cam, I think that's a good answer.
You should ask Peter.  He's available on line.  I think he probably has a profile here too.  Write him a private message and ask.

It is not a book about Mike Love.
I honestly believe you should consider gettng ahold of Mike and arranging to do his "in depth", "warts and all" biography. 
I am convinced that Mike's role in the BB's up to a certain point was invaluable.  His vocal work even after that "point" were great!  There will never be another sound like the BBs, vocally....not ever, and each singer played his role.
I think Peter's presentation was even handed and fair. 
I will not go into speculation as to why Mike's point of view was not represented enough to satisfy you.
I will simply remind you once again that this book was not about Mike Love.
Never once did Peter say to me, prior to the contract, "I think I'd like to write a book about Mike Love and his amazing contribution to American Music through his group the Beach Boys, and I know he didn't say that to a publisher either.
Write you book mr. Mott, tell Mike's true story....please!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on August 22, 2006, 11:25:01 PM
[quote author=Dancing Bear
I'll keep that in mind when Dan Lega, Sir Rob, Bob Hanes and Rob McCabe disagree with any fact or opinion stated in "Catch a Wave". If you're gonna claim it as THE final statement then you'd better buy the whole thing as the truth, not just the sections that favour your crusade.

Btw, where's McShane?  ;D
=======================================
I have to say, I'm not sure what you are saying in this post.
There is no "final statement".  I have never implied of insisted that perspective. 
There is only opinion and perspective.
As I have said thousands of times, "you will never get any of these people, in this story, through the eye of a needle".  They were/are all too human and flawed.
I know how much research went into this book because as Peter points out, I introduced him to lots and lots of people. 
Some of whom are the "old high school pals of Brian's & Dennis' that I have had the good fortune to know and become friends with.
I have been trying to get their perspective into print or on film since David Leaf and Don Was did I just wasn't made for these times.  I was able to get some of the "Hood family achives home movies" into Morgan Neville's - Peter Jones Production for the Biography Channel (USA) (a bb's tale was the title in England) but until now many were unwilling to talk out of fear of betraying Brian.  Or truthfully, being sued by Mike.
Peter, I know for a fact went into this book willing to hear and use that information, no mater how corny or boring or unhappy or unhip/unhollywood it might seem.  It's the most important perspective in the whole story in my humble opinion.  No one knows you beter than the people you peed in your pants around.  The team mates you had in Jr High and High School.  The boys you shared your first sex story with, or the girl who never knew you loved her.
They knew what made you, you better than your parents did.....by a mile.  My dream is complete, I saw and got to help a really good writer who loves the sound and feeling of the music first, and came to love the men involved over the years, in a distant, yet personal way to investigate for himself what was really going on, or more accurately what really went on, (AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART) according to the perspective of as many of the people who were THERE as would talk to him.
I am going to assume, that what Peter put in the book was an amalgum of all those perspectives, allowing the predominant points of view to take precendents over any "wild shots in the dark" sort of disclaimers.  Not that I know of any.  I did not input my opinion EVER! 
Though it doesn't show in a quotation form, Peter went to the little farm community of Shedd, OR and interviewed Dennis' manager and co-writer Nik Jakobson.  Nik his Dennis out from Charlie Mason for months, and that information can be found in someone else's book (which title escapes me at the present moment).
Jan Berry's work with Brian was passed over....again.....another book for someone else to write.
Once again the refusal of the Rovell extended tribe goes un-represented.  I know Mar, she's great!  The emotional politics are incredible.  Many afraid to talk, many too angry to talk.  Many unwilling to talk, because it might aid a comfort an arch rival.
Obscurity be thy name.  'nough already                          ciao   


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Sir Rob on August 23, 2006, 01:28:09 AM
What I'd actually love to read is a book that gave a different view of BW/BB history to the one that most published authors have so far presented.  Not just an obviously partisan point scoring exercise, mind, but a solidly researched scholarly work.  I say this because there seems to me to be a view of BB history (more group friendly and less Brian-centric) on these boards that has just not made the transition to any major published work.  And I'm wondering why that is?  Conspiracy against that point of view amongst certain major players and interests?  Or is it just that when it comes to it, the material isn't there to make a convincing and persuasive narrative?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dancing Bear on August 23, 2006, 04:31:43 AM
There is no "final statement".  I have never implied of insisted that perspective. 
There is only opinion and perspective.

You DID write:

Quote
I do not insist that you accept what others believe or know to be so.

Fine. But then you wrote:

Quote
I only ask that you not clutter us with your same old unfounded, unresearched personally one on one,  and pesonally speculative "point of view". Sometimes a cigar is really a cigar and the truth is what everyone else believes.

::) 


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jon Stebbins on August 23, 2006, 08:12:50 AM
Nik Jakobson? Must be the love-child of Nik Venet and Gregg Jakobson. I do talk to an old friend of Dennis'(who co-wrote Forever) he's up in Oregon and calls himself Gregg ...should I ask him to tell me about Nik?.  ;)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on August 23, 2006, 09:41:51 AM
[quote author=Jon Stebbins
Nik Jakobson? Must be the love-child of Nik Venet and Gregg Jakobson. I do talk to an old friend of Dennis'(who co-wrote Forever) he's up in Oregon and calls himself Gregg ...should I ask him to tell me about Nik?.  ;)

OOPS! it was late. I goofed.  yeah, he's GREG. but he did live in Shedd.  I think he moved to Corvalis (right next door, where Oregon State Univ. is, and only 40 miles from my house) 
I like to give him the first name of the guy that was involved with the Lovin' Spoonful.  I don't know why.
I freely admit my mistakes, thanks for fact checking, I don't want to piss anyone off any more than I already have.
Is there an official date for your book?  Or am I living under a rock and should already know?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jon Stebbins on August 23, 2006, 10:08:49 AM
[quote author=Jon Stebbins
Nik Jakobson? Must be the love-child of Nik Venet and Gregg Jakobson. I do talk to an old friend of Dennis'(who co-wrote Forever) he's up in Oregon and calls himself Gregg ...should I ask him to tell me about Nik?.  ;)

OOPS! it was late. I goofed.  yeah, he's GREG. but he did live in Shedd.  I think he moved to Corvalis (right next door, where Oregon State Univ. is, and only 40 miles from my house) 
I like to give him the first name of the guy that was involved with the Lovin' Spoonful.  I don't know why.
I freely admit my mistakes, thanks for fact checking, I don't want to piss anyone off any more than I already have.
Is there an official date for your book?  Or am I living under a rock and should already know?

Hey Rev. Bob...no your not living under a rock. The DM book release date is still pending. Things are "firming up" as they say in the big world of show biz. There will be an "announcement" soon. I'm gonna call Gregg "ZAL" next time I talk to him in yours and the Lovin' Spoonful's honor.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on August 23, 2006, 04:35:01 PM

Jon Stebbins said:
Hey Rev. Bob...no your not living under a rock. The DM book release date is still pending. Things are "firming up" as they say in the big world of show biz. There will be an "announcement" soon. I'm gonna call Gregg "ZAL" next time I talk to him in yours and the Lovin' Spoonful's honor.
=======================================
Truth is, that "cat's" name is Eric Jakobson.  He was with Koppelman/Rueben or Faithful Virtue Publishing.  Obviously there is a lot of crap that i have in my head I can't really remember.
Maybe Eric was a Nashville Cat?
Ask Gregg, maybe he'll know.
Sadly I think you were right about my having created a "love child" by using the name Nik.
I still say "it was late as my 'go to' excuse"!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Smilin Ed H on August 24, 2006, 09:34:45 AM

Don't know whether you've had this on thread, but here it is (again?):





Catch a Wave


By Gregory McNamee

Bottom line: A tale of sunny California beaches, suburban tragedies, and the making of great music.
 
 
Catch a Wave: The Rise, Fall & Redemption of the Beach Boys' Brian Wilson, by Peter Ames Carlin (Rodale; $25.95; 356 pp.)

Brian Wilson is one of the greatest popular songwriters America and the world have ever known. And "Be My Baby" is one of the greatest songs of all time.

On their face, these two propositions are unrelated; Ellie Greenwich and Jeff Barry penned the Ronettes' 1963 hit in the Brill Building, far from the working-class California suburb where Wilson and a band of brothers, cousins and friends were in the process of making musical history as the Beach Boys.

But the two are in fact joined, for Brian Wilson -- though deaf in one ear, possibly because of a blow delivered by his father -- heard things that were not given to ordinary mortals to hear. So did Phil Spector, whose "Wall of Sound" doctrine is most perfectly expressed in the Ronettes' anthem. Fresh out of high school, Wilson stole a couple of pages from Spector, who had sung on the Teddy Bears' 1958 hit "To Know Him Is to Love Him" and then gone to work on the other side of the board, "writing and producing for a stable of singers he would cultivate and discard as needed," as music journalist Peter Carlin writes in "Catch a Wave: The Rise, Fall & Redemption of the Beach Boys' Brian Wilson."

 
Wilson cultivated and discarded a few players himself while searching out ideal combinations to deliver the sounds he heard in his head. He studied Spector's methods, spending hours in the master's studio and learning how to set microphones and levels, and he hired away some of Spector's crew, even though Wilson confessed to being frightened of their boss. Listen to "I Get Around" and "Good Vibrations," and the Spector influence leaps out of the speakers. Listen to the recently released "Smile," four decades in the making, and that influence endures and is done one better.

And then there were, of course, all the days and nights and years that Brian Wilson stayed holed up in his room, ingesting multiple substances and listening obsessively to Spector's greatest moment. "He'd eat steaks for every meal," writes Carlin of the sadly undone Wilson of 1978, "then polish off entire cakes and sacks of cookies or vats of ice cream for dessert. After that he'd sprint out to the pool, then walk around it as fast as possible for as long as possible. ... Physically drained, he'd limp back into the house to play 'Be My Baby' for a few hours."

The deep tragedy that is Brian Wilson's life has been well documented, even in the strange exercise in evasion that was Wilson's own memoir, which he later disavowed: the years of abuse and psychic damage in childhood, the years of adulthood surrounded by courtiers who allowed him to indulge his worst inclinations and who lived in great comfort at his expense, the years of feeding astonishing appetites of every description while neglecting everything that mattered. Finally set on a healthful course only in his late 40s, Wilson managed to avoid the early death that was so long foretold for him -- but visited his brothers and bandmates Carl and Dennis. He also managed to avoid a fate perhaps worse than death: becoming a mere oldies act, an irrelevance in his own time.

