The Smiley Smile Message Board

Third move's a charm.

I have to ask again, what is the evidence for the notion Mike was in control or taking control of....anything Beach Boy after 1973 or anytime before 1997? He didn't produce a single album, the others in the group had control of the music and albums. The best evidence is that Carl took control of their #1 single from the period. Carl was the band leader and musical director except for a very brief period in the early 80s up until the mid to late 90s as far as I know. How is this a supposed given in BB history?

Is it because he suggested a less generic title for the "Endless Summer" comp which was a Capitol controlled comp which supposedly had no input from the group beyond Mike's title change suggestion? Or is there something I'm missing?

I would say the lack of participation of Carl as a songwriter or producer in the two post BB85 albums is strongly suggestive. And I have heard no evidence -- except someone saying they remembered Bruce once saying it -- that Carl was creatively involved in Kokomo (besides singing, of course).

As for the stage show, Carl did have a role in overseeing the backing musicians. But I'm not sure if he was officially the music director, especially in the later years. Does anyone know for sure?

That leaves Brian and Al in control of the recordings after BB85 [plus outsiders] but not Mike. Anyone have that eyewitness account of Bruce's about Carl's involvement with Kokomo or maybe some track sheets or something? Isn't Terry Melcher the producer of record for Kokomo? Didn't Carl put the brakes to the mid-90s BB project?

Uh. Brian in control of the recordings after the 1985 album? Not so much. Considering he barely appeared on Still Cruisin' and wasn't on Summer in Paradise. Al? He had one song of his on Still Cruisin' and was banned from the group during the recording of the masterpiece Summer in Paradise. I'd say it's much more likely that it was the Love-Johnston-Melcher triumvirate that was in charge after the 1985 album, seeing as Terry produced most of the stuff, and either he, Bruce, or Mike co-wrote a great deal of the material ("Happy Endings", "Problem Child", a great majority of the material on Still Cruisin' and Summer in Paradise). This era produced much of what made it embarrassing to say you were a Beach Boys fan. And then to hear that Brucie boy still likes Summer in Paradise. Wow those guys are clueless.

I understand that you're a Mike Love apologist Cam. But try harder next time. It's obvious Mike (with the help of Bruce and Terry) ran the show from at least 1986-on *drops mic*

I must be a masochist....

There is no "evidence", just common sense. Just use some process of elimination.

There was no way they were ever going to allow Dennis Wilson to control the group; too much baggage. Dennis was a drug addict, an alcoholic, a man who befriended Charles Manson and his family, pulled his songs from Surf's Up because of sequencing issues, was financially irresponsible, was personally irresponsible, was releasing solo recordings, and had a personal musical vision that was not compatible with most of the other Beach Boys. Dennis was probably not a good candidate to lead the group during that time period.

Brian Wilson was drug addict and very ill man who was institutionalized for periods of time. While under the care of Dr. Landy, he would not have been a good candidate to lead The Beach Boys for obvious reasons. After he was no longer under the care of Dr. Landy, a conservator was appointed for his care. After he married Melinda, Brian was determined to have a solo career instead of focusing his efforts with The Beach Boys.

Alan Jardine for a short period of time (1977) did step up in a semi-leadership role, producing the M.I.U. album. However, Al, while at times being opinionated, seems to have  the personality of a follower more than a leader - not that there's anything wrong with that - and that has served him well for a number of years. It is doubtful that the other members would have been receptive to an Al Jardine-led Beach Boys.

That leaves Mike and Carl.

In my opinion, after Carl's production work with The Beach Boys in the early to mid 1970's, he needed a break. I mean, Carl kind of became the producer by default; he didn't ask for the job. He probably welcomed turning the reins back over to Brian (of course he still helped out) and then Bruce Johnston. Unfortunately, Carl developed some serious drug, alcohol, and family problems which set him back. Carl then spent the better part of three years on his solo projects. After Carl returned to the band, why didn't HE take control? I heard/read Carl say a few times that if (a healthy) Brian couldn't produce a new Beach Boys album, then it wouldn't be worth doing. I think Carl really meant that. He probably knew that no future Beach Boys albums would be worth their salt without Brian functioning at a high level, and Carl knew that Brian wasn't functioning at a high level. Could've Carl quit? Yeah, I guess. Should've he quit? I don't know...But I don't think Carl wanted to control THOSE Beach Boys, not THAT version of The Beach Boys. No Dennis. No Brian. Subpar album material. It's not that he was embarrassed, but maybe he just wasn't moved. I think he was happy being in the Beach Boys, I think he enjoyed the lifestyle, but I also think his days of confrontation and "hassles" were behind him. Does Carl remind you of a controlling person?

So that leaves Mike. Almost by default. And, he wanted the job. That's worth something. Actually, that's worth a lot. That's very important. It's important when somebody cares. You can debate what kind of job Mike did "controlling" The Beach Boys. But he cared. And they're still here.

One final note on this "controlling" thing. I've said it several times that I'd love to read the meeting minutes if they even took them. See, I think all the Beach Boys are full of sh*t and have a hard time telling the truth. But, I believe that when major issues were brought up and discussed and maybe even voted on, the vote always went toward the money. Mike is always blamed for the commercialism, the (wrong) album directions, "jukebox" setlists, etc. I believe the others wanted to make just as much money as Mike did, but, because it appeared that Mike was controlling things, he took the hit, still does, and always will actually.

So, so far there is evidence that other Beach Boys [or outsiders] were in control but regarding Mike the evidence says no or there is no evidence for it, just fan supposition.

The f*** are you talking about? It's obvious he was in control. I just told you that Mike, Melcher and Bruce seemed to be making the creative decisions. It is borne out in the credits of the songs, just as all the "B. Wilson" credits bear themselves out in earlier material. It's well understood that Summer in Paradise was Mike and Melcher's baby. You know this. Don't play stupid. I'm pretty sure Mike has also said it was his idea to do the "songs in movies" album,  Still Cruisin', but both Brian and Al had their songs "forced in" via group politics. Otherwise, it's the Mike, Melcher, and Bruce show.

After the self titled 85 album Mike and Melcher were clearly in control, esp once Kokomo was such a mega hit.

I think you are intentionally ignoring the obvious truth there.

I don't think Mike was really in control in the late 70s as at this point they were still a group (albeit a very dysfunctional one). Brian produced a couple of albums and it was Brian's decision to get Bruce back involved apparently.

In the early 1980s when Carl left the band and Brian and Dennis were screwed Mike became much more in control I would say.

But it is from 1986 onwards that Mike was firmly in command. He obviously wrote the vast majority of new material that they recorded. Plus he was in charge of the use of cheerleaders ('Think of the blowjobs') and in the 1990s he got David Marks back in the band without Carl's knowledge.

Finally, Mike had the power to kick Al out of the band in the early 1990s and it is well known that even if Carl had survived, Al would have been fired in 1998 anyway.

Even the most hardened Mikeista couldn't deny that.  :)

Is that a quote? :-D

Yep. According to Al that was Mike's sales pitch. A bloody good one if you ask me.  :lol

That definitely makes Mike at least a little cooler in my eyes. What flawless logic.

Mike co-wrote half or less of the new songs on two albums in the 90s, the whole band participated [except Brian], Mike wasn't the producer [but two other Boys were producers on one album], Mike has given statement that show he wasn't in control of SC, but some how we are supposed to think Mike was calling the shots. If co-writing some of the songs and knowing the producer means you are controlling the band then Mike was in control during the 60s and early 70s. Even if your suspicions were shown to be true for SC and SIP, which they have not yet, that is a short three year period out of 27 years.

I get you want to believe Mike was in control but so far it is just a rumor.  Mike couldn't kick out or fire Al anymore than Al could kick out or fire Mike. Mike got David back in his licensed version of the band after 1997. This thread is about the period between 1973 and 1997 but even in 2012 Mike is not in control of the group beyond his touring group and then he serves at BRI's pleasure and makes concession within that.

Power abhors a vacuum.

nobody else stepped up, eh?  :3d

Are you on drugs Cam? Has Phil Cohen taken over your body? I've always found your posts intriguing, often presenting the opposite of what might be popular opinion around here. But with this one, you are just so far off the mark that it is unbelievable.

First off, sure, the thread is about '73 thru '97. I don't think anybody is holding onto the claim that Mike Love was in charge from '73 to '85, if only for the fact that he is not quite visible on a lot of the albums, and the fact that he was still doing solo projects, Celebration, Mike & Dean, etc.

But seriously, are you challenging the fact that Summer in Paradise is not Mike Love's Pet Sounds? That album is him, thru and thru. It's Mike Love and guest vocalists. Anybody that has listened to that material knows that.

Anyways, if Mike couldn't kick Al out, then why was Al out of the band in the early '90s.

I'm on blood pressure medicine but it doesn't have anything to do with this board. Al got let go by the group, BRI, not Mike. Mike couldn't let Al go and Al couldn't let Mike go in the early 90s. Mike still can't let Al go from the BBs but apparently having Al in his licensed touring group isn't a condition of BRI for the touring license. Maybe because of Al's relations with BRI in the late 90s.

OK, so we are down to one album. Mike co-wrote half of the new songs and sang most of the leads but he wasn't a producer but the producer was a friend of his. If that made him leader of the group, he was leader through the 60s. My opinion doesn't matter. Even if it did make Mike leader, which it doesn't show, he was briefly leader on one album among many leaders over the period. But so far no one has shown he was leader of the group for even that one album, so it's just a personal opinion.

Even if he wasn't "official leader" from 86-97, Bruce was always kissing Mike's ass and being his little monkey-boy. That's 2 votes to Mike. Carl was still in charge of the live band, but as far as fighting Mike for creative direction, nada. He had the Beckley-Lamm-Wilson side project. He also had more pressing issues than an album or setlists going on outside the band. He didn't have Dennis around anymore to back him up. He was probably tired of fighting, maybe keeping the peace and preventing another 1977 JFK runway incident was more important than worrying about the group's public perception. Maybe there'd be the occasional veto vote or a quiet sitting-out. Nary a trace of Brian in that period. That leaves Al as the only one who was consistently vocally opposed to Mike's creative decisions.