Well documented, yes, but Carlin's book breaks ground even as it assembles a reliable precis of events. As in any tale of the Beach Boys, the strange Wilson family dynamic comes to the fore; Carlin deepens it a couple of generations, linking pioneer spirit to neurosis, failure and worse. As ever, Wilson cousin and rival for leadership Mike Love comes out looking very bad indeed. Carlin affords him lengths and lengths of rope, and Love uses every inch.

And, as always, the entwined saga of Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys presents a complex skein of what-ifs, of roads not taken. Would anything have been different if the Wilson boys had not been quite so fond of pharmaceuticals? Would history's course have been significantly altered if the Beach Boys had not withdrawn from the Monterey Pop festival of '67, where Jimi Hendrix burst upon the American scene and bushy-bushy blond hairdos suddenly seemed detritus from the square past? Would Brian Wilson have been happier and healthier if a certain psychiatrist hadn't seized control of his checkbook, mixing board and life?

Yes, and there lie other tragedies, not least of which is Carlin's understated conclusion that Brian Wilson became free only when he was practically the last Beach Boy standing. He abides, and reading these haunted pages, one can only hope that he flourishes -- and that he makes more music.

Gregory McNamee is The Hollywood Reporter's literary critic. He can be reached at thr.books@mac.com.

SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | MOST POPULAR | RSS  | REPRINTS 
 SUBSCRIBE TO THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER » 

Copyright 2005 The Hollywood Reporter


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dugan on August 27, 2006, 02:35:29 PM
Peter

Just finished the book,  Thank You you did an excellent job.

:D


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: kshane on August 31, 2006, 09:21:31 AM
I'm loving the book Peter. Since you wrote about it, I was wondering if anyone knows if there's an online source to read Tom Nolan's early seventies article about the Beach Boys. I managed to find the Jules Siegel article. I had to pay $3 to him to read the whole thing, but after all it's a piece of history, and worth that small expense. But I still haven't been able to find the Nolan story from Rolling Stone.

Ken


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on September 01, 2006, 05:03:57 AM
Kshane it is on Ebay a lot and you can also look up The Beach Boys Complete music book from 1973. I just bought one fairly cheap on there.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: endofposts on September 01, 2006, 02:55:15 PM
I finally read Peter's book.  Great job!  It's a little short with a lot to cover, but you'd have to write the New and Old Testament to get it all in, so it's a great effort within the space limitations.  I learned a lot of new things, but weirdly, what made me most sad is the fact that the Love brothers no longer speak.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: SMiLEY on September 03, 2006, 06:03:15 PM
It's hard for me to feel sad for them. Mike, because, well....he's Mike. Stan, mainly because he and a co-hort beat the living bejabbers out of Dennis and were proud they did it.

I'm reading the book at a leisurely pace, but that's because I'm enjoying it so much. Peter, it's a great job and I totally apologize for being skeptical a few months ago on the Smile Shop board.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: kshane on September 04, 2006, 08:10:21 PM
Peter, I finally finished the book today. It's really a first rate effort. Now that I'm done, I feel the same way I did after seeing my final show of the Brian Wilson tour last year. There's a definite sense of withdrawal and wanting more.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on September 04, 2006, 09:11:31 PM
[quote author=SMiLEY
It's hard for me to feel sad for them. Mike, because, well....he's Mike. Stan, mainly because he and a co-hort beat the living bejabbers out of Dennis and were proud they did it.

<<The Love's wouldn't want anyone to "feel sorry" for them. 
I was hoping some of the insights that Peter brought forth in CAW about the Love's early life might actually bring some understanding of their "humanity".
I just had a high school reunion and it turns out NONE of us had a functional upbringing.  We're now old enought to realize that.
So, I'm afraid, goes it for the Love's.
Stanley is a good guy who really, really loves his cousin and did what he did at the behest of others, yet to this day Stanley also hates who Dennis was in Brian's life at the time of the incident.
I have no idea what Rocky's motives were, but Stanley genuinely believe(s/ed) that "they" had tried everything else to keep Dennis from supplying Brian with drugs and he had been warned of "this posibility/enevitibility, and Dennis out of pure selfish, willful disregard and arrogance chose to "take his chances".
I've never met Steven, but he was proven not guilty of his alleged mis-doings as well.
Mike is indeed Mike, but in fairness even Melinda said publically that she is sure that, "he (meaning Mike) really loves his cousin". 
I've known some of the Hawthorne-ites interviewed for the book, for many years now and at least one of them said to me, "Bob, he's (again meaning Mike) always been like that!  A bully, sort of, maybe it was 'cause he was older than us and felt he should be in charge?!".
I wish them all long and prosperous lives!
I agree with you about everything else and sincerely believe, Peter has written the best book ever done on Brian Wilson.....period! IMHO of course. (It really shouldn't be necessary to say IMHO, it's automatically implied when one compliments or is critical of some subject or work.)



 


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: endofposts on September 04, 2006, 11:34:25 PM
I don't feel sorry for them, per se, but I just find it sad that all three of them no longer speak, according to Peter's book.  If Steven was proven not to be guilty of any wrongdoing, I find it especially puzzling.  I can see one brother having a falling out with another, but all three?  All at the same time?  Or maybe they just drifted apart over the years, as siblings who have little in common sometimes do, and it's not as dramatic as it may appear. 

I think the book is actually rather sympathetic to Stan, probably because he was interviewed for it.  It makes Steve Korthoff sound like more of a baddie.  Marilyn also does not come off too well, mainly due to Stan's account, such as the account of her bringing people in to talk to Brian about his financial problems if he would refuse to work, then Brian crawling out of the meetings on his hands and knees.  She didn't come off very well in the Steven Gaines book, either, and she was interviewed for that (mainly due to her own admissions about her relationship with Rocky, and bragging about sending an armed henchman to Tandy Almer's house to extort some equipment back).  Nor did David Leaf have a kind opinion of her in his book.  It doesn't surprise me she didn't cooperate on the new book, due to this history.  Not that I don't realize her situation was very complicated and we don't know what anyone would have done in her shoes, she did the best she could, etc.  But I can see why she doesn't want to do books, unless she someday writes her own.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on September 06, 2006, 04:54:55 AM
<<Nor did David Leaf have a kind opinion of her in his book.>>


I never read the Leaf book. What does he say about Marilyn?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on September 06, 2006, 05:04:37 AM
Well Leaf's book says that she and her sister were the real Drainers and that Taydon Almer and his ilk were the ones helping Brian. Reminicent of the Daro interview imho


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on September 06, 2006, 07:36:31 AM
Well Leaf's book says that she and her sister were the real Drainers and that Taydon Almer and his ilk were the ones helping Brian. Reminicent of the Daro interview imho


What's the Daro interview?  (Sorry, I'm a bit of a newbie.)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Roger Ryan on September 06, 2006, 08:31:37 AM
MBE is referring to the on-camera interview Loren Daro gave in the "Beautiful Dreamer" documentary where he displayed a very cavalier attitude toward Brian's drug use.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Emdeeh on September 06, 2006, 02:11:06 PM
Quote from: forget marie
Marilyn ... didn't come off very well in the Steven Gaines book, either, and she was interviewed for that (mainly due to her own admissions about her relationship with Rocky, and bragging about sending an armed henchman to Tandy Almer's house to extort some equipment back).

I don't think Marilyn was the source of the Rocky rumor, since she has vehemently denied that one, according to Carnie Wilson.





Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jonas on September 06, 2006, 08:40:59 PM
I went to Barnes & Noble today and saw this book all over the place, looks like theyre really pushing it to sell. I picked it up and read the first 10 or so pages...looks great but I cant pick it cos the $30 pricetag is a bit too steep for me at the moment :(

but ill definitely get it!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dan Lega on September 07, 2006, 06:35:12 AM
It's only $17.13 at Amazon.com.  I don't know how much postage and handling is, though.


Love and merci,   Dan Lega


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on September 07, 2006, 10:18:10 AM
[quote author=Roger Ryan
MBE is referring to the on-camera interview Loren Daro gave in the "Beautiful Dreamer" documentary where he displayed a very cavalier attitude toward Brian's drug use.
Quote

<< I'm not sure the word "cavalier" is appropriate to describe what Loren is trying to impart, but I'm not sure it's not appropriate to today's point of view of "those" historical events.  Seen from "here".

Maybe you had to "be there".  I don't mean "there", there, but there. 
Having lived, and theoretically grown up (there is some controversay about that statement), the time and the event of Marajuana going "mid-america, Ousley Acid and the Peace movement.
Pot made people silly.  It wasn't the hydroponically grown "kick your ass, hold you to the floor", DRUG that it has become over the decades.  It was a herb (pronounce the H please).  "Dirt Weed" lifted you up let you see a bit differently, both philosophically and perceptually.  Not a HUGE event but an eye opener unless you simply didn't pay attention. 
LSD was different.  They were called "acid trips" because they were very informative and long and interesting.  Sometimes, very personally disturbing and sometimes very kind and gentle, full of God/Love.
Behavior of people high on acid was eclectic and sometimes very interesting to say the least! 
We, of those halcyon days, had been brought up to be stiff, regimented & repressed "good little soldiers".  Cogs for the "great good" machine of the "Military Industrial Complex".  Remember, there was Conscription. A "draft"!  "Whoopee, we're all gonna die" hadn't been coined yet, but it was very real in our minds and souls.
The Fities were not "a gas" to grow up through, they were very "stick up the butt", hypocritical, social more, repressive.  Thus the "James Dean/Rock n Roll rebellion from the kids of that period. 
LSD blew that point of view to pieces! 
For Loren to laugh during the remembrances of any LSD trip, is natural to my experience. 