Based solely on the aesthetic (and what little history I know) -- I've always seen the "post-85 Beach Boys" as the sole property of one Mike Love & Friends Enterprises.  Out of necessity really.  That would include Bruce and Terry as Board members and Mike as CEO.  Carl was the "Wilson Ambassador" and with that title came a lot of power, trust and support.  He may have rarely, if ever, attended the Board meetings.  Or maybe he did, I don't know.   :p

The fact remains... the Beach Boys were in a state of total purgatory without Brian.  And they knew it, cause they lived it.  It may be a moot point to say who was "in control" of what was essentially nothing.  I mean, seriously... 1985-2010, what did they do???  How much stuff did they release during these years???  It's lean.  We're talking 25+ years and it's essentially ZIPPY.

A quarter of a century -- Nada.  Lean times. (Might that have been a better title than Summer in Paradise or Still Crusin'?)


They knew they didn't have the creative chops to do much of value on a regular basis, so Mike focused on doing live shows, because he gave a sh-t and wanted to do something.  They tried, I guess.  They tried to keep the band's recorded output from being a total null and void.  And when they did, they often muscled Brian in, and it was still sub-par.  A total hassle.  None of it did doo-doo for their career anyway.  (Which was basically the same story as 1973-1985, except then -- Denny was there and Brian was still lurking.  And they were a hell of a lot younger.)



So... I'm thankful for what we got post-1985.  Is it bottom of the barrel? -- yes, mostly.  More damage than good? -- I'm sure.  But the good, for me, was that the Beach Boys stayed alive.  Treading water, yes.  But still.  I do listen to SIP and Still Crusin' on occasion.  I like it.  I wish there was more and I wish they were able to have gotten Brian in more too.

There's really not much here -- a few decent tracks and a lot of nostalgia tours.   It's essentially a badge, a brand-name and a logo:  Summer.  Beach.  Fun.  Girls. Somewhere... a lurking genius (if they could only find him and get him to record).  And until then, enjoy these Summer nick-knacks from our gift shop!  Don't forget to grab your copy of Summer in Paradise on the way out!!   :angel:

It is what it is.

I think we treat too lightly Carl's leadership. Carl like Mike and the rest of them [maybe not Al in the late 90s] were team players. My guess is Carl's leadership was "allowing" the other guys to take a shot and then supporting what they did. That explains how everybody [except Mike because he's not into producing] got their shot at leading the music through the 80s. It explains how he was band leader and music director and was doing it apparently mostly democratically [allowing cheerleaders and ouster of Al] while cracking the whip when needed [walk out in early 80s]. It also explains how Carl's wish could still cancel an album in 1995 even over Brian's wishes.

I mean they still all to this day describe Carl as the peacemaker of the group, I would guess his leadership style was why. 

Sorry but I think some of your comments are seriously skewed.

Mike got David Marks back into the band in 1997. The first that Carl knew about David being a Beach Boy again was when he read it in the newspaper.

It is amusing to see how you ignore the facts of Mike introducing the cheerleaders, Mike admitting in the liner notes that Summer in Paradise was his album etc.

I think there's two aspects to the Beach Boys -- and any Super-Group, really.  There's the "management of" and then there's the "artistic pursuits."  The overwhelming bulk of the Beach Boys affairs for last 30 years have been in the basic management - concerts, TV appearances, brand/image.  This is of little concern to me personally.  I rarely go to big shows and want nothing to do with corporate productions... so I couldn't care less what they do.  The extent of my live music experiences will likely be limited to small local festivals and the like.  I'm a no hassle guy.   ;D

The artistic pursuits, however, which are basically singles and albums (and maybe music videos) - is where more of a group effort would lie -- however you choose to define "group."  I really think this is a different slice of the "Control" pie, and one that can often get intermingled with the "management of" side of the business.  The real talent of the group needs to be involved at these "artistic" meetings.  This is obviously and absolutely Brian Wilson's job.  And Carl, as "Wilson Ambassador" probably did the serious negotiations and dealings from 73 onward -- especially in the 80s/90s.

So Carl did have quite a bit of "Leadership" I believe, in the group -- working with Brian, approving/veto projects and the like.  Even if Brian wasn't involved, Carl probably acted as "Quality Control" to say the least, because of his position of arbiter and temperament of concern.  I'm sure he would or could have also played a creative role of his own, if he had something to offer.  I believe he was an honest guy and only offered an opinion based one of those conditions.  BUT -- and here's my point -- the "management of" aspects so ruled the roost during the post-85 period BECAUSE the "artistic pursuits" were nothing but a dried up watermelon vine, incapable of bearing fruit.

This would have left the corporate interests with the lion's share of "control" during this era.  And I think Mike and his side (with Brand Name Rights in tow) probably the most concerned on a day-to-day level.  Carl, probably shrugging here and there at the pursuits discussed as long as they didn't totally disgrace the image.  Cheerleaders were fine.

There's really not much here -- a few decent tracks and a lot of nostalgia tours.   It's essentially a badge, a brand-name and a logo:  Summer.  Beach.  Fun.  Girls. Somewhere... a lurking genius (if they could only find him and get him to record).  And until then, enjoy these Summer nick-knacks from our gift shop!  Don't forget to grab your copy of Summer in Paradise on the way out!!   :angel:

It is what it is.
[/quote]

And what exactly is wrong with this?

Maybe I missed the point but if you were saying that Carl could have been quality control but after 1985 chose not to then perhaps that is right. I presume that Carl had no interest in Wipeout at all and he didn't appear on the 5 remade Summer in Paradise songs.

But what was stopping Carl from writing songs and at least attempting to contribute?

He could have done. As he knew that his music would be appearing on a crappy Mike-controlled album you can't blame him for not doing so though.

Maybe the fact that he wanted to save his songs for Beckley Lamm Wilson.

So, wait? Carl's logic was: "I don't want my good songs appearing on a Mike controlled album. Therefore it's my decision all alone to prevent my quality songs from appearing on a Mike controlled album because the album is so, ya know, Mike controlled and God forbid I do anything of my own free, artistic will to make the album less Mike controlled"?

Really?

Beside the touring, I don't think Carl's heart was in the BBs anymore. The fight to free Brian took a major toll on him.

What's your argument?

That Carl could have made Summer in Paradise less of a Mike-controlled album and therefore that means that the album that we got which is full of songs written or chosen by Mike isn't Mike-controlled?

Um, yeah..... How can we blame Mike for farting out a "Mike controlled" album when no one else was stepping forward with their own material which would make it more of a group effort?

I think "Mike controlled" is a poor term here...... "Mike-left-holding-the-bag" is more like it....

Couldn't they have done what they had been doing since 1996 (until 2012 obviously): Release no new material, tour constantly. No one seems to have cared about the paucity of new material for those 16 years, and everyone would've been spared those presumably horrible (I've never listened to them) post-1985 albums.

He did keep writing songs, but it seems the ones that did surface all ended up on the Beckley-Lamm-Wilson album Like A Brother. And overall, I thought they were pretty good, especially "Like A Brother" and "I Wish For You". And I assume these weren't offered to The Beach Boys (although maybe they were) because who would want nice songs like those on an album made up of the crap like "Still Surfin'" and "Summer of Love". It's a shame though that we couldn't have had a mid to late '90s Beach Boys album with "I Wish For You" along with stuff like "You're Still A Mystery".

Well...I think all four members (Mike, Carl, Al and Bruce) played interesting roles at that time.

Mike obviously wanted to be in control and there is no way that it can be said he was simply, 'left-holding-the-bag'. He wanted to be in charge of the setlists (and still does), he wanted to be even more in charge of the Still Cruisin' album, he wanted to bring the cheerleaders in and did, he wanted to make the Summer in Paradise album and judging by interviews thought it was great (I haven't seen any comments where he said he wished Carl had written some songs) and he wanted the power to fire Al and reinstate David Marks. The fact that Mike continues to be in control of The Beach Boys name says it all really.

As others have intimated, I think Carl had largely given up on the group at this point other performing in concert. He ceded control to Mike even if he didn't agree with some of the things that were happening.

From all accounts, Al was pretty bitter during this period about things that had happened to him previously and he was also unhappy about the setlists, the cheerleaders and performing several of the new songs. However he doesn't seem to have had the power to do anything himself and knew he was being forced out when David Marks came back into the band.

Bruce does seem to have been Mike's man and brought Terry Melcher into things and even supported the introduction of cheerleaders.

Was Mike really going to block/prevent/sabotage Carl from bringing in material for SIP?

SIP/Cheerleaders: bad idea, but a rather innocently bad idea. In the context of the time, we were all free to go listen to Kenny G instead, I guess.....

Do we really think The Beatles would be pumping out White Albums in 1992?

Top hits of 1992:

1    Boyz II Men    End Of The Road
2    Sir Mix A-lot    Baby Got Back
3    Kris Kross    Jump
4    Vanessa Williams    Save The Best For Last
5    TLC    Baby-Baby-Baby
6    Eric Clapton    Tears In Heaven
7    En Vogue    My Lovin' (You're Never Gonna Get It)
8    Red Hot Chili Peppers    Under The Bridge
9    Color Me Badd    All 4 Love
10    Jon Secada    Just Another Day
11    Shanice    I Love Your Smile
12    Mr. Big    To Be With You
13    Right Said Fred    I'm Too Sexy
14    Michael Jackson    Black Or White
15    Billy Ray Cyrus    Achy Breaky Heart
16    Mariah Carey    I'll Be There
17    Guns N' Roses    November Rain
18    Tom Cochrane    Life Is A Highway
19    Michael Jackson    Remember The Time
20    CeCe Peniston    Finally
21    Madonna    This Used To Be My Playground
22    Patty Smyth    Sometimes Love Just Ain't Enough
23    Mariah Carey    Can't Let Go
24    House Of Pain    Jump Around
25    Prince and The N.P.G.    Diamonds And Pearls
26    George Michael and Elton John    Don't Let The Sun Go Down On Me
27    Atlantic Starr    Masterpiece
28    Celine Dion    If You Asked Me To
29    En Vogue    Giving Him Something He Can Feel
30    Joe Public    Live And Learn
31    Jodeci    Come & Talk To Me
32    Nirvana    Smells Like Teen Spirit
33    Bobby Brown    Humpin' Around
34    Sophie B. Hawkins    Damn I Wish I Was Your Lover
35    Teven Campbell    Tell Me What You Want Me To Do
36    TLC    Ain't 2 Proud 2 Beg
37    Boyz II Men    It's So Hard To Say Goodbye To Yesterday
38    Technotronic    Move This
39    Queen    Bohemian Rhapsody
40    Arrested Development    Tennessee
41    Luther Vandross and Janet Jackson    The Best Things In Life Are Free
42    Mariah Carey    Make It Happen
43    Elton John    The One
44    P.M. Dawn    Set Adrift On Memory Bliss
45    Shakespear's Sister    Stay
46    Hammer    2 Legit 2 Quit
47    K.W.S.    Please Don't Go
48    Mint Condition    Breakin' My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes)
49    Cover Girls    Wishing On A Star
50    Hi-Five    She's Playing Hard To Get
51    P.M. Dawn    I'd Die Without You
52    Amy Grant    Good For Me
53    Toad The Wet Sprocket    All I Want
54    Michael Bolton    When A Man Loves A Woman
55    Genesis    I Can't Dance
56    Richard Marx    Hazard
57    U2    Mysterious Ways
58    George Michael    Too Funky
59    Heights    How Do You Talk To An Angel
60    U2    One
61    CeCe Peniston    Keep On Walkin'
62    Genesis    Hold On My Heart
63    Karyn White    The Way I Feel About You
64    Calms Dion And Peabo Bryson    Beauty And The Beast
65    Kris Kross    Warm It Up
66    Michael Jackson    In The Closet
67    Arrested Development    People Everyday
68    Genesis    No Son Of Nine
69    Marky Mark And The Funky Bunch    Wildside
70    Bryan Adams    Do I Have To Say The Words?
71    Cure    Friday I'm In Love
72    Ugly Kid Joe    Everything About You
73    Paula Abdul    Blowing Kisses In The Wind
74    Bryan Adams    Thought I'd Died And Gone To Heaven
75    Snap    Rhythm Is A Dancer
76    Hammer    Addams Groove
77    Michael Bolton    Missing You Now
78    N2Deep    Back To The Hotel
79    Kathy Troccoli    Everything Changes
80    Def Leppard    Have You Ever Needed Somone So Bad
81    Richard Marx    Take This Heart
82    Firehouse    When I Look Into Your Eyes
83    Jade    I Wanna Love You
84    Boyz II Men    Uhh Ahh
85    Mary J. Blige    Real Love
86    The KLF    Justified And Ancient
87    Color Me Badd    Slow Motion
88    TLC    What About Your Friends
89    Color Me Badd    Thinkin' Back
90    Charles and Eddie    Would I Lie To You?
91    Amy Grant    That's What Love Is For
92    Richard Marx    Keep Coming Back
93    En Vogue    Free Your Mind
94    Keith Sweat    Keep It Comin'
95    Mr. Big    Just Take My Heart
96    Amy Grant    I Will Remember You
97    CeCe Peniston    We Got A Love Thang
98    Def Leppard    Let's Get Rocked
99    Das EFX    They Want EFX
100    Bonnie Raitt    I Can't Make You Love Me

I didn't say anything was right or wrong, just "what it was" - as alluded to in my closing remark "it is what it is."

But if you're asking my opinion of "what it is" -- then yes it was severally lackluster for a band that gave so much meaningful, moving and FUN material.  But given that the artistic talent (Brian) wasn't functioning or even around... it's fine.  It simultaneously damaged the image and kept it alive -- as they say "there's no such thing as bad press."  

Personally, some of the stuff from this era I like -- and some of it is a bit tough to listen too, even for me.  But I find all of it curious and interesting as a fan.  But even Brian's stuff from that time (and since) is more often than not -- odd.  But almost always very interesting.

Since Brian left it's pretty obvious that no one had any creative muscle, except Denny - but his stuff didn't fit the template.  Carl could do some, Al could do some too -- and Mike wasn't immune to producing some nice stuff on occasion either.  But without Brian cranking stuff out... it was going to be sketchy.  And post-85 is just simply very, very lean.  On quality and quantity.

The Beatles were, and still are, very protective of what got released as The Beatles. This is one of the reasons why John and George felt they had to go solo rather than submit the material they had written for Beatles projects since it was very un-Beatley. It's also why Paul took the opportunity to write an extremely laid back, underproduced album as his first post-Beatles project. If they were incapable of pumping out what they considered White Album caliber albums they wouldn't have been making albums.

Meanwhile in 1992, Neil Young released Harvest Moon.

Bean and Rock n Roll, you guys are making very good points....

Yes, but I'll take 100 Summer In Paradises over one Are You Passionate or Landing On Water  >:D

 :lol

Yeah, but I'm reminded of Nicholson's line in Cuckoo's Nest after he fails to pick up the shower room control panel:

"Well, I tried didn't I, goddamnit. At least I did that."

Also, personally, I'd still take those two albums over SIP.

Hey, at least we were somehow spared a Beach Boys/Right Said Fred collaboration

 :lol

What relevance does that have? Are you really saying that if Carl had written one song on SIP that it would have meant that the group wasn't Mike-controlled at that time?


I'm not sure many would consider 'Think of the blowjobs' as an innocent idea.  :-D

What does "Mike controlled" mean exactly?

If Mike wasn't stopping Carl (or any other Beach Boys) from bringing songs to the project, then couldn't you say SIP was more Carl, Brian, Al controlled than Mike controlled? Them leaving Mike to his own devices is like saying Mardi Gras was Doug/Stu controlled? It wasn't! Doug and Stu had no choice but to write and record material or simply give up/quit.

Just wanted to point out that in that list of hit songs that PinderGoestoKokomo posted, Clapton's "Tears in Heaven" was sitting at #6. If someone like Clapton was able to get a hit with an acoustic ballad at that time, surely QUALITY Beach Boys material would have had the same chance of catching on. If only...

It means that he was in control.  :)

As Al was fired from the band and only rejoined just in time to add some vocals, he obviously had little say at this point. As Brian was still under Landy's control at this time there is no way he could have done anything to affect SIP. The idea that they were more in control of the album is utterly barking.

By the way, do I take it from your posts that if you were stopped for speeding your argument would be, 'My wife could have chosen to drive today officer so couldn't it be argued that she was in fact more in control of the car than me?' I'll have to try that one...  :-D

I'll take Summer In Paradise over that song any day as well......  >:D

That AND his acoustic Layla cover.... I'd rather put Summer Of Love on 24/7  rotation for a whole summer than have to suffer that crap.

That's a different argument though.... If the authorities could issue Mike a ticket because of Summer In Paradise, I'm sure they would.... But it's more like Mike had to put himself in charge of the album in order to avoid massive tickets via the record company!!!

Its not that bad.... :lol :lol :lol

Tears Of Heaven is a decent enough song, and I certainly can't fault its subject.... We all have different tweaks to our taste, and I guess when it comes down to it, I find Mike being an absolute dork far less offensive than some other more "respectable" stuff..... At least Mike being a total nimbus still has some traces of DNA from the greatest band of all time.

From my perspective, it's pretty simple.  Carl is present, if not dominant, as a songwriter, musician and/or producer (whether credited or not) on every single album through BB'85, including the BW-produced ones, with one glaring exception:  the Al- and Mike-dominated M.I.U.

After 1985, he's gone in all three capacities.  Carl shows up, sings and leaves.  That's a pretty drastic change to how things were before.  With Brian and Dennis out of the picture because of Landy and death, that pretty much leaves Mike and Terry Melcher in charge.  I don't see how you can argue otherwise.  We can quibble over whether it was something that Mike wanted or was forced by circumstances to do, but a quick comparison of the credits to BB'85 and KTSA vs. every album thereafter says it all.  Mike was in charge, by choice or by default, take your pick.

Exactly. Right on. Cam's obsession with this is a little odd, and he shrugs off any evidence we try to throw his way. Kinda reminds me of the birthers here in America. They refuse to accept to the truth for whatever reason.

You know you should really listen to "Still Cruisin". It's a great album.

Absolutely.  Even the leanest of Beach Boy harvests is where I'd rather be.  It's about escapism and joy.  Soothing and enchanting and escapist -- whether involved and diving in -- or leaving the scene with overripe metaphors.  While Clapton's more-personal and sensitive work may be more acceptable in general company ...I'd rather get lost in a Beach Boy coconut-fantasy than Clapton's small, polite universe.

And I don't know why.

Cam's a good poster, he brings up a lot of good points normally, but the theory in this thread is out and out wrong. Leading a band isn't a official title necessarily, but by 1986 it was the Endless Summer Beach Band led by Mike Love in all but name. 

Bruce, Al, Dave, Ricky, and Blondie never lead the band in any fashion. MIU was produced by Al but I think Mike and even Brian shared a lot of the load so it's not his album entirely.

Brian was their firm leader through mid 1968, and still was a part of many crucial decisions through the Sunflower/Surf's Up period. He has said several times that it wasn't until 1971 that he felt they could make records without his input. Of course they did a fair share of work without him on 20/20, and Dennis in particular worked alone at times, but I think the use of Surf's Up against Brian's wishes was the first time his word wasn't final. After that his mental health never permitted him to be in complete control like the old days, but he did take a leadership role of sorts from 1976 to mid 1977 and again in the reunion.

Manson was why Dennis never was the leader. Despite the fact that he easily showed the most promise as a writer, and certain television appearances like David Frost in 1971 and Mike Douglas in 1969 were dominated by him, that alone cost him a lot of the say and respect he had previously. Once drinking and hard drugs began to really effect his performances on stage circa 1977-78 his opinion mattered even less. I don't think Dennis would ever have been able to take charge on any practical matters, but I do think he would have played a bigger role in the post Sunflower albums. He left the group for a few weeks in 1971 (the Surf's Up album arguments and his hand injury made him question his desire to stay), and his work on So Tough was basically solo. On Holland he did write more for the group but he disliked the proceedings so much he basically had Carl finish them. He had no real say in the 1976-77 sessions, and though he put a good deal of work into LA Light, his compositions were actually much more reflective of the Bambu sessions, no wonder given their origin.