I once left a group of people after having taken LSD and when I returned and hour later, it was pointed out to me that I had some yellow crap all around my mouth.  I did not know for the life of me what that could have been.  I had only walked around the block.  It took an hour? !
Then one of the women in the group started laughing and shreiked "you have dilly mouth!". 
Yup!  It was early spring and I had picked some Daffadills and since they don't really have an aromatic aura I had eaten 1 or 2 (?) in order to experience their essence (that's pretty intellectualist bullshit .... I really have no idea why I ate them, I was hungry ..... or maybe i was high ?) and they had left thier pollen on my mouth.
In retrospect, that's funny crap.  Silly and free and child-like!
Brian anyone? 
Drugs like "benes" became methamphedamine, and then cocaine showed up BIG TIME in the seventies! ("H" and "Coke" were always american institutions, but we thought we were "smarter than that", I guess not!)  Then the whole thing went sidways. 
Back in the olden days, LSD was generally not taken to "get away" but to experience something from "inside".
I cannot fathom being "addicted" to acid, but then again pot was not a "gateway" for me either.  Alcohol was.
I know people who say they were addicted to pot....I believe them.  I'm just saying, not for me.  Too personally demanding to take all the time.  Too self-revealing, in a personal analysis sort of way.   
At least for me. 
We've all heard Brian's paranoia on hash or pot during the Columbia "Argument session".  Seems he didn't need to use pot socially either.
Some of us had issues before we found drugs.  The drugs didn't cause them, they simply exasserbated them.



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Wilsonista on September 07, 2006, 01:29:25 PM
Great comments, Bob. It's exactly this kind of perspective that is usually missing when Mr. Daro's comments are discussed.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on September 07, 2006, 01:47:24 PM
I don't think Mr. Darro was being cavalier either.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on September 07, 2006, 10:40:00 PM
The intent in the sixties does seem more pure, but in light of what they did to Brian I fail to see his drug use as funny. I think Darro should say what he wishes, but I disliked that his viewpoint wasn't contested by a diifering opinion.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on September 07, 2006, 11:43:20 PM
The intent in the sixties does seem more pure, but in light of what they did to Brian I fail to see his drug use as funny. I think Darro should say what he wishes, but I disliked that his viewpoint wasn't contested by a diifering opinion.

OH OK, I get it.  You don't see that Brian had issues prior to drug usage?
Some of us should never have used drugs....ever!  Some of us (10%) of the population are physically capable of becoming addicted to alcohol.  The other 90% of you will never suffer a grand mal seizure or die in withdrawl from alcohol.  That is science.
Imperical observation suggests that perhaps people who addict are also people who suffer from "Clinical Depression" or Manic Depression (i know, i know, it's now called Bi-Polar Disorder, watch Geo Carlin's bit on euphemisms, please).
The medical science suggests that we who addict exasserbate the PERHAPS already mis-firing neuro-transmitters or clog up the PERHAPS already chemically imbalanced neuro-receptors.
As to Loren what-ever-the-frig he chooses to call himself, he is not depreciating Brian then or now by enjoying the moment.  Brian is not a cripple.  He can be laughed at, in fact according to his oldest friends it was his self depreciating selflessness in his sense of humor that seemed to make Brian, Brian.....and he knew it.
Loren is what none of us really ever thought we were, and never wanted to be.  Eric Burdon acted that "fool" that Loren was, in his melo-dramatic comic (not necessarily intentionally comic!) fantasy. "San Francisco Nights.  "A leaping gnome" indeed!  Crappolla at it's deepest!
John Sebasitian comes to mind too,  with his hipper than hip, hippie love rap from Woodstock....nothing anyone that was really hip would of said "for all the farms in Cuba" (Bob Dylan said that)
  Just too much in every way.  But these people existed, they still do, they are not intentionally or inherently bad or wrong. 
LSD, and pot did not drive Brian round the bend.....ask anyone that was there in 1968 that bothered to go see him when he was locked up for the first time. 
Accepting that "everyone" (meaning the band his wife, his dad, the people that mattered) thought he was truly "Crazy"! Add to that, the fact that in those days, mental facilities especially county psych wards (yes once again Brian was the "crazy uncle" no one could deal with, LA Medical School a mile away and he goes to an L.A. County booby hatch!) used hynotics like Thorozine (which was indeed the drug used on Brian), to simply "manage" the "patient".   Who cares that he spends his day starring at a wall and drooling on himself.  Stop the drugs and send him home.  Patient "management" remember, not cure!
I have written this diatribe a dozen times.  It remains the truth! 
Cocaine and Meth hurt Brian's brain, ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT!
But, the "legal crap medicine" of the olden days, hurt him just as badly.
The next big mistake was mis-diagnosing Brian as a Schitzophrenic and treating him with severe psycho-tropics in the mid seventies caused the beginnings of tardive dyskenesia (an uncontrolable grimacing of the face!).  Not to mention the resultant brain damage caused by using Psychiatric Ward size doses for a disease Brian's brain didn't need.
Make no mistake all the people played their little or larger roles in this drama, but don't give Loren more credit than he deserves.  He was just one more hanger on.  If he wants to be known as the guy that "turned Brian on" that's his problem, the "sh*t" was everywhere in Brian's creative world, Loren didn't invent it.   
I would also like to go on record that I do not believe that Marilyn was complicit in Brian's undoing.  She was very young and was surrounded by some very "heavy" situations that no one could have expected her to understand, especially with managers, parents, friends and all telling her "how bad it was". Mar certainly doesn't need me to speak for her, but once again through no fault of Peter Carlin's or perhaps even Marilyn's she and her side of the family are not "on record".  Peter tried, and tried, and tried, but it just didn't happen....again!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on September 08, 2006, 12:09:33 AM
OH OK, I get it.  You don't see that Brian had issues prior to drug usage?
Read my other posts before you say that. I am one of the few who pointed that out.  

 Cocaine and Meth hurt Brian's brain, ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT!
But, the "legal crap medicine" of the olden days, hurt him just as badly.

Hey I agree there and have also said that on here.

don't give Loren more credit than he deserves.  He was just one more hanger on.  If he wants to be known as the guy that "turned Brian on" that's his problem, the "merda" was everywhere in Brian's creative world, Loren didn't invent it.   

You are right but I still think he is a real toadie.

I would also like to go on record that I do not believe that Marilyn was complicit in Brian's undoing.  She was very young and was surrounded by some very "heavy" situations that no one could have expected her to understand, especially with managers, parents, friends and all telling her "how bad it was". Mar certainly doesn't need me to speak for her, but once again through no fault of Peter Carlin's or perhaps even Marilyn's she and her side of the family are not "on record".  Peter tried, and tried, and tried, but it just didn't happen....again!

Marilyn should speak out more, and I agree with you about her. Personally I think she was great.

Bob I happen to have a best friend who is an addict. Yes I think he was pre disposed to the problems he had to some extent. Yet If I ever met the persons that gave him his first hit and they were laughing about it I think my temper would boil over. I am not trying to make Brian out ot be worse then he was or better, I simply think that BD goofed in not having someone (like Van Dyke who has said this) mention that Brian's judgement was sometimes clouded by drugs. I am thinking specifically about Van Dyke's view of the Fire sessions etc. Not that I agree with him there as I find Fire to be brilliant.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on September 08, 2006, 12:34:19 AM
I have read your posts, and to be hones the only reason I reacted is because I generally like what you have to say.
You think and ask us to think as well.
I am a recoving alcoholic/substance abuser, who has been screwed by the psychiatric community for decades.  I have been clean and sober since 6/21/'77 (PLEASE DO NOT CONGRATULATE ME-I mean that!  It's not a big deal, it's just my life path). 
I can't blame the guy that gave me my first hit of anything.  The curiosity was mine.  Some of my friends got away with using everything and never missed a beat.  I couldn't.  It's not their fault or mine, it is what it is.
Loren may indeed be a "toadie" as you say, but he is not the reason for Brian's path. 
As to having Van Dyke work the anti-drug side of the street, I can't even begin to understand that point of view.
I have a friend in L.A. who will not forgive Van for anything until Van admits that substance caused him (Van) severe personal problems in the seventies. 
God I hope Van never sees this post, because he and I have a nice relationship at this point and I don't wnat to lose that, over 2nd hand issues a thousand years old.
Van has told me that during that time he was very "unclear about the roles of a lot of people around Brian in those days".  Michael Vossi in particular, but Loren's name never came up.
I know Mike Love dispised him! 
Like I said, not in so many words, he was/is a geek.  Brian likes weird, out of step people.  Re-read Rock Wives, Marilyn's observations about Brian's attraction to weird-ohs, is classic.
I have all the footage for the Tower '88 cd signing gig.  At one point a guy that looks like someone out of a Warhol movie or perhaps from one of the moons of Jupiter, gets Brian's ear and has to pried loose, because he's holding up the line and he and Brian are nose to nose in heavy confersation.  Brian doesn't want to let go either.
All these things dovetail into the real deal.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on September 08, 2006, 02:14:35 AM
Even though attitudes were different then, I'm pretty sure Mr. Darro resisted giving Brian drugs, especially LSD, because he didn't think Brian had the constitution for it. I believe he relented because the curious Brian kept hounding him and he felt it was clear it was becoming available to Brian from others and Brian was going to do it anyway and if he was Lorren felt it would be better for him to be the one to mentor/guide/monitor Brian.

Maybe Peter C. can illuminate us on that.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on September 08, 2006, 07:12:03 AM
Bob as someone whose name I have known for many many years, I am flattered by what you said. I honestly don't know what Van's involvment with anything was. I used him as an example because of what he said about Brian becoming scattered at the time. Marilyn's thing in Rock Wives is cool. You know a good point is made here about Brian doing things anyway. I have no doubt that Brian was unlikely to have avoided drugs for many reasons. I don't "blame" Daro for Brian's decisions, I just don't like that he is so gleeful about it. Cam according to the new book Daro claims Brian forced him to give hom drugs. Peter prints thew story in the book but also says that he has doubts. I guess that's how I feel too. Who knows how it went down. Personally I find it a little hard to swallow that  Loren tried to prevent Brian from it. Peter hasn't been posting anymore but perhaps he could tell us more about his interview with Loren if he comes back.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Roger Ryan on September 08, 2006, 07:30:08 AM
I think this comes down to semantics regarding Loren Daro's BD interview. I chose the word "cavalier" because Daro seemed unconcerned how his little story of Brian freaking out on acid might be construed in the larger context of Brian's mental illness and other drug abuse. The point being that this interview was done in 2004, not 1967, when a historical perspective would be mandatory. Apart from the fact that I didn't think Daro's story was funny (and when you're talking Brian Wilson, there are dozens of anecdotes that could be taken as darkly humorous), I'm not bothered by his appearance in BD and am glad he participated. My earlier post was simply an attempt to specify that MBE was referring to the Daro BD interview in his post.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Zander on September 08, 2006, 07:55:23 AM
. I have no doubt that Brian was unlikely to have avoided drugs for many reasons. I don't "blame" Daro for Brian's decisions, I just don't like that he is so gleeful about it.