Carl was the leader on the road as early as the non Brian shows of 1963. On the three Jack Rieley era albums, he was very much in charge of the group and from 1965-73 he was basically running the live show by himself. After Murry's death he seemed less powerful than before as far as the sets went. He still seemed to have more of a say so than anyone else through 1980, but his ideas met with more resistance over 1974-80. His hard drug use in 1977-78 only made things worse. After he came back in 1982 he seemed to have a lot of say initially, but from 1984 on, with rare exceptions like the rarities in the spring of 1988, and the 1993 box set tour, he doesn't seem to have much influence on the overall set. Of course he always ran the show until 1997 at a practical level as far as the music and musicians were concerned, but his touch was missed. The Steve Levine thing was his last real studio project, and seemed to have very little input in his last three Beach Boys albums, except maybe to act as mediator.

Mike did not have more control than anyone else until 1973 when his brother became their manager. Blondie would not have been out of the band with Jack still in charge and we know he left over Carl's objections. Mike doesn't seem to be directly involved but I am sure he backed up his brother instead of Chaplin. Of course we know the oldies got more and more prevalent each year after 1973 as well. I wouldn't call Mike a leader though until after the brief 1977 break up. The shape the Wilsons' were in made it so he almost had to step in more. Sadly that meant things like the 1977 Dennis tour was cancelled. Frankly that rash decision only made his abuse of drink and drugs worse, which in turn hurt the band. Once Carl got better Mike's role lessened slightly for a time, but after Carl left in 1981 Love was clearly was the only one with enough passion to try to lead. It was a disaster. Carl came back, the shows improved, but the format Mike came up with in 1981 was largely there to stay. After Dennis died, with the exception of the Steve Levine sessions, Carl just seemed to have his heart less in the group than Mike did. Thus Mike took full helm of the creative direction of the group from 1986 on, not without resistance, but his ideas were the ones that got done.

Sadly Mike's oldies attitude didn't change enough until early in this century, and for all of his fine qualities as an artist (through the early seventies), I must say he stunk at being a leader of the actual Beach Boys. He seems to be far better in situations like the post 1997 Beach Boys where he had ALL the final say.

From the mid eighties on, he seems to have had a major conflict with Al. Though they always had buddy moments, Brian and he did have a strained relationship during the Smile period. Mike should not take the blame at all for the album not coming out, but there were some new tensions. Their friendship did seem to recover for a while, but it was never consistent after the very early seventies. Since the mid eighties Brian's view on Mike seems to mostly be low and very publically so.

Carl and he fought a lot over the bands direction and management from 1973 on. Compared to the others they seemed to be able to co-exist mostly, but Carl did leave in 1981 because of where Mike wanted the group to go. All the group can be faulted for going along with the oldies deal at one time or another, but Mike was behind it.

Dennis and Mike had a fraught relationship from the late sixties on, but at least they seemed able to work together until  the late seventies where you basically had to keep them apart. Of course Dennis' absences from the band from 1979 on were largely caused by his own demons, but it was Mike who found it hardest to work with him and vice versa.

Commenting on the reunion, they all seemed to work at making it work, but unlike the others Mike didn't want to keep the original band together afterwards. I think he argued his feeling about it quite well in this case, but shouldn't the band have learned to talk to each other without the press being involved? This time though we should ask if Mike or the others were directly to blame. To me it feels like a big mistake from both "camps" so to speak. Mike got horrible press and backlash, but I don't think it was deserved in this instance.

As bad as I think Mike's leadership was due to his ego, or as much as I think his vision for the group from the mid seventies on was wrongheaded, I am only being fair. I am one of his biggest defenders when it comes to the qualities he added to the band from 1961-73, yet he has been the source of most real conflict within the group, was not able to keep the group together, nor did he seem to want to. I am not saying he is evil (he has some very good personal qualities along with some bad), or at this point even wrong at wanting to stay with
something that comes easier, but he was not the diplomat of the band.

How do I back this all up, reading a lot of articles and books, talking to people involved both before and after Carl died, and common sense. That they did a cover of Wipeout that Mike did not write, and which may only feature Brian (though I am not as convinced as Andrew), is not relevant. It was Mike's idea 100 percent. It's not a guess but a documented fact in the very accurate Wilson Project book. That means that even when it seemed Mike wasn't in charge, he very much was.   

As far as the blow jobs, are any of you at all shocked that Mike Love would have at one time considered that a nice perk.

Al has said he only produced the vocals on MIU so certainly not 'his' album.

Yep the liner notes. There it is, Mike owns SIP and it explains how he produced without producing. So chalk one up to Mike. That leaves a whole lot of leadership for a couple of decades to spread around amongst the rest of the group.

Artistically, yes.

But commercially, not really. Kokomo, Wipeout and the Still Cruisin' LP were all bigger hits than the band could realistically have expected at that point. And the concerts (even with the cheerleaders) continued to bring in the crowds.

So much to reply, so little time. I'll start with this one: "Tears In Heaven" and the quality/reception to that song.

I don't know who was alive or actively buying music in 1992, or who were the old-school 60's/70's fans who knew Clapton for Cream and Layla above the rest, but there seems to be no hint of the context surrounding "Tears In Heaven" that drove it to the top 10 on the singles charts, and which still has it firmly on the AC/soft pop format playlists to this day.

That song came in the wake of a terrible tragedy where Eric Clapton's son Conor was killed when he fell out of a city window. I remember listening to Howard Stern as the story broke, and when it turned out to be Clapton's son, it added another level to the tragedy as people felt more personally connected to an already awful event because they knew who was involved through his fame as a musician.

When Clapton released a song written in the wake of that tragedy, specifically for his deceased son, larger numbers of people connected with that song, perhaps heard elements of their own grief or tragedies in the words, and it became a "hit", which is always surreal in the wake of a very sad event but certain songs just connect at certain times. tears In Heaven is still played regularly at memorial services, funerals, and church services because the lyrics connect and transcend the song's surface status as another soft pop ballad on the charts in 1992.

So to hold out "Tears In Heaven" in some way as a comparison to what could have been with the Beach Boys releasing some fun in the sun romp, or whatever the case...

...it's missing the point, and the context of that song more than someone's perceived quality or lack thereof when hearing it in 2013 is ignoring what the public's reaction was in 1992 when the song came out. It hit people in an emotional way, and when a song does that, the "music critic" opinions of the validity, or artistic quality, or "lasting power" or whatever else makes music writers gush over stuff means nothing to people buying and feeling the record.

It may not be a favorite of some, but it can't be used to compare or contrast what else from the BB's or any other act could have been a hit on the same 1992 charts when the background and context of the song Tears In Heaven is considered, and that's not what was being done. If another artist with no personal connection or reaction to personal tragedy had released the same song, it would not have been as successful. IMO

Kind of like Candle in the Wind 1997 on a smaller scale.

Exactly, and on a lesser scale the same with U2 who had a song like "Walk On" take on a different meaning and connect with listeners in the wake of 9-11, where the song's original release was fair-to-average reception. To be accurate, the how's-and-why's behind the success of those songs as future music fans see them on the charts have to be put into context to make any kind of a fair assessment beyond the surface or gut-level reactions to hearing those songs out of context.

Likewise there are holiday songs like "I'll Be Home For Christmas", "White Christmas", or even "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas" which are well-regarded classics in their own right, but when put into the context of World War II when they originated (not even directly connected or written for that, just when they were released), hearing the lyrics in that context can be emotionally devastating.

Yeah, it takes a total asshole like Mike to be into that sorta perk. Especially in the world of rock n roll!  >:D

Mike knows his stuff but I think I disagree somewhat. I think the decisions made from 1973 through 1997 were much more democratic than we like to shorthand it with everybody taking their turn at taking the lead but over it all was Brian when he was intersted but mostly Carl letting people or group approved outsiders take their turns and have their shot and occasionally pushing his perogative as the sort of consensus most equal among equals.

I think we're looking at a situation of tempered expectations, a scaling back of ambition and a sort of resigning to a very positive fate of playing huge shows and living the lives of rock stars playing "oldies" (mainly) till the cows come home.... and maybe, if they were lucky, a minor hit or two every few years.... Can we really blame a bunch of middle aged guys who were probably tired, frankly of giving a damn? How many high highs followed swiftly by crushing lows can one group of massive egos handle? ..... After flop album after flop album (Love You through BBS85) and a near fatal creative suicide attempt (15 Big Ones)  is it really any surprise these guys made it a priority to live as peaceful a life as possible while still getting to be rock stars?

If anyone doubts that Mike was pushing for control of the band during the 80's/90's, just read his 1992 interview in Goldmine. He talks about the concept behind Still Cruisin' - all BB's songs from movies - and complains how that got watered down because Al wanted to have a song on the album, and Brian had a song on the album, neither of which were from movies. He says there were too many cooks in the kitchen, diluting the final product. Thus, we get SIP - the end product being the vision of only 2 people, Mike and Terry. And at the time, he felt this made it a stronger album, and would be the raging success the band craved. He didn't want Carl's songs, he didn't want Al's songs....although Bruce did have one song on the album, presumably because, as always, Bruce was down with Mike's vision of the album.

I wasn't really saying anything about chart or concert success, I was talking about holding together the band. Without Carl around, Mike could not, and would not, do it. I know they appealed to the Full House crowd at the time, but I prefer to forget 90 percent of what they did since 1980, not counting the reunion.

I am sure things were put to a vote of some sort, yet I think it's clear Mike gradually held more and more sway until his was the dominant voice. Not the only voice, but he was the only one who had any desire to lead during the 1986-97 period. Carl still made sure the show ran correctly and worked closest with the musicians, but Mike was given the title of "recording captain" in 1986 and it's obvious he was calling the shots as far as image and any current music was concerned.

Where is this part about not wanting Carl and Al's songs on SIP?

So this is 1992ish and things are being done democratically and he has clearly not been in control [especially not of the albums] according to this interview. 

I can see Mike being the browbeating kinda guy to take control. And at that point in time nobody probably wanted to bother much to play "king of the hill".  ;)

Wouldn't he have browbeat Brian and Al's songs off of SC for being out of theme if that were true or he was in control and leading the group?

OK. So here's the deal. Whether Cam wants to accept it or not, this was Mike's group by the late '80s/early '90s more than it had been at any point since the early days. Maybe he wasn't confirmed as the "boss/head guy/recording captain/oh captain my captain/what have you" but the facts are he was front and center, writing credit wise, stage show wise, appearances on Full House representing the band, etc. And the proof is in the pudding that during this time by and large the band sucked. They had some OK stuff on Still Cruisin', but it was obvious Mike especially just wants to write about summer and cars. And the liner notes to Summer in Paradise prove that it was his baby, and the result is not only The Beach Boys worst album, but one of the most embarrassing albums in music history. An album that sold under 10,000 copies. I think it would be fair to say that no Mike Love equals no Summer in Paradise. Which means I fault him (and Terry Melcher) more than anybody else for the debacle. Mike Love was an embarrassment during those years, and to an extent, the stench of that embarrassment still permeates to this day.

But anyways, yeah, all five of them are to blame. Mike, Bruce, Al, Carl, and even Brian. They all made the embarrassing choices. But we must note it's not Brian, Al, or Dave taking "Beach Boys" promo photos with John Stamos.

Lastly, who gives a f*** who was "officially" in charge. Whatever happened happened. It's really unimportant, even by Smiley Smile forum standards.

Well, I for one care. Mainly because I do not have the wealth of knowledge that most of the seasoned posters on the board do. I but I agree with the rest of what you said.  And even a novice (like me) knows that Mike waxed unpleasant to work with when upset.

In addition to my former post, the old saying "Power abhors a vaccum"

There is another old saying: The squeaky wheel gets the oil.  ;)

I think these could apply in the transistion of "power" to Mr. Love

You are entitled to your opinion about the embarrassment. Mike and his shenanigans would be down the list of legacy tarnishing embarassments in my opinion. I personally can't see how the videos and TV appearnaces did anything but help the group regardless of what I may think of them. A tanked album is just another of their tanked album and since it tanked it's hard to see how it might have had much impact, since almost no one heard it which is why it tanked.

Mike controlled an album, others in the group controlled more albums, lots of blame. Mike's album tanked, others' albums tanked. Mike sang lead and twisted around in a video, other sang and twisted around in videos. Mike appeared on Full House, others appeared on Full House. Still not seeing much evidence for Mike being in control or in leadership. Still looks more like a consensus thing through those years with all of the band taking leadership and personal opinions don't change it.

On that point I agree with you. When people look at the legacy of The Beach Boys, the Summer in Paradise album won't mean a thing because so few people have ever heard it. 15 Big Ones on the other hand...

Cam, by the '80s, I think Carl and Mike were both running the show, but in two very different ways:  Carl was the "musical leader" and Mike was the "business" leader.  I think they both recognized that and stayed out of each others' ways.  Mike's role as "business leader" included getting them a lot of high profile gigs, or at least collaborate with the band's publicity team to work the press in such as way as to maximize the opportunities from those.  Mike was very concerned with projecting the Beach Boys' "image" in just the right way, i.e. perpetuating the "fun in the sun" image.  After the 1985 album was a relative failure, I believe Carl lost some leverage in the artistic field, or at the very least lost interest in pursuing recording with the band:  he may have resigned himself to the belief that no matter what they tried, they weren't going to have hit records anymore, so why waste their time.  Instead, he turned to outside creative outlets...he tried to reactivate his solo career by recording some demos, but evidently couldn't get a deal, so he then formed a recording alliance with Beckley and Lamm...but again, I believe he gave up on the Beach Boys' recording career as far as contributing anything more than vocals as required.  Then, once "Kokomo" hit Number One, Mike had added leverage as far as their recording career went (especially in terms of his songwriting partnership with Melcher).  As far as "Still Cruisin'" goes, I think Mike had a big hand in getting them a sponsorship deal with Chevy that made the album possible (that, and Capitol's desire to release an album with their two recent hits, "Wipe Out" and "Kokomo", both hit singles for other labels).  It's clear from Mike's 1992 Goldmine interview that he believed the way to go was with "commercial"-sounding songs in the great hit-making "formula" tradition of the Beach Boys, and Carl and Al were either convinced of this, or they just went along with it without fighting.  Yes, Al was "furloughed" at the beginning of the "SIP" sessions, but came back at the tail end to add some parts...but whether he could have worked any leverage even if he had a song or songs ready to be included, I'm not so sure...again, the Mike and Terry partnership was a proven winning formula at that point, even on the basis of only one hit, but it was more leverage than the other guys could muster.  I believe that in the '90s, Mike's "leadership" in the business sense grew even more solid...as has been pointed out by a couple of writers documenting this time in the band's history, Mike was able to position his own production company as the producers of the band's shows.  Al apparently resisted this, but Carl gave in, and Brian either abstained or also voted in Mike's favor.  Either way, Mike won this important opportunity, and his "leadership" in the business sense became even more strongly solidified.  Carl still "ran" things onstage, Mike was "running" things in a business sense, and as far as their recording career went...Carl gave up after '85, Mike had the leverage to get "SIP" done HIS way (hence his executive producer credit...a title that usually goes to people who produce in a business sense, not in a musical sense), but after that bombed, they were dead in the water as recording artists...no one was willing to sign them unless they brought Brian along.  Make sense?

So Mike wasn't in charge of the music except for SIP I take it [between 1973 and 1997]?

I've heard that the songs for the setlists were sort picked democratically by the group under Carl's supervision and that Mike sort of set the order of the voted in songs. Do you or anyone know anything about that?

Bruce has said Carl was hands on with Kokomo. Do you know anything about whether that is true or not?

I remember Billy Hinsche saying once that Sail On Sailor was added to the setlist in the 90s by either Carl or Al, and against Mike's wishes, so at the very least he didn't have complete veto power.

Also, Carl was the most skeptical about the boxed-set tour. So maybe he was outvoted on that.

And let us not forget that Carl may have had other priorities... Like fightinh for his brother's freedom and health; and dealing with the horrible treatment he got in the WIBN book. I bet those things, at that stage in life and career meant a lot more than pushing his songs on a BB release.

Unbelievable that Mike was against "Sail On, Sailor". I know it's kinda "too easy" to box him in as the anti-artistic, don't-f***-with-the-formula guy, but things like this really do show him to be the kind of person his detractors think he is. But then, if you want to paint him as "anti artistic" he pulls out something like "All This Is That". But I have this sneaking suspicion that this song is only allowed because he wrote it, unlike Brian's more esoteric material. Because if anything, songs like "Sail On, Sailor", "Marcella", and "Heroes And Villains" are much more commercial than "All This Is That", yet Mike plays "All This Is That" much more.

He doesn't, though, at least in my experience. Of the eight shows I've seen Mike perform (either as Mike & Bruce or on the reunion tour), six had Sail On Sailor and only five had All This Is That.

And the 'only in the set because Mike wrote it' argument doesn't apply to Til I Die, Here Today, Good Timin', Forever, or You Still Believe In Me, all of which the Mike & Bruce band have done live.

This.

I think many people have been surprised at the number of non-Mike-written rarities that have been added over the years. Betsy and Little Girl I Once Knew being two more. It seems it is more about which songs Mike likes rather which he wrote.

And if no rarities are played I think it's down to the belief that the audience won't want to hear them. Which is understandable and happens with many bands who've been around for yonks.

"Mike just wants to write about summer and cars" ......

Funny then that the song called "In My Car" was written by Brian ;P ;P

Cam,

Leadership...There probably aren't any meeting minutes available, taped conversations, contracts, or interviews regarding leadership. You won't find it on the album covers, liner notes, the concert MC isn't going to announce it, and band members are rarely going to mention it in interviews. So, you have to rely on your common sense and your Beach Boys' knowledge that you have accumulated over the years.

In this thread that you started, you keep asking for evidence. There isn't any. So stop asking. Like I mentioned in my earlier post a few days ago, which you ignored or you wouldn't have continued to pursue the subject, you have to rely on your common sense. I know that is a dangerous proposition when you're dealing with The Beach Boys, but give it a shot. Please, give it a shot. I'd like to ask you a few questions. Would you mind using your common sense and your Beach Boys' knowledge in answering them? You won't find the answers in any books or magazines or the internet. Just make a guess, an educated guess. I won't bind you to your answers. I promise. If possible, could you limit your answers to one or two or three names. I would really appreciate that.

1977 - Who do you think LED the M.I.U. project at the Maharishi, repeat, Maharishi International University which Carl and Dennis barely attended, Mike Love wrote the lyrics to several of the  songs including "Wontcha Come Out Tonight", "Kona Coast", "Sweet Sunday Kinda Love", Belles Of Paris", and "Matchpoint Of Our Love", the co-producer was Mike Love's friend Ron Altbach, and the other producer was Mike Love's best friend in the band, Al Jardine? Answer?

1978 - Who do you think LED the idea to bring back Charles LLoyd to play saxophone at Beach Boys' concerts for Celebration songs such as "Almost Summer" and "Cruisin", and the song that Mike Love taught to the audience, "Country Pie"? Answer?

1984 - While I'm sure a vote was probably taken to finalize the show, if you had to make an educated guess, which Beach Boy do you think LED the idea for the Beach Boys' D.C. Beach Party with LaToya Jackson, Julio Iglesias, Ringo Starr, and others? Answer?

1987 - Which Beach Boy do you think LED the idea to pair The Beach Boys with The Fat Boys to record "Wipe Out"? Answer?

1988 - Which Beach Boy befriended John Stamos which LED to Stamos performing live with the group, recording with group, and "pulling the necessary strings" to having The Beach Boys appear on several of his TV shows, increasing the group's popularity among a younger audience? Answer?