Completely agree with you here MBE. I didn't find his segement funny at all. It left a real sour taste in my mouth, laughing at an anedote that was really, the start of something bad in brian's life and has haunted him since...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on September 08, 2006, 10:03:18 AM
Hi guys: I really don't know if LSD was really that significant a part of Brian's emotional collapse. For one thing, he hardly ever took it. Three times, maybe, is the recurring estimate I heard from a variety of his friends from that era. He spent far more time -- and perhaps rattled himself far more -- taking amphetamines, which he did by the handful through much of '66 and into '67. Brian was far more of a speed freak than an acid head.

Plus also, the intense trip Loren describes Brian having -- which Brian has also talked about over the years, generally in positive terms -- may have scared him at first, but he came away from it feeling like he'd seen things in a radically new light. Dont' forget that the trip that began with him lying in bed ended with him seeing vibrant staffs of musical notes glimmering in the air. Then he wrote "California Girls."

Certainly Brian's drug experiments coincided with his growing emotinal problems. But I don't think you can say that his problems were necessarily caused by taking drugs. More likely, his increasing appetite for altered perception was a RESULT of his emotional condition: he was looking for, and finding, relief wherever he could.

Which isn't to say that drugs were good for him, per se. Certainly competent psychiatric care would have been far more valuable. And while it's often comforting for someone's family to point at an external villian (the drugs did it!) rather than acknowledge their loved one's psychiatric problems, it's not always accurate.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on September 09, 2006, 03:19:17 AM
Good point Peter. Cam and I both wanted to know what you thought of Daro's claims of trying to aviod giving Brian drugs and perhaps your opinion on him in general as an interview subject.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on September 09, 2006, 04:17:54 AM
I agree with what Peter is saying but I'm just pointing out that Mr. Darro was more reluctant, or reasoned, rather than  cavalier.  I understand where the cavalier interpretation is coming from but I believe it is a result of lack of context, because of time I assume, in the docu instead of an actuality.  I was really wondering if this is also Peter C.'s understanding from his discussion with Lorren.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on September 09, 2006, 09:20:37 AM
Loren seemed nice enough. I'd hesitate to judge anyone based on a few telephone interviews. I wasn't sure what to make of his assertions that he'd tried to hold back Brian's interest in pot and then LSD. If only because I don't think anyone suspected in '64 or early '65 that Brian was on the verge of serious mental illness. But maybe he just seemed young and innocent and Loren, et. al, wanted to make sure he knew what he was doing before he crossed the Rubicon. Or on the other hand, maybe Loren is retrofitting his memory to seem more sympathetic. I dunno. I let him say his piece in my book, and you, the reader, can use your own judgement.

What seems evident to me, particularly now that the even-keeled Brian has no apparent interest in serious drug or alcohol use, is that his heavy use of drugs back in the day was all about self-medicating for his psychic turmoil. Once he got his brain chemistry rejiggered with legal psychotropics, he no longer has an appetite for intoxicants.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on September 09, 2006, 07:52:43 PM
Hopefully this comment will help shed some more light on the problem of being chemically imbalanced.  I love all of the input from everyone, that I have seen to this point, and God I wish I had been a succinct in my relpies as Peter is in his.
Some of "us", are sensative  or prone to emotional issues.  Add to that the dysfunction of "the day(s)" that we came up in and we were "ripe" for what Brian called "breakdowns".
Now add the genentic disposition to brain chemical imbalance.
Here comes alcohol into every teen or just post teens life,(which Brian avoided for the longest time based on what he had witnessed and experienced in his own household). Then pot, then LSD (now there's a drug not to be triffled with! At one point the US military was experimenting with "acid" as a weapon to create a pschotic state of paranoia in one's enemy!), benzedrene, hash and whatever.
Now those "little fears" that have been present since puberty, have started to be on one's mind all the time! 

ADDICTIVE THINKING 101: "the drugs got me here, maybe they can get me out of this mess". 
All of a sudden you're using some substance, all the time.  Not to feel good but just to feel "normal", but you're not normal. That "reality" makes you depressed and guilty and even more confused than ever.
I will say it again.  SOME OF US SHOULD NEVER HAVE DONE DRUGS.....EVER!
If you've never taken LSD, here is a bit of a primer.  There is a point in every "trip" where you are offered a "choice".  Relax and remember you are under the influence of a very powerful chemical and think of positive things, OR let the fear that the "rush" seems to emulate take over and have a bummer of a time.  Dodging monsters and demons of your own creation. 
That's why I believe Loren laughed.  It happens to everyone once at least.  Maybe you didn't "prepare", or no one let you know what to expect. It is initially scary and overwhelming, after all "it's in your head you know"(GH).  Then as the "trip" wiles on, you return to your center and "well that's enough of that!" is a solid sane and true statement. 
I won't give Loren the total credit for cosmic understanding of that reality way back then, but I believe he knows what happened back then in the comfort of retrospect, so his laughter doesn't offend me the way it seems to bother others on this board.  OK, ok, the guy was a hanger on.
I wish I'd been in a position to hang on during that creative time.  Can't blame him for wanting to be there!  All that music, all those talented, hip people.
A friend of Brian's called me after he read the chapter where he is quoted.  He was concerned he might be seen as "a rat" (his words), because he and Brian would go out driving around trying to score pot.  It wasn't exactly like that.  They weren't going to east L.A. or Long Beach or Compton (which were just up the road from Hawthorne) to the real drug dealers they "were looking for a place where the kids were hip" in the part of town where they were from or live now.  You know, if you're from that time what I'm saying.  Looking for "Heads" within your comfort zone.  Hip people to be co-enlightened with.
Based only on the images from what was a much longer interview/conversation I probably wouldnt' want to hang out with Loren, but like Peter says, he's probably a perfectly nice guy. 
My own first meeting of  Michael Vossi was interesting the too. 
Another "leaping gnome", full of fun and playfulness, sixties kinda guy, with fond memories of the "insanity of the chaos".
After all IT WAS THE SIXTIES! We honestly didn't know any better, maybe we should have, but we didn't.
We were reacting or over reacting to the repression of our youthfull culture and to the extreme life or death situation that existed as Conscription whether consciously or unconsciously in each of we males lives.
We were really seeking acceptence, freedom and finally respect.  Somehow it, for some of us appeared to be escape, but was really severe personal emotional, psychic and even physical imprisonment.
Weid times!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on September 10, 2006, 02:48:17 PM
Peter thanks for elaborating for me. I think Brian's use of drugs became addictive at certain points but perhaps the reasons you stated have truth in them. I think it probably started out innocently but he simply got caught up in a bad lifestyle. Then we have to consider brain chemicals, and depression etc. This isn't an easy puzzle to put together but your remarks about Lorren help clairfy a few things about the root of the problem.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on September 10, 2006, 03:58:49 PM
I was thinking it was Brian's sort of compulsiveness or excessiveness that had Lorren concerned rather than mental illness.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Reum on September 10, 2006, 11:26:24 PM
The definition of addiction according to the World Health Organization and also many other health organizations is "obsessive and compulsive use of chemicals or activities to alter moods the the degree that such behavior results in ongoing negative life consequences."

In the DSM-IV TR, addiction is classified an an Axis I Disorder, right along schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, and amxiety, among many others. In other words, "mental illness."


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on September 11, 2006, 03:02:56 AM
Uh huh and even though Lorren wasn't necessarily diagnosing mental illness, he recognized traits in Brian which gave him pause in this regard.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on September 11, 2006, 07:56:23 AM
Cam: I think you're overinterpretating what Loren said, vis-a-vis what Loren actually felt back in the day. His reticence to turn Brian on -- if that actually happened in quite the way he now says it did -- probably had more to do with the fact that Brian was younger and less experienced/sophisticated than the rest of his friends. I don't think he knew him well enough at the point to guess that Brian's grumbling about his old man and the record company and the pressures of being a huge rock star was seen then as par for the course. He was, after the all, the epicentre of a hugely successful, high-profit industry. But the sense that Brian might have serious mental illness didn't occur to anyone 'til '68 or so. And even then denial/misunderstanding defined most responses.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Cam Mott on September 11, 2006, 08:45:47 AM
I'm trying to say that Lorren wasn't reluctant because he thought Brian was mentally ill but because of the personality traits he saw in Brian. Maybe I'm not following you or I may not be remembering it right.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on September 11, 2006, 10:03:30 AM
Thanx Peter, it seems the inability to seperate the "then" from the "then", form the "now" is very difficult.  I do understand it, I just don't seem as able to address it as you do, so well.
I tend to respond in anecdotes from "the day" to try and give the younger folk a perspective.  It really was a larger and yet smaller world for us coming of age then.  We were truly "in it together" more than anytime since.
It never fails to amaze me how a young guy like yourself really, really "gets it".  Maybe you actually pay attention when other people speak.  I'm only being slightly sarcastic.  You really do hear what is said, even by "old folks".
"Obsession" and "compulsion" are symtoms of the "dysfuction"/disease that Brian suffered.  They are now words used as synonyms, to describe behavioral imbalances/eccentric behavior (whatever that is?) so I do   understand the confusion.  It just seems that blaming drugs for ALL of Brian's issues makes the solution so simple.  "Stop taking drugs", blame the people who supplied them, and ignore, ONE MORE TIME, the genetic and environmental issues that honestly have had considerably more influence on "the problem" than 3 LSD trips and a "hat full" of pot leaves.
So, once again I will insist that the original "lock up" of Brian in 1968 is/was far more detrimental to his on going mental health than any of we'uns
seem willing to admit.
 


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dancing Bear on September 11, 2006, 11:34:45 AM
I guess we "fans" are addicted to blaming someone for Brian's problems.

sh*t happens.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Roger Ryan on September 11, 2006, 02:13:59 PM
I think we're simply splitting hairs here. The original line of thought was more about how various books, documentaries, interviews, etc. have created differing viewpoints as to what happened to Brian Wilson. That is inevitable. When David Leaf chooses to use one portion of an interview and not another, then edits two pieces of film together, that is creating a viewpoint. Same thing happened when Peter wrote his book. That inevitable viewpoint is what we're debating. Do I think psychedelic drugs are to blame for Brian's downfall? No, clearly the mental illness was there. At the same time, I think Daro is, or is made to, come off somewhat unsympathetic when he laughs about Brian's acid freakout. That's a comment on both Daro himself and on how that interview segment was chosen and presented in the documentary.

Bob, I appreciate your posts and sympathize with your viewpoint almost wholeheartedly; I'm just not sure all of us here are talking about the same subject.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Shady on September 21, 2006, 01:26:11 PM
Hey peter.

Thanks for the amazing book, I couldint put it down, and im glad that it is selling very well


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: holeypeacoat on September 28, 2006, 09:01:34 AM
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but congratulations Peter on the nice writeup in Rolling Stone! Very nice publicity indeed.

hp


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dave in KC on September 28, 2006, 11:45:55 AM
Quote: " A well- composed book is a magic carpet on which we are wafted to a world that we cannot enter in any other way."

Thanks Peter.



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on September 28, 2006, 02:57:39 PM
Hi guys: thanks for mentioning that, I caught up with that issue of 'RS' yesterday, and what a pleasant surprise. You can also find a nice mention in this week's Willamette Week newspaper. Or you could if you live in Portland, Oregon. Though you can also find it at wweek.com, if you're interested.

Me, I'm digging the new Todd Snider album, and the new Dylan, and this Warren Zevon tribute ("Enjoy Every Sandwich") that a guy turned me onto when I was hyping the book in L.A. in August. Delta Sky magazine will have a piece on the book, and an excerpt, in the October issue, in case you're flying then. And, oh yeah, I'm going to do a few readings at Borders stores here in the Northwest centered on "Pet Sounds" and "Good Vibrations," their history and significance and blah-blah-blah. Portland on Oct. 19; probably Eugene and possibly Seattle to come. Stay tuned.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on September 28, 2006, 07:40:18 PM
Quote
At the same time, I think Daro is, or is made to, come off somewhat unsympathetic when he laughs about Brian's acid freakout. That's a comment on both Daro himself and on how that interview segment was chosen and presented in the documentary.

Can I be honest? Brian's problems are not funny. His years of drug addiction at the very least are not funny. That said...looking back at that segment now (I rewatched the doc yesterday...I was out of town for my job and was trying to relax at the hotel) I actually DID find it funny, more for Brian's statement after it was over "Well, that's enough of THAT". It's funny, because I can actually picture Brian saying that, completely deadpan, just very matter-of-fact. Just like a few days ago...one of my coworkers was helping me doing an installation at a customer's house (I work for AT&T's U-Verse division) and he stepped in a bed of fire ants. Very aggressive fire ants, mind you. Poor Tom was just screaming...hopped the fence (nobody lived in the house next door)...stripped down, and had me get his change of clothes from the back of the van and toss it over the fence to him. When he came back around, I asked him how he was. He responded with something like "That...was not my proudest moment", or something like that. Just the way he said it...we both ended up cracking up laughing.

So, anyway, I don't think Brian having a bad trip was funny, but his response was, to me anyway. I think that's what Loren was laughing at.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on September 28, 2006, 08:12:11 PM
Well, my sense was that Brian wasn't having a bad trip. He was having a hell of a trip, to be sure, and his mind was thoroughly blown. But he dug it enough to do it again. And he spoke positively about it for many years.  But that was LSD, which he hardly ever did. His use of uppers and cocaine were way more serious, and way less amusing.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Sheriff John Stone on September 28, 2006, 08:32:56 PM
I wonder if Marilyn was laughing...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jonas on September 28, 2006, 09:58:23 PM
Sorry if this has been asked before but when did Brian's cocaine usage begin?



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on September 28, 2006, 11:04:53 PM
Well the debates rage on but some say as early as late 67, some say late 68. Carl once said it began to get bad during the So Tough sessions. Except for 1976 it probably was pretty bad from then until 83.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Sir Rob on September 29, 2006, 03:21:40 AM
The original line of thought was more about how various books, documentaries, interviews, etc. have created differing viewpoints as to what happened to Brian Wilson.

Different viewpoints but mainly one broad conclusion in practically every BW/BBbook I've ever read and that is that whichever way you slice it Brian was more sinned against than sinning.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on September 30, 2006, 05:41:16 AM
Brian did have some bad things happen to him and toa  lesser extent was the cause of bad things happening to others. I think he was not a "sinner" to anyone intentionally except himself. Sadly he beat himself up as bad as anyone else ever did. Why he did is of course sad, but it cannot be denied that this is what happened. Let's just be glad he ended his path of self destruction.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on September 30, 2006, 09:56:41 AM
Brian did have some bad things happen to him and to a  lesser extent was the cause of bad things happening to others. I think he was not a "sinner" to anyone intentionally except himself. Sadly he beat himself up as bad as anyone else ever did. Why he did is of course sad, but it cannot be denied that this is what happened. Let's just be glad he ended his path of self destruction.


<< Well said, and thought. 
As I have pointed out many times, Brian's sins were mostly sins of "OMISSION" while some others around him sins were of COMISSION.
To fear his father was sort of forgivable.  If indeed as we believe the abuse began at an early age, then in would be natural for him to carry the fear of Murry into adulthood regardless of the obvious foolishness of doing so.
However, after Murry died for Brian to continue to allow Mike to go unpaid for California Girls, a song I'm convinced may be one of the only songs that Mike wrote nearly all the words to, IS A CRIME/a sin of COMMISION (neither spelling looks right and I'm far too lazy to check my spelling.sorry).
See with Brian we call it lazy but it's really fear!  The pain and fearof doing, or even considering doing anything that might "rock the boat" and bring the wrath of Dad or Mike or whoever, became so great in his head that it became life itself.  Drugs may that go away at first, at least for awhile.  Alcohol is really good at this kind of anestesia.  Then the pain and guilt  of addiction makes everything worse!  More fear, more guilt, more fear more pain.  It's cyclical and seems impossible to overcome.  Will power does not break the cycle in spite of what Brian says publically.
ya gotta face your sh*t! 
Brian is doing a better job of that these days but he obviously has some "issues" about making records....huh?   


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on September 30, 2006, 03:13:40 PM
Bob also well said. I think with Mike I am more inclined to think he did write those songs, mainly because Brian has said so many times even in old interviews. That doesn't excuse Love's other lawsuits though, which to me have been frivolous. Brian wasn't a businessman to be sure, but he knew Mike wasn't getting paid and also knew that he was getting credit for Love’s work. He should have done something and he admitted Mike was in the right here. Again Mike has done many things artistically I don't like or personally don't agree with, but in the sixties he and Brian were excellent co-writers. Murry is the only villain really. Not giving Mike credit, and selling the songs destroyed Brian's professional drive and severely hurt inter-group relations. Perhaps while Murry was alive to rectify the situation Brian and Mike held out some faint hope of things working out but the huge change in both of them after Murry's death is not coincidental to me.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on September 30, 2006, 07:26:12 PM
Personally,I think Murry's death ended the Beach Boys as a *family*. It seemed like it was all business from that point on.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on September 30, 2006, 10:37:16 PM

Bob also well said. I think with Mike I am more inclined to think he did write those songs,"

I wonder if you noticed what the claims and contentions were song to song in Mike's lawsuit for writer's credits.
" 'round, 'round, I get around"/"she's real fine, my 409"
Now Mike wrote some songs. But through 1964 Brian would write the chords the melody and most of the words.  (Two thirds is the percentage that I have heard thrown around since the early seventies when I made con-tact.) Mike would then come in and make small changes in lyrics, sometimes!  When Brian would "get stuck" Mike might or might not suggest another way to proceed.  That particular duty was also open to Dennis, Carl and even Al to chime in on as well.  Sometimes on those early sessions that Peter alludes to, the "musicians" would only be capable of what they could do.  So compromises were made to facilitate the completion of the song(s).  Words too.

For instance.  One night, pre-Beach Boys, Robin Hood got a phone call from Brian.  "Robin.  Gary and I are over here at the house and we're writing a song.  Gary has heard the next big deal from Chevy is going to be a 409 displacement engine.  Right?"  
Robin: "yeah, why".
Brian: "well what is it about the 409?"
Robin: "it's 4 speeds, dual quad, positraction.  A chevy big engine car!"

Now Robin then said to me.  "I didn't write any of that song.  Brian and Gary Usher did!"

When I called Robin to tell him that Mike had won $10 million in the lawsuit over writing credits, Robin said: "Bob, he was always like that!  Maybe it was because he was older than us and had to be in charge?"
 
Now I hope to God that Robin never reads or hears of my post here.  He'd never speak to me again.  I don't want that to happen.   I do however feel it's important to get perspective correct on those theoretically innocent times when the battles that played out on the plains left their deepest scars on our beloved Brian.
Brian never really wanted his family in his musical group.  That was pure Murry.  I also feel that Mike had a bravado/confidence/arrogance/moxy/whatever?, that Brian admired and feared in the early days.  
  
Oh btw it makes Robin and a few more of the Hawthorne crew crazy when Brian says that Surfer Girl is the first song he ever wrote.
They maintain that many songs that didn't appear until '64 and '65 and even later were already written, they just had different words and sometimes a slightly different "message" than what "came out" later.
Find a copy of "One Man's Challenge" to see what I'm saying.  Besides Surf Jam, there are instrumental passages in that film that didn't occur until All Summer Long!  When that movie was made the BBs hadn't yet signed with Capitol!  The music was credited to the band who did the theme song, the BBs, and the Raindrops.  The only Raindrops that HAD existed were the east coast NYC group featuring Jeff Barry and Eli Greenwich.
The instumentals were not played by them, it was Brian and friends.