1989 - 1992 While Bruce Johnston may have re-connected with Terry Melcher and then onto the The Beach Boys, after Terry became the group's producer, which Beach Boy WORKED EXTENSIVELY with Terry, writing numerous songs on the Still Cruisin' album and the Summer In Paradise album, thus LEADING the group on record? Answer?

1996 - Stars And Stripes - an album of Beach Boys' covers; except for "I Can Hear Music", all taken from 1966 and earlier, the surf & turf era. While I'm sure a project such as this had to be cleared by the group, if you had to make an educated guess, which Beach Boy do you think worked the most behind the scenes to get this project done? Just make a guess? I won't bind you to it. Hint: ....a rar, a rar, a rar, that's your hat... Answer?

I'd guess it was the album's executive producer.  Oh, hang on.

These questions don't amount to a damn thing unless we're all supposed to agree that MIU, Celebration, SIP, Stars & Stripes all suck balls, which I don't. So therefore, it's a big DUH, it's Mike! So, what? Was Mike beating people up and blocking their material? No! I've been in a million bands and if anyone sat out meetings or didn't fight for their material, that's on them.

But, that IS the point! DUH is the point! Just go through the various Beach Boys' projects and use your common sense and Beach Boys' knowledge....this one was Brian-led, this one was group-led, this one was Carl-led, this one was Mike-led....and answer your own questions. It's easy to do. I was just pointing out, in my opinion, that Mike led pretty many projects. So, I'm hoping that Cam will answer the questions, look at his answers, and move on. If his answers to my above questions aren't "Mike", well, I respect his opinion, but he is seeing things differently than me and maybe many other fans.

Yeah, DUH usually seems to be the point with The Beach Boys :P

I think the words "led" and "controlled" are misused a bit in this context though.... Led/used tend to imply that someone was in a strict leadership role when in most of these cases it seems to be by default more than anything.

The main discussion here seems to have switched to what the word 'leadership' means. Some seem to think that as the other members could have stopped Mike from being the leader (probably true) that that means he wasn't the leader. An odd way of looking at it imo.

I agree. In most of the time frame we are discussing, Mike was the only Beach Boy motivated enough to think outside the box (yes, sometimes bone-headed) and try to make things happen for the group. After he (Mike) got it done, yeah, it probably had to be cleared by the group - which it usually did! But, Mike LED the project. Man, are we beating a dead horse or what?

There tends to be a big difference between the shows Mike's band does in the U.S. and what he does in Europe.

That might be true, but I've not heard of him doing All This Is That *more* in the US than in Europe -- and the discussion wasn't about "Mike's shows in the US" but just about "Mike's shows". My point was that when he does add rarities to the setlist -- which, by their nature, is infrequently, or they wouldn't be rarities -- there doesn't seem to be all that much of a bias towards ones he wrote. There's some, obviously (I doubt any audience has ever massively clamoured for Cool Head Warm Heart) but he's as likely to add a Brian solo composition like Til I Die as anything else.

1977 - Al Jardine

1978 – Whoops, misread this one at first. Though he already had history with the group I believe, I guess it was Mike. If he didn't sit down after just those songs then I might guess anyone or everyone in the band. Could have been Carl. Is Charles Lloyd considered a negative?

1984 – The promoters

1987 – The Fat Boys’ producers

1988 – Don’t know. I’ve always thought Stamos pulled his own strings.

1989 - As already discussed Mike co-wrote half of the new songs but did not lead on SC. Brian and Al produced tracks on it and broke the labels theme so I suppose they came closest to leading on SC.

1992 - As already discussed Mike led SIP.

1996 – Joe Thomas and Brian Wilson

Wasn't Stamos a rabid Dennis fan who talked his way into a Dennis-attended party only to have Dennis throw a knife at him?

After that he figured he'd work his way into the Beach Boys camp via Mike where he'd have less a chance of being murdered for his efforts?

Please enlighten me with that story.
That sounds crazy, and like something I want to hear right now.
I must know!

The Mike Love stereotype was created 1985-1998...

Does anybody else feel they are banging their head against the wall on this thread?

Yep, which is why I'm finished arguing with Cam. He believes what he wants to believe, and I sure ain't gonna be the guy to change it.

Leader and dictator do not mean the same thing.

Just because a leader does not have absolute power in the band, and is not responsible for every single decision that is made, does not mean he/she is not a "leader."  A leader is the person who sets the direction and generally has the final say in decisions that are made.  I lead my band.  But there are times they don't want to something I want to do.  Do I make them do it? Sometimes, and sometimes I don't.  Too many times making people what they don't want to do and guess what?  You don't have a band any more.  Part of being a leader and staying a leader is knowing how to keep your troops motivated and in line and moving forward.

So this whole Mike wasn't the leader because Brian or Al got a song on or whatever, saying absence of absolute control is disproving someone's leadership role -- it totally misunderstands what band dynamics are, and what the nature of leadership is.  Silly.

This is what I'm saying except about Carl. When four guys are equal partners the decisions have many owners, you have various people taking a lead on this and that  but there is one guy who is looked to as leader and that was Carl.

I also think another factor in playing it is the TM themes that Mike always promotes. Hell, they played "everyone's in love with you" live in the 1970s, one of the worst songs on 15 big ones.

They played it in 2004 and 2008 as well in a superior arrangement I would say. Not a bad song but a horrible arrangement on 15BO.

It's not like anyone else in the group  was presenting an alternative to these things?
It's not like Carl was constantly loaded for a new Holland but were cut short by Mike's own projects and ambitions. I mean, sure both Carl and Dennis boycotted the MIU sessions, but for what? Why didn't they come up with the material to make LA Light a better album than it turned out?

I think Mike's an ass, but he sure took a directionless band in a direction. For that I can give him praise. The Beach Boys as a creative force was dead by 1977 and MIU showed up right after. Who can blame him for that?

This discussion has gone all over the place and does reek a bit of dead horse... so I'm not sure I can add any value with this comment... but who cares, it's the Beach Boys and that's what we do here!!   :-D

I got into the Beach Boys as a kid in the early 80s... and I looked at Carl (at that time) as the serious one, the Wilson... the one with the brains and in the artistic/spiritual chair.  I figured he called the shots that mattered.

Mike was the clown.  The Mic Jagger dancing, cocky singer who probably thought he was the leader but sucked and people talked about him when he left the room.  Carl played guitar.  Mike looked silly.  Carl was cooler.

HOWEVER...  As "stuff" got released, and we're talking Wipeout, Kokomo, etc... it just seemed extremely LAME.  I like it now... but at the time, I rolled my eyes and sighed "well... it's something. And beggars can't be..."

As the Sheriff mentions... common sense told me this --- To me, what was getting released DID NOT mesh with Carl's persona.  It did fit EXACTLY with how I saw Mike: Shallow.  Cheesy.  I didn't put "blame" on Mike or anything like that.  I like Mike.  He doesn't bother me.  I was happy to have something.  But I just KNEW this wasn't what Carl Wilson or Brian Wilson, for that matter, sounded like in my mind.

Kokomo sounded like they rented Carl for the session.  That was my honest to God feeling upon hearing it.  "Well at least they got Carl on that part"  That was initial my thought.  Without doing any research or knowing anything about their history -- that's what I heard.

So... I do get your point about Carl being in charge.  But "the stuff" ... the evidence never really matched the image.  I'm sure Carl could pound his gavel if he wanted.  But he didn't.  Maybe because he didn't have anything to counter-offer and he wasn't a cocky dick, and therefore didn't need to get his way.

That's a good point GFool.  Context.

I don't think you were replying to me necessarily, but I agree that context is essential to understanding why a song "hits."  I forget who posted about Clapton, but what I mentioned was related to Clapton's aesthetic and his move towards adult-soft rock --  AS COMPARED TO -- the Beach Boys "decay" into, what I'll call "gift-shop" quality, re-hashed "use once and discard" Beach Boy music.  And the fact that I still preferred THAT to Clapton's pop-excursions -- regardless of their context, appeal and connections.

Nothing profound.  Just my preference for sun-tanned harmonies and weak summer-metaphors over Clapton's pedestrian pop.  Tears in Heaven, for what it's worth was very touching given the events... but I didn't enjoy it and wasn't all that impressed with the song on a musical level.

Mike is the most upfront about it but I'm pretty sure all 3 Wilsons and Al were/are also TMers.

All the evidence points that by the late 80's Carl had become 'rent a voice'. He always sang impeccable and sometimes his vocals could save a crappy song.... and sometimes not. Credits only tell half of the story, Carl was clearly in charge in the early 70's despite only writing a handful of songs. Lots had happened in Carl's life by the late 80's/early 90's and I think conquering the world again with the band was not a top priority. Heck I imagine just the fact that there was still a band to speak of at all by this point was good enough for him.

Brian was, but I believe isn't any more. Dennis wasn't, and I'm pretty sure Carl wasn't either (though both tried it briefly). Al definitely was/is, though.

Carl did meditate regularly into the '90s, but he switched to a different type of meditation from TM, using tapes (possibly some form of mindfullness meditation). I accidentally interrupted his meditation session with a phone call one time, and apologized profusely. Carl was gracious as usual, but I was mollified.

As for Dennis, could he have stayed still long enough to meditate?

I know Brian completed training to be a TM [Spiritual Rejuvenation] instructor in late '66 and "graduated" with a ceremony and everything. Didn't Dennis introduce the rest of the group to TM?

I think Brian's real opinion on TM was said though the bizarre songs he made about it. (TM, TM song)

Al presumably has mixed feelings though if his interview with ESQ from a few years back is anything to go by. I think he called Mike a dumb sap for believing that TM was going to fix things.