I talk to fuckin' much!


  


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on October 01, 2006, 12:01:17 AM
I will have to dig out One Man's Challenge again but I thought that Brian had little to do with the film outside of the Beach Boys. I also thought it was filmed after the release of the first Capitol 45.  Anyone know exactly when the sessions for the short were held and who attended? Bob I feel the hooks of the songs are important, I would go as far as to say Robin should get credit as well as anyone else who helped with anything. Yet I agree Brian was the Beach Boys instigator, genius, and visionary. Brian always seemed to have wanted Carl to play with him, Dennis took some time, but I think Mike was someone Brian admired (and perhaps felt intimidated by) enough to be in the band too. Let's remember how positively Brian spoke about the others until the 80s. To me nothing would have been the same without the unique voices, and personalities that made up the Beach Boys before Murry died.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on October 01, 2006, 12:16:21 AM
Wasn't there a band from Glendora (east of Asuza) called The Raindrops and aren't they in the film ? Been a loooooong time since I've seen it, but...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on October 01, 2006, 01:19:14 AM
I have to play it again but I think Andrew may be right here. I will try to put it on tomorrow and report bacl.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dave in KC on October 01, 2006, 10:37:21 AM
On the topic of who wrote the songs. While listening to Knebworth last night Carl says we all have to thank Brian for writing all these beautiful and wonderful songs, or words to that effect. I'm sure every time Mike was standing there listening to that it was eating at him. Maybe I'm wrong. Don't think so.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on October 01, 2006, 11:23:25 AM
Wasn't there a band from Glendora (east of Asuza) called The Raindrops and aren't they in the film ? Been a loooooong time since I've seen it, but...

<< you're thinkin of the band that did the opening song.  Their name escapes me too.  Great garage band (IMHO) from as you point out, Glendora.
I'm sure most of us have the same poor quality dub so digging it out is not high priority, but I think I'll do so to nudge my memory. In the words of Randy Newman, "I could be wrong now, but I don't think so!" 
It was the combination of hearing the sound on this film and having known Robin Hood and Bruce Griffin for decades, and hearing them say over and over that a huge amount of the music was written pre-BBs, finally made me accept that point of view or reality. I had always been at least somewhat unwilling to accept that reality until the "occasional music sounded so much like All Summer Long, and I swear to God, Surf Jam appears in the film in nearly the exact version that is on Surfin USA.
As to the Capitol connection.  The label is totally uncredited and unthanked anywhere in the credits, and the version of Surfin' Safari that is shown is the Hite Morgan version not the full on Venet production at Capitol. (I'm not saying the film was dubbed or anything) The film maker (though Dick Clark claims ownership by possession of the original film) still lives on the Great Pacific Hwy. in SF, I believe!  We could ask him I guess, but I doubt he'd talk to just anyone like me.   


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on October 01, 2006, 03:07:51 PM
the version of Surfin' Safari that is shown is the Hite Morgan version not the full on Venet production at Capitol. 

Um, make that "the full on (Murry) Wilson production at Western", coach.  8)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jon Stebbins on October 01, 2006, 04:05:59 PM
Actually the version of Surfin' Safari in One Man's Challenge is neither the Hite Morgan version nor the Capitol version...but something in between.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on October 01, 2006, 07:16:42 PM
pick, pick, pick!
You're both right, but then again so are so many others.
I remembered it as being closer to the "original" with the "lesser", production values. 
Did you hear Surf Jam yet?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on October 02, 2006, 01:24:36 AM
I am watching in a few min. I tend to think it was after the Capitol signing because of the outfits and Dave being present. The date is in the Badman book. I think it sounds basic because The Beach Boys were not playing even a year together.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on October 02, 2006, 04:14:19 AM
Ok I watched the film and a little bit about it.
Badman says One Man's Challenge was filmed 7-28-62. I agree with that by looking at them and knowing their chronology. As far as the music, first I will list what the credits say. Music by the Beach Boys and the Raindrops. Title song "the Hitchhiker" by the Genteels. So here is what I found the Genteels were a real group on Capitol who released a single of that song. Roger Christian narrates the film. Some of the music is played live or synched by a very young band that must be the Raindrops. Some of the film music sounds very pre rock nothing like Brian's stuff. Some of it has a generic "surf" instrumental sound. These seem to match the music played by the Raindrops when they are shown on screen. One track sounds a little like "What'd I Say". Another has vague similarities to Surf Jam but nothing that I would notice if I wasn't looking for it. Nothing sounds like All Summer Long to me. Nothing sticks out as being Brian Wilson or the Beach Boys. I am 95 percent convinced that nothing other then Surfin' Safari was recorded by the Beach Boys or Brian for the film. There is certainly a chance that they did but Brian did not carry much clout yet so I doubt he would have been asked to score a film. I could be wrong but I hope this can at least be seen as an educated guess.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jon Stebbins on October 02, 2006, 08:39:57 AM
MBE's right. What ended up being the hit version of Surfin' Safari was recorded in April '62 before the band was signed. They signed their initial agreement with Capitol in May. The One Man's Challenge footage is from late July '62. It was filmed prior to a BB's gig at the Azusa Teen Club, where they played regularly that summer. The question is where does the audio generate from. David Marks recalls them setting up and playing live for the cameras. The track sounds very live to me. The footage looks staged. The film makers may have taken the audio from one take and then had the guys do a more camera friendly visual take. that's my guess. I'd bet that it was all done the same day...and what you hear in the film is exactly like the BB's sounded in summer '62. Notice the guitars are MUCH bigger than on any World Pacific stuff. The reason is they switched to Fender equipment just as Dave entered the group in late February. Al points out himself in the new DM book that he wanted no part of the electric rock sound and that was all developed by Carl and David. He also admits that it subsequently opened a whole new world for Brian.

Personally I don't think any of the other music in OMC has anything to do with the BB's. I sat and watched the film with David recently and he felt the same.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on October 03, 2006, 06:22:07 AM
MBE's right. What ended up being the hit version of Surfin' Safari was recorded in April '62 before the band was signed. They signed their initial agreement with Capitol in May.

... on the strength of the 5-song demo recorded at Western on April 19th, which comprised "SS", plus "409", "Judy", "The Lonely Sea" & "Their Hearts Were Full of Spring".


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on October 03, 2006, 11:27:11 PM
I wonder why Judy hasn't surfaced


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on October 04, 2006, 11:02:35 AM
I'll ask!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MBE on October 04, 2006, 09:13:25 PM
Do you mean the woman? I was actually thinking about the second recording of it from the Surfin Safari demo. Both would be cool to learn about


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bob Hanes on October 04, 2006, 11:35:39 PM

"Bob, I rode out to San Bernadino and back with Brian and Judy for a gig at the American Legion. She seemed pretty quiet and unassuming. I was out front watching and I don't remember connecting up with her during the show at all.  She disappeared, presumably back stage; one might predict  that faithfulness and modesty (like the young Marilyn) were traits that Brian appreciated in a woman."
  -a friend of a friend, of ours-  


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on October 05, 2006, 04:43:00 PM
I wonder where she is now, and if she has ever commented on Brian, or if they ever ran into each other again...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: buddhahat on October 16, 2006, 02:12:54 AM
Finally read Catch A Wave, and just wanted to say how much I enjoyed it. Peter Ames Carlin has a poetic way of describing Wilson's music that communicates its beauty better than any one else I have read. I particularly enjoyed his assessment of the songs that focus on nature in the period after Smile (Country Air, Little Bird etc.) and his appreciation for Busy Doin' Nothin' was a real treat to read as this is one of my favourite Brian Wilson tunes.

I've read a reasonable amount on the BB although not all the biographies. I started the Stephen Gaines one but the sensationalist tone put me off. I enjoyed CAW as it didn't seek to demonise any particular party, and PAC seems to be as objective as he can be when describing BW himself. Therefore, I would highly recommend this to anyone unsure of which biography to choose.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: John Manning on October 16, 2006, 06:37:16 AM
Agreed Bubba -  I reckon it's the best since Leaf's effort some time back, and far more objective. The longer I sit back and think about it, the more I think PAC's is the best of the biograhies to date.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dave in KC on October 16, 2006, 12:57:58 PM
Absolutely, no doubt. Captivating. Thanks again Peter.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Zander on October 24, 2006, 08:33:09 AM
Hi Peter,

Love the book just read it for the second time. Easily the best book on Brian and the Boys yet!

Just one question, (without having the book to hand) when discussing the open message to Brian on the "Love You" album sleeve with thanks from the rest of the group, you gave me the impression that the message had a sarcastic undertone to it (To Brian who we love with all our hearts, thank you for sharing your music etc etc).

I always thought this message was sincere and an open thank you. What makes you think that the boys were being sardonic / mocking? Would Dennis & Carl have really though that?

Just wondering...

Zander


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on October 24, 2006, 04:35:10 PM
Hi Zander, and everyone: Thanks again for all your nice comments, it really does mean a lot to me.

Regarding the 'Love You' dedication thing. I wasn't trying to imply that there was anything sarcastic or purposefully mocking about it. Just that the tone (like the syntax) was twisted and strange, and not just because there's something off about having the other guys "dedicate" the record to BW, since he wrote and produced all of it, and performed virtually all of the instrumental and vocal parts himself. And they weren't neccesarily delighted with the album in particular, or even all that convinced that having BW back in the fold (let alone at the helm) was that great an idea. So my feeling was that some of that ambivalence leaked out into that dedication, which to my eyes seems way more patronizing and condescending than they consciously intended for it to sound.

So no purposeful sarcasm. Just the usual weirdness and unhappiness. Another fun day in the park for the boys.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Glenn Greenberg on October 27, 2006, 06:52:28 PM
Hi Peter!

The one thing I really don't get is, if the Beach Boys weren't delighted with the Love You album, why did they put it out as is?  Couldn't they have gone in and reworked it to their liking?  I've heard the demo tape of "Airplane," with Mike Love professing his affection for it and insisting that he get to sing it, so is it possible it was a case of them liking the material and not the execution?  If so, they could have reworked the recordings, couldn't they?

As for them not necessarily liking the idea of Brian being back in the fold, or at the helm--what were their other options at that point?  With Bruce, Blondie and Ricky gone, and no new material in the pipeline, where were they headed as a band?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Daniel S. on October 28, 2006, 02:48:47 PM
My copy finally arrived from Amazon. I ordered it back in April.

Can't wait to start reading it.  ;D


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Fun Is In on November 10, 2006, 09:48:38 AM
Hi Peter, 

In the book you mention Carl's troubles with the draft and CO status, which has been widely (if not deeply) written about.  Did you learn anything about the other BBs' experiences with selective service? A great many American men born in the 1940s got drafted. How did the others happen not to get put in uniform? 

I can easily imagine that Brian's hearing loss kept him out, but what of the rest?

TIA


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Andrew G. Doe on November 10, 2006, 11:43:05 PM
I'm (obviously) not Peter, but this is my understanding, open to correction:

Brian - deaf in one ear
Carl - CO status
Dennis - either got caught peeing in someone else's jar, had flat feet or told the Draft board he was gay (I've heard all three, plus being married to Carole, he technically had a son)
Mike - married with children
Alan - married (but then so was Carl - 'fess up time, I have no idea... too short, maybe ?)
Bruce - dependent parent (widowed mother)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dave in KC on December 18, 2006, 01:23:26 PM
Just wanted to say thanks again Peter for all your hard work on the book which was by far the beat read of 2006 for me.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jason Penick on January 25, 2007, 12:15:57 AM
I too greatly enjoyed the book, criticisms of MIU aside.   It was nice to hear the recollections of people such as Dave Sandler who previously have been ignored in other BB/ BW bios.  The numerous interviews and thoughtful analysis of Brian and his music contained within more than made up for any factual errors.  Thank you for taking the time to research and write this book.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bill Tobelman on May 06, 2007, 08:32:14 AM
Peter' book covers Brian's first LSD trip to some degree (Loren says it was an full ego death experience). This trip preceeded the writing of "California Girls."

Peter, were you able to gather any information about any of Brian's other LSD trips or possibly an acid flashback?

These events made for some choice reading in the dis-credited bio, but never surface in any other Brian Wilson literature.

This is strange, especially since these later LSD events would seem to be important influences on PET SOUNDS, "Good Vibration," and SMiLE.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on May 06, 2007, 01:15:30 PM
hi bill: everyone I talked to who knew Brian back in those days said that LSD barely figured into his drug use. He took a few trips here and there, but was far more into speed and pot, which were a lot easier to come by. And if any drug contributed to his emotional/psychological malaise it almost certainly was the amphetamines....which are far more caustic to a person's psyche (and can in fact lead to temporary psychosis, if taken in quanitity over time) than occasional doses of LSD or regular marijuana use.

I'm sure his occasional LSD experiences had an impact on him, and may have led him to see things in different ways, perhaps even for weeks or months at a time. But I'd have a hard time saying it had altered his thinking for the long haul.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Bill Tobelman on May 07, 2007, 09:14:22 AM
Peter,

It sure seems that Brian wasn't letting too many people in on what those other two (or so) LSD trips were all about. Same goes for the acid flashback noted in the discredited bio.

Brian indicated (to writer Tom Nolan) that his musical direction for "Good Vibrations" and Dumb Angel (SMiLE) was due to what he learned as a result of two LSD experiences. It would seem key to learn more about these experiences in order to explain "GV" and SMiLE better.

What you say about the toll of amphetamine use is very interesting.

It would therefore seem that if there is any problem with Brian discussing his other LSD trips; that problem isn't likely due to anything psychological but perhaps may be due to the different way he saw things as the result of LSD.

Thanks Peter.



Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jay on September 02, 2007, 02:33:22 AM
Peter,
          I am just now reading your book, and I love it. Although I was a little bit saddened to read about the relationship between Brian and Carl never really "healing" in time before Carl passed. Particularly about Carl refusing to tour Pet Sounds in the 1990's with Brian in the group because Brian "lost his voice". Considering these new "revelations", along with the overall process of writing a BB's book, did you ever become jaded with the group? What I mean is, was the status of  your "fandom" changed at all?


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on September 04, 2007, 08:13:32 AM
hi Jay: Thanks for your note. I'm delighted you found the book. Regarding the status of my fandom....good question. I think every biographer comes away from the project feeling a little burned out on their subject. The never-ending strife and tragedy in and around the BW/BB orbit doesn't help much in this regard. The feuding is particularly tiresome, of course. And of course you end up learning stuff that you can't put into print, for one reason or another, that is even darker and stranger than what does end up on the page (though all that info sifts out between the lines, I think). So yeah, I've spent the last year or so NOT listening to the Beach Boys and Brian very much. Or at all. And maybe that evens things up for the months/years I spent listening to not much but that stuff.

But I'll tell you what sparked my interest anew a few weeks ago: Hearing "Midnight's Another Day" for the first time. Lovely, lovely song. And even if that's the only great thing on 'Lucky Old Sun," it's still worth the price of admission.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: LostArt on September 04, 2007, 09:10:06 AM
Nice to see you here, Peter.  I enjoyed your book very much.  I agree with you re: Midnight's Another Day.  That is a fine song, better than anything Brian has done in a long time.  If an official recording of the piece is released, I will buy it the day it comes out.  Thanks again for a fine book.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Fun Is In on January 05, 2008, 05:47:49 AM
Heard the voice of Peter Carlin on NPRs "Weekend Edition Saturday" this morning where he discussed TV with host Scott Simon.

www.npr.org


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Alex on April 08, 2008, 06:18:25 AM
Peter, I don't know if you come around here anymore, but I bought your book back in September of '06, read the whole thing front to back in one night, and I've re-read it countless times since. I still can't put it down. I found a lot out about the Beach Boys I hadn't previously known, and learned a lot more of the details of things that were only mentioned in passing in other books (I've never read David Leaf's or Steven Gaines' books, though I plan on it). Thanks for writing such a great book. Catch a Wave should be the book that the next Brian/BB movie is based on.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on April 21, 2008, 01:15:12 PM
Hi, ASC, and thanks. I do visit here, semi-regulalrly, and in fact was hoping/trying to respond to your note a couple of weeks back but then I was having some technical difficulties....I couldn't get myself signed in. Weird. I was in the UK at the time, and was wondering if it had to do with the pixels going down the left side of the wire....but that might not have been it.

Anyway, thanks. And yeah, I'm eager to see the movie when/if it appears. There was a time, funnily enough, when 'CAW" was in fact going to be part of the source material for the movie. But then that time ended, and la-dee-dah, life goes on.

I'm still happy about the book, though. Happier still you took the time to say nice things about it. Thanks for that.

pac


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: dsl on April 21, 2008, 04:27:05 PM
Peter, I loved the book as well. It was a magnificent, fun read. I've used it to help give a speech on The Boys in the '70s for a communications class.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on April 22, 2008, 05:34:58 AM
Thanks to you too, DSL. THough in the spirit of the topic at hand I think I should sic my lawyers on you for using my stuff as source material for your class. Fie on you! And see ya in court.

Just kidding. I'm honored.

More seriously though, did anyone see or discuss Barney Hoskyns' piece in Uncut on Mike Love? It's an interview, basically pulling Mike's strings and letting him go. Hoskyns is a really good writer and a really smart guy, his book on Laurel Canyon from the other year was magnificent. And yet he seems almost willfully naive on Mike. Lets him make all his usual assertions about how he was never as sour or angry as all that (I never ridiculed 'Pet Sounds,' I never opposed 'Smile,' I never tried to humiliate Brian') and then BH comes away saying that he can't help but love the guy. Which is very generous and sweet, and I don't go in for stone hatred of (most) anyone. But I think it's also possible to have sympathy for Mike while also noting how aggressive and angry his behavior can be. The perfect example: His desperate need to sue Brian for "BWPS," come hell or high water. Which case was eventually thrown from court, of course, but only after darkening many months of what should have been a nonstop celebration for BW and his family and friends. Say what you will about so many BW-related projects and events...."BWPS" deserved to be a triumph, untrammeled by such petty shite. And Mike saw to it that it wasn't. And that, I'm sorry, is the opposite of Lovable. Though it's very Love-ian. And that's sad.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: LostArt on April 22, 2008, 06:05:12 AM
Well said, Peter.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Alex on April 23, 2008, 04:35:53 AM
Hi, ASC, and thanks. I do visit here, semi-regulalrly, and in fact was hoping/trying to respond to your note a couple of weeks back but then I was having some technical difficulties....I couldn't get myself signed in. Weird. I was in the UK at the time, and was wondering if it had to do with the pixels going down the left side of the wire....but that might not have been it.

Anyway, thanks. And yeah, I'm eager to see the movie when/if it appears. There was a time, funnily enough, when 'CAW" was in fact going to be part of the source material for the movie. But then that time ended, and la-dee-dah, life goes on.

I'm still happy about the book, though. Happier still you took the time to say nice things about it. Thanks for that.

pac

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me and to every one else here, when you never really had to in the first place. I appreciate it, and I bet a lot of others here appreciate it, too.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: dsl on April 23, 2008, 03:47:36 PM
Hi, ASC, and thanks. I do visit here, semi-regulalrly, and in fact was hoping/trying to respond to your note a couple of weeks back but then I was having some technical difficulties....I couldn't get myself signed in. Weird. I was in the UK at the time, and was wondering if it had to do with the pixels going down the left side of the wire....but that might not have been it.

Anyway, thanks. And yeah, I'm eager to see the movie when/if it appears. There was a time, funnily enough, when 'CAW" was in fact going to be part of the source material for the movie. But then that time ended, and la-dee-dah, life goes on.

I'm still happy about the book, though. Happier still you took the time to say nice things about it. Thanks for that.

pac

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me and to every one else here, when you never really had to in the first place. I appreciate it, and I bet a lot of others here appreciate it, too.

I second that.
I'm really happy to see you respond, plus please don't sue me! I'm only a poor college student, so you won't get too much out of me! ;D


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Alex on April 24, 2008, 06:10:52 AM
Hi, ASC, and thanks. I do visit here, semi-regulalrly, and in fact was hoping/trying to respond to your note a couple of weeks back but then I was having some technical difficulties....I couldn't get myself signed in. Weird. I was in the UK at the time, and was wondering if it had to do with the pixels going down the left side of the wire....but that might not have been it.