(http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/500/50915745/The+Beach+Boys+1974+meditation.jpg)

I think with The Beach Boys "band dynamics" are much muddier than in most of our experiences (those of us who are musicians. Or in my case: "musicians") ..... Most bands revolve around a single songwriter, a few musicians, and the dynamics define themselves around this core fact. Or like Sting put it: bands start off as democracies and then roles become defined.... The Beach Boys were always a collaborative/family outfit of singers based around Brian and a revolving door of lyricists/contributors: mainly Mike by virtue of his being in the band and being basically the lead singer.... This same lead singer was perfectly fine being reduced to singing "bad luck, no more" over and over in the background only a few years later when the band had blossomed into an honest-to-God democracy (with Carl calling the shots live) .... Each guy got their moments to be the front-man and each guy had the option, opportunity to get their material on the albums without a single leader to appeal to or maneuver around..... Therefore, this being the case, there really was no leader or controller. If people want to complain/blame Mike for "controlling" or "leading The Beach Boys whenever they don't like The Beach Boys it is completely fair to hold up one's hand and ask "Well, why weren't the other guys contributing songs and creative direction"? Unless we see legal documents blocking Carl, Al, or Brian from contributing I'm going to blame them for Summer In Paradise as much as I'll blame Mike.

I brought up Tears in Heaven (which I happen to think is a lovely song, but no matter). I wasn't comparing the quality of that song to the quality of Beach Boys material at that time so much as comparing the opportunity for chart success. I was well aware, both at the time and now, of the context surrounding Tears in Heaven, but I was unsure-- I was prepubescent at the time-- if the general public really knew the roots of the song well enough to catapult it to its high chart position. I assumed that it had to have also been due to the fact it's a sweet, pleasant song*.

 *your mileage may vary

However, Clapton and the Boys were both artists from the 60s with some later career success and some questionable musical decisions behind them. My point was: The Boys weren't necessarily totally out of the running for some chart success at that point in time. But, of course, the back story behind Tears in Heaven may have played a bigger part than I realized in the single's success, so...

Wait, what did I come here to say again? Ah well. Screw Clapton.

Man, PGTK, you're really deep. ;)

whats the hells going on with them?!?!!

Sez you.  It's an opinion where there's no evidence to back up that statement past, at the very latest, 1985.  Leader of the live band, yes.  Leader of the band overall, no.  The first in no way the same as the second.  For example, I was music director -- which is leadership of the live band -- in the Standells for a year.  I was "Carl."  Was I the leader overall?  No.  Larry Tamblyn was.  Larry was "Mike."  We had a disagreement artistically very similar to Carl and Mike's.  Guess what?  I'm not in the band anymore.  Larry is.

And that's the reality of how these things work, regardless of how anyone would like to believe otherwise.

All making a wish to blow out the candles on a  giant birthday cake...or

It took the photographer so long to load film in his camera they all fell asleep....or

They are trying to mediate but that guy on the left had beans and cabbage for lunch.

Does anybody else get the feeling Ricky wasn't taking it that seriously?

Right, that's my opinion and you have yours and none of us have proof.

True.  But we do have EVIDENCE.  Evidence and proof are not the same thing, and evidence not rising to the level of proof does not invalidate it -- that's not what it's for.  When there is no proof, the logical mind weighs evidence of conflicting propositions to reach a conclusion.  Confusing evidence for proof is the hallmark of losing argument...if the evidence doesn't back up one's argument, the last resort is, "well, you can't PROVE it..."

You can't prove a UFO didn't just land in my backyard, either.  But since there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that it did, I wouldn't expect anybody to take the proposition seriously.

I think, actually, you're having us all on a bit by sticking doggedly to this line of thinking.  If so, kudos.  

I agree but we don't necessarily accept each other's interpretation of the evidence and there is no proof to settle it.

Your command of word salad is awesome.  Kudos from a performance art standpoint.

Thank you.

I think maybe Cam (not speaking for you) sees a leader as a different thing than most of us do. That's his choice, and while I very much see Mike gaining ground from 1973-85, and feel he took charge from 1986 on, we honestly can't know who voted what. IF that's how you want to define a leader.

Beyond the surface I would guess the way the group divided after Carl died should tell us the most about who felt closest to who at that time. I think the way they are divided now reflects that as well. Obviously when band members came and went from 1962-97 there were always reasons that reflected the reality of that given period. I think we can make a very educated guess, but The Beach Boys have always kept me guessing to some extent. I mean Dennis defended doing the Maharishi tour as late as 1976 and who would expect that!

David does seem to be the one person who has the best perspective (or most able to understand both sides) because he was out of the group for so many years. So many worthy artists don't get a second chance at proper recognition and I am happy to say that through Jon, and of course David's talent, he is one of those rare people that really got perceptions changed about them. I hope all writers in the future will continue to give Dave his truly deserved credit, and I know I have made that a real point myself. I don't know of anything too personal after Jon's book, so I don't know if he too has now had to make a choice between them as people. As an artist I would think it makes more sense for him to be with Brian now, but personally that may not reflect any dislike of Mike or Bruce. However he stayed quiet after the so called firing of Brian, which I must say was a choice I applaud him for. Not that I am not curious to some degree, but I would think he is more the type to try to talk to someone direct instead of through their "people" in public.

No, I see it the same way you guys do.

I think the problem is the band took a direction and many mistakenly believe only one guy was on board with that direction and therefore he must be leader. There were many equal leaders [who looked to Carl as the "leader" amongst leaders] and there was much consensus is what I'm saying.

If you call my name
It's but one of many by which I'm known
The borneless one
There is no pain or anger that I am not
Hell will come
He will come
Two nails in the palm of the hand
Hell will come

I press the dagger to the center of my heart
Of my heart
I draw you close within the circle of my arms
Of my arms

Asar Un Nefer

This my spirit hell
From me come all things black and bright
In the name of the damned
My infernal service is at hand
Hell will come
He will come
Two nails in the palm of the hand
Hell will come

I press the dagger to the center of my heart
Of my heart
I draw you close within the circle of my arms
Of my arms

Asar Un Nefer

i have a printed interview with carl done sept. 8th 1989 in london. paper it is typed on says at "may fair" hotel.
the interviewer's initals were lk. carl was asked about mike taking over leadership of the band. carl replied that yes that was true, mike was the leader. went to say how mike is all business business business. on the phone..blah blah....

so you have carl himself saying mike was the leader at that point in time. carl also said he had songs he wanted to do live but he could not get them in the setlist. so carl did not have control of the setlist, however or whomever it was done back then.

i have no scanner. but if someone has a fax machine i can fax it to them if they are interested in reading it.

Maybe it could be faxed to someone who could scan it and post it.

Holy crap...

ok by me. it's at home..i'll bring it to work tomorrow. if someone in u.s. offers i will gladly send it along.

got this from an old time collector who i traded with back then. some here may remember him. his name is gary virts. lived outside washington dc back then.

So if it is true that Carl admitted Mike was the leader, will you admit defeat Cam?

Sure.

heck...pm your address and i'll even mail you a copy.

Done.

The smoking gun document has been introduced into evidence.  ;D

I guess I'm the only other person in the Whole USA( besides Steve) that still can find a fax machine, albeit a run-down model.  

Thanks so much for posting that interview. Carl was remarkably candid there.

Awesome interview. I agree with Emdeeh that Carl was really candid in it. It's really a shame that him and Brian hardly worked together for so many from '85 and on. Brian still was writing some good songs, and it's a shame. Just having him on a song as goofy as "In My Car" lifted it up a notch just by having his vocals on it. As Carl admits, Landy did save Brian's life, but it's a shame he kept him separated from his family and his group for such a long stretch.

Interesting that Carl seemed very into playing different material than the "meat and potatoes", but remarked that he was "in the minority" on that. I get the feeling that he didn't push it that much though, because apparently Al felt the same way. Which would leave Mike and Bruce being for the simple, obvious set lists.

Also, a prescient take by Carl on the 40th and 50th anniversaries and  how he said Mike would be the only one around. Obviously, the 50th had the Brian, et al included, but it's interesting that Carl saw a time when Mike basically be the only true touring original "Beach Boy".



And Cam, that is game, set, and match!! Was that article enough for you to admit defeat?

CARL WILSON interview/ May Fair Hotel, London, Sept. 8, 1989

LK: Are you happy to be back with Capitol?

Carl: It's a good business move. I hope it works out all right.

LK: Why only five new songs on Still Cruisin'?

Carl: I wanted more new songs. Capitol only wanted three, we managed to get five.

LK: Why didn't you include songs like "Chasin' The Sky", which also were on film soundtracks?

Carl: No, that's CBS material, and they have the right to it a few more years. A new Caribou compilation album may come out soon.

LK: Why didn't you write any songs for Still Cruisin'?

Carl: I did write one, with Phil Goldstein, but I wasn't satisfied with the way it turned out in the studio.

LK: Will you record a third solo album?

Carl: I may, and I would like to work with different people for it.

LK: What I would love to see is an LP with you and Brian!

Carl: Oh, that would have been great. But at the moment the situation is extremely difficult.

LK: In what way?

Carl: It has to do with Landy, but I can't say anything it now. There will come a time...

LK: Why isn't Brian with you on the European tour?

Carl: I don't know. I called him several times, but I only got his answering machine. But he did tell my mother that he wanted to come. I have seen very little of Brian the past six years.

LK: It seems that Mike has sort of taken over the leadership of the Beach Boys right now?

Carl: That's right - he's drive, drive, drive all the time. He loves business, he's always on the phone. Michael was very excited by the "Kokomo" success.

LK: At one time you left the group because you felt the Beach Boys didn't take the live group seriously enough.

Carl: Yes, that was in the summer of 1980 after the European tour. The excitement of that trip carried us through, and Brian was with us - that was special. But then it started to get boring, the band wasn't alive, we didn't do our best. Of course, you go through the motions playing the same songs night after night. We've been doing it for 28 years.

LK: So why don't you include songs like "Cool, Cool Water" and "Caroline, No", for example, instead of doing cover versions like "Little Old Lady From Pasadena" and "Little GTO"?

Carl: We have done "Cool, Cool Water" from time to time, and we did "Caroline, No" last year. I would like to do that more, but I'm in a minority in the group. Of course, there are times when each one of us is more active. Sometimes it's Al, and he does more of his stuff, now it's Michael. I hope Brian gets more involved. I spent some time with him in the studio when he recorded "In My Car" and it was great. I like the music, but Brian should collaborate with his peers, not Gene (Landy) and wife. These lyrics: "I'm master of my fate when I accelerate," ... what? (Carl laughs and shakes his head). Gene couldn't hit the right note even if his life depended on it! I said to Brian, "Feel free to call me." But Landy doesn't like me because I say the truth.

LK: Do you like Brian's album?

Carl: Oh yes. It's too easy to say, "it's not Pet Sounds," but that's not the point. I especially like "Let It Shine". I have heard tapes from Brian's next LP. It's fantastic!

LK: Speaking of Pet Sounds, it has now been released in Japan for the second time - why isn't it out in the States?

Carl: That's a Landy problem. He wanted producer credits on it.

LK: Some say it's possible to get Pet Sounds in stereo?

Carl: Yes, it definitely is. It was mixed in mono, but recorded in stereo.

LK: Will we ever see a Smile release?

Carl: I feel Smile is incomplete. To go back and finish it, I don't know.

(At this point the lady from the record company knocks on the door, our 20 minutes are up. But Carl says he wants to go on!)

LK: When will see a new album of Beach Boys songs?

Carl: Well, we've certainly run out compilations, don't you agree? The new LP should have been called 5 Big Ones (laughs). Perhaps next summer.

LK: If you could freeze Beach Boys in time, which period would you choose?

Carl: I don't know, we've learnt so much from so many periods. And you don't learn anything when everything is great! But I would perhaps say around Friends. The group was pretty close. We all had families and took time to see our kids grow up. It was great, too, in the beginning, when my father worked hard to get us a recording contract with Capitol. He also produced half of our first album, was that Surfin'... (Carl apparently does not remember which LP came first!)

LK: Safari.

Carl: Yeah - not many people know that.

LK: Do you miss your father?

Carl: Sometimes, but it's been so long since he died.

LK: What about Dennis?

Carl: Oh God - Dennis... that was a big blow, it put us all in a strange place.

LK: Did the group consider breaking up after his death?

Carl: No, it brought us all closer together. With Dennis there were some really difficult times. But he was a great guy with a big heart.

LK: Will the Beach Boys see their 40th or 50th anniversary?

Carl: No, no. Michael will probably be there... (smiles). What I would like us to do in the future is get together from time to time for special occasions, like fund raising shows. I am certainly not willing to keep going at this level, playing 100 shows a year. I would like to produce other people, among other things.

LK: In 1978 there were talks about the Beach Boys going to Russia...

Carl: Yeah, but then Carter and Brezhnev started quarreling. I hope to play there some time. We tried to arrange a free concert in East Berlin during this tour, but it didn't happen. I really feel for those people.

LK: The Stones have been away for several years and now they've come back with their best album in a long time .Do you feel the Beach Boys ought to do the same?

Carl: Oh yes, that would have been good for us. I have said it many times: we ought to take a break and come back with a fresh view. I would hope Brian would come back with us, but those ridiculous Landy demands. Brian is Landy's life...

LK: But would Brian have been alive today without Landy?

Carl: No. And I will thank him for that. But he should stay out of the music and the business.

LK: The "Brian Is Back" campaign during the 70s...

Carl: That was early, but I think it did him some good, touring with us.

LK: You seem more open about certain subjects now; you were always very protective of the group?

Carl: Well, I'm more confident. And there comes a time when you no longer can say "Oh Brian? He's okay."

(here the journalist gets a little bolder)

LK: You have had your problems as well. In Australia (in the 70s) you fell off the stage?

Carl: Oh yeah. That was a combination of tranquilizers and alcohol. They were difficult times, powers were ripping the group apart.

LK: There were rumors that you took heroin?

Carl: No I did not, not at all.

(Time for something completely different...)

LK: Have you heard the Wilson/Phillips group?

Carl: My nieces? Oh they're very good, I think they will get a hit. They've gotten tons of money from their record company, and the best songwriters in New York. They work really hard - that's the key. I tell my own children: you must practice! That's what we did before we made it, many hours a day.

(Another knock on the door, nearly an hour has passed and Carl Wilson is off.)

Also, thanks for posting bgas and Steve ^_^

Hope there aren't any typos etc. up there, I did it pretty quickly but wanted to... erm, digitize it, and there were spots that were a little tricky to read as is.

Thanks Steve and bgas.

Carl confirms "Mike has sort of taken over the leadership of the Beach Boys right now" in 1989. Since at least Kokomo's success the previous Fall apparently. And we have previously established Mike had the leadership on SIP in 1992.

Regarding the setlist, in 1989 Mike is more active and Carl is in "a minority" but there are times when each of them "are more active".

Fascinating and very honest interview. I respect the guy even more than before.

It is very weird that Carl stated he wasn't willing to carry on playing 100 shows a year and yet he still went on doing it. The almighty dollar I presume.

Does anyone know if it was Run Don't Walk that was written by this point?

Interesting to have it confirmed that stuff like Chasin' the Sky couldn't be included due to it being done on another label.

you did a good job. top line reads:
Carl Wilson interview/ May Fair Hotel, London, Sept. 8, 1989

here is the rest of the missing parts....

lk: what about dennis?
cw: oh god- dennis...that was a big blow, it put us all in a strange place.
lk: did the group consider breaking up after his death?
cw: no, it brought us all closer together. with dennis there were some really difficult times. but, he was a great guy with a big heart.

plus line six..it should say "a new caribou compilation" not capitol.

Thanks, Steve, for that. It was very insightful, and clearly demonstrated straightforwardness on Carl's part.  I liked that he seemed really OK with Kokomo's success and renewed enthusiasm for the work.  I also liked that he alluded to what I would characterize as "outside forces" on the band.  And, the balanced perception on Landy.  He felt he saved Brian's life but should stay out of music.

The Boys really have/had a global perspective about bringing the music to the four corners of the globe, including East Germany at the time, and Russia.  Travel, internationally, is the best teacher.  They should all have Ph.D's for their "experiential education."   ;)

Thanks again!

This interview was made when I saw the Beach Boys for the first time at Wembley Arena. September '89. The whole crowd were all wearing those dayglow surf shirts, very much the vogue in the late 80's. All except me and my friend, aged 17, looking pretty much like my avator, long hair and flares, off our tits on hashish.

I spent the whole concert screaming "CARL", and requesting deep album cuts and Smile stuff. (didn't happen) After reading that interview, I hope he heard and appreciated there were still some real fans out there.

Carl was a top man.

one other thing...i offered this because it had something in it about this thread. it was not offered to rub someone's nose in it or try to convince anyone one way or the other. just an article with something to offer here. i'll let other's decide for themselves.
to me though...carl was asked a direct question and he gave a short but very direct answer. good enough for me.
and i hope this was useful to people.
and i want to add "you are welcome" to all who said thanks........and to bgas for posting it and runners for typing it.

Cheers and thanks to you Steve, as well as bgas and "runners". Thanks also for posting this reply, which is not only classy but a sentiment I wish were so universal on this and other discussion forums that it would not need to be posted because the sentiment should be understood among those having these discussions and debates.

Sometimes I feel the posting of something like an interview, a photo, a film clip, or even a set of historical facts in the heat of a debate gets misunderstood as "rubbing someones nose in it" or trying to somehow throw a dagger at those who disagree. Maybe it's a reaction I see that really isn't there, but what Steve says above is in the spirit of what a number of posters here feel when posting this kind of stuff. It's not about scoring points or winning the match, it's about sharing the information and getting the materials out there so people reading can dissect and analyze them before forming a fixed opinion.

Again, my own long-windedness can be boiled down to saying "Thanks!".  :)

How about the concept I raised earlier in these discussions about Carl being a team player, perhaps more than others in the same band? The notion of putting one's head down and doing a day's work, when perhaps you'd rather be doing something else or playing another role within your group, for the benefit of those on your team is one which Carl would seem willing to do if he was needed.

It's certainly as valid as presuming Carl was doing it strictly to fill up bags of money, and certainly a possibility to consider equally to that less flattering suggestion which implies it was all about the money. And obviously, rock stars do get paid and enjoy getting paid and demand what they think their talent is worth in terms of money, but don't you think there was something else there with Carl beyond the paycheck? Loyalty, obligation, team, etc...

Thanks for posting that interview. Fascinating

Not a smoking gun at all.

It's also funny how Mike being "drive drive drive' all the time turned into "business business business" by us posters..... Carl also said that each of them steps up to the reigns from time to time... I still insist if Carl or Al or Brian or anyone else wanted to stand their groun against the evil Mike wall of death, they could have managed to get their way.

How's that?

Obvious Carl's drive and business are discribing the same thing.

When Carl talks about others stepping up he was talking about setlists....not the same as leadership.

And before Carl talks about the dive and business he says two words----"that's right". Carl was no dummy..anyone can read he was agreeing with the interviewer's question.

Well gosh, or golly or even jeez, mYke might have quit and, well, they woulda lost their frontmahn.

Al was suspended and kicked out for being a problem with Mike in the 1990s.

Well, any leader only leads at the sufferance of those he leads. Sure, if Carl or Al or Brian had banded together they could have deposed Mike as leader, doesn't mean that Mike is not the leader in the meanwhile.

Then, like I've said before, the other guys are just as much to blame for whatever the hell as Mike is.

Hey! Just thought about this-will Brian, Al and David  have a "frontman"? There's no way they can do it right w/o one, right?? :lol

Sure they can, but we'll miss Mike's voice on lots of songs just like we miss Brian's (er, Jeff's) and The Bruce Boys shows.

Carl is agreeing with the interviewer about the sort of seeming leadership of Mike and confirming it. I don't see Carl equating drive and business. In the context of leadership in 1989 Mike has drive and loves business and was excited by the success of Kokomo.

I take it he means the setlists too in that interview. But the rest of the group had taken leadership in the recordings and touring at various times before and after 1989.

Well, I like SC and SIP more than Carl's away-from-the-Beach-Boys stuff. Carl's melodies were wan and his arrangements generic MOR pablum. At least Mike and Terry came up with some catchy vocal riffs.

So, 1) Mike was the leader post BB'85, and 2) did a better job at than Carl or Al could have done. Better, but not good enough.

Thanks :)

No we won't miss anything that smacks of mYke-and, there will be no cornfed humor, gold rings