Anyway, thanks. And yeah, I'm eager to see the movie when/if it appears. There was a time, funnily enough, when 'CAW" was in fact going to be part of the source material for the movie. But then that time ended, and la-dee-dah, life goes on.

I'm still happy about the book, though. Happier still you took the time to say nice things about it. Thanks for that.

pac

Thanks for taking the time to respond to me and to every one else here, when you never really had to in the first place. I appreciate it, and I bet a lot of others here appreciate it, too.

I second that.
I'm really happy to see you respond, plus please don't sue me! I'm only a poor college student, so you won't get too much out of me! ;D
I think an academic project with the sources properly cited would be fair use, but then again, I'm no lawyer, so don't quote me on that.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on April 26, 2008, 07:37:47 AM
I was kidding, right? Everyone knew I was kidding? See, the point was, once upon a time there were these cousins, friends and brothers, and first they got famous, and then they got rich, and then they spent the rest of their lives suing one another, often for no discernible reason....and so....oh, never mind.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dave in KC on April 27, 2008, 04:46:57 PM
Right you are, of course, Peter. Mike Love was/is a kill-joy. The light that you present his bitterness towards Brian during the time of BWPS's release and concerts and afterglow justs bolsters the argument against those who think any kind of a reunion would be possible.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: The Heartical Don on September 02, 2008, 02:19:45 AM
Can I first say that I am currently reading 'Catch A Wave', and that I am hugely enjoying it? It is unputdownable. Well-written, and with really lots of new info... after all the BBs literature, I'd never thought that anyone could come up anymore with a book like this. So: hats off to PAC.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Alex on September 02, 2008, 08:14:50 AM
This week I've been reading Catch a Wave for the upteenth time, and I still can't put it down.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: The Heartical Don on September 02, 2008, 09:31:13 AM
This week I've been reading Catch a Wave for the upteenth time, and I still can't put it down.

Seconded. I pondered why this is. Not only is it exceedingly well written without any elitist topping, so to speak. But Carlin achieves the nigh on impossible: he obviously has a deep love for BW and his music. The great risk then is that you tend to gloss over the less wonderful aspects, paint him as a heroic survivor only, without detailing, for instance, Brian's detachment in social contexts. Carlin does both: praise the immense achievements, and tell painful details. No small feat.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on September 02, 2008, 12:12:08 PM
hey boys: thanks so much. I'm always delighted to hear about people reading the book, and when they come away feeling like it was a worthwhile experience, well, obviously that's better yet. So thanks for that.

Good timing, too -- i'm neck deep in a new book now, about Paul McCartney, and so I'm in the midst of the same struggle I was in the midst of when wrestling with "CAW." Encouragement is always welcome.

I'd hate to write one of those books where in the author seems to loathe his subject. For me the trick is to both humanize the subject and celebrate his achievements. . . though of course this means you also need to acknowledge his failures. No one is perfect, just as no one is perfectly awful. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, and it's the combination of these things, and how they both fuel and detract from a person's work, that fascinates me.

Anyway, thanks again. Back to work...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Amy B. on September 02, 2008, 12:55:44 PM

Good timing, too -- i'm neck deep in a new book now, about Paul McCartney, and so I'm in the midst of the same struggle I was in the midst of when wrestling with "CAW." Encouragement is always welcome.



Interesting. I look forward to reading that one.  Are you writing it with the cooperation of McCartney? That is, did you interview him for it, as you interviewed Brian for Catch a Wave?  I always think of McCartney as someone who likes to have control over projects related to him, so I'm interested in how involved he is, if at all (even if he's not I have no doubt that yours will be a balanced portrait of him).


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jonas on October 11, 2008, 06:39:35 PM
I wonder if Paul read Catch a Wave...


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: donald on October 13, 2008, 11:42:14 AM
Peter, I 'm looking forward to the McCartney book.   I take it you've perused the other bios before starting.

What is your opinion of the Barry Miles book?    I recall reading it a few years ago and finding it enjoyable.
A lot of fun details of different places and times that I had not read.  I recall a section covering Paul's time living with the Ashers as especially entertaining and revealing of the man, and as a delightful glimpse into the early days that had not been covered in the books I've seen.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Dove Nested Towers on November 25, 2008, 12:48:10 AM
Hello Peter,

I want to add my kudos for an extremely well-written, thorough and balanced book which I de-
voured earlier this year and will now reread. It was done with a wry wit, humor and intelligence which your posts here also evince.

Looking forward to your McCartney bio. He is a complicated individual. Can you reveal at this
point whether he is co-operating and providing fresh interviews? Sorry if this is a blunt and tactless question. Anyway, I'm sure it will be exhaustive and well-done, as CAW was. ^-^


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: DAMAGED on November 26, 2008, 03:00:50 AM
I just finished reading "CAW" & I agree what a great read it is. I've only been into Brians music for 3 years now & of course have read lots about the smile era. So it was saddening, yet compelling to read about all things "post smile" that I knew very little about. Thanks Peter!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: hypehat on March 22, 2009, 05:47:22 AM
Hey Peter, just wanted to say i loved the book. The bit about meeting Dennis was brilliant, for one. I look forward to your Macca book!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: DSamore on August 21, 2009, 03:20:10 AM
Peter, Just wanted to say long overdue...I loved the book! I love Brian Wilson more than most people think is healthy (I say most, because here it's the norm and I love it!) and thoroughly enjoyed it. I actually bought your book at Powell's city of books no less while I was in Portland! I had no idea you were an oregonian, let alone the fact that you wrote for the paper by the same name. I love you writing style and attention to detail. A+!

Cheers!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Jonas on October 24, 2009, 06:59:37 PM
Peter,

I'm about to finish 'Catch A Wave' and I think its GREAT! I'm curious though, I made a (jokingly) reply earlier about Paul reading Catch-A-Wave...do you know by any chance if he actually did? How much access did you have to Paul (and his 'people') compared to Brian/The Beach Boys/etc?

If this book is half as good as CAW then I know it'll be great as well!


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: b00ts on November 04, 2009, 12:07:01 PM
Hello Peter,

I just picked up Paul McCartney: A Life. It is, not surprisingly, excellently written.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Spencer on November 23, 2009, 06:33:54 AM
Hi Peter

I enjoyed the book. I especially found the way Murry Wilson would dictate vocal parts to his family illuminating. The dictatorial style was no doubt continued in a more relaxed fashion by his son. As if that was the only way Brian could envision communicating his ideas or perhaps more revealingly, he wanted to be just like his father and followed the way he did things in a similarly headstrong fashion.

Do you know when the Paul McCartney book will be out in the UK please?

thanks


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Reverend Rock on March 17, 2010, 06:50:55 PM
Peter, it's great to have a chance to say that I totally enjoyed your book on Brian, and very much look forward to your book on Paul McCartney.  I like reading books on musicians by people who really have made an effort to get inside the music and understand it.  You obviously are that kind of writer.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on April 09, 2010, 08:54:43 AM
Hi Rev. Rock - thanks for the boost....I hope you've gotten your hands on the McCartney book, not sure where you are geographically-speaking, but if you're in the English-speaking world, it should be available somewhere near you. It's also coming out in a variety of countries and languages over the next year or two, but the ways and means of foreign publishers are a bit beyond my reckoning.

Next up: Bruce Springsteen. Sometime in 2012, probably.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: TdHabib on April 09, 2010, 10:22:49 AM
Peter I really enjoyed the McCartney book. One thing I thought you'd enjoy is I was listening to the song "Run Devil Run" today and it's almost eerie how close the background harmonies are to the ones that he used to do with Linda. It's almost like she's on the track.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Peter Ames Carlin on April 09, 2010, 01:04:40 PM
hi TD - yeah, 'Run Devil Run' is a terrific album. The tune, too, and ditto on the harmonies. If they sound like his Linda duets she was definitely all over his mind when he was making that record. And also don't forget he arranged all those old vocals, and often doubled Linda's parts after she sang them. So he was more than accustomed to thinking in those terms, harmonically. Though I bet he altered the style a bit when he no longer had his beloved as a singing partner.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: TdHabib on April 09, 2010, 05:41:51 PM
They had a great harmonic blend---especially on the "Ram" album and such (I always remember Elton's quote about how the "Ram" harmonies were the best he'd heard in a long time).

Peter, if you're still here, how was Eric Stewart to interview? Despite the sometimes shoddy material (Pipes and Press and the like) he, Linda and Paul sounded fantastic together.


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MaryUSA on March 30, 2014, 07:43:10 AM
Hi all,

I read Catch A Wave last September.  I enjoyed it very much.  Peter did an excelleny job.  I like that Carine was interviewed also.  I learned a lot of the private lives of the group.  Last September was the first time I heard about Mike's breakdown.  Brian did have it hard.  The drugs were a way of dealing with things for the three brothers.  One could say they were medicting themselves.  Others could say they were doing self abuse.  The lost years were sad.  It is great that once Smile was released Brian started to feel relief.  Shelving Smile did have an enormous effect in Brian.  This book is a very good example of how having fame and money doesn't mean compelete and total happiness.  Catch A Wave is a must read for fans. 


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: KDS on April 22, 2015, 09:14:55 AM
I've read Catch a Wave twice, and it's a wonderful read. 

With the buzz from the new record, the Love and Mercy movie, and Brian's upcoming autobiography, is there any chance of an updated edition of Catch a Wave to include That Lucky Old Sun, That's Why God Made the Radio, the 50th Anniversary Beach Boys Tour, and No Pier Pressure? 


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: MaryUSA on April 24, 2015, 04:13:28 PM
Hi all,

That would be wonderful if that did happen!!!   :)


Title: Re: The Peter Ames Carlin Thread
Post by: Rocker on September 11, 2019, 01:08:22 AM
Hey Peter,
in case you still visit here, a question came up about an Milton Love interview and our member juggler believes it was done by you. Look here:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,26714.msg653734.html#msg653734


Is there any chance you have the complete interview and could share it here, or, if not, could tell us more about what Milton Love had to say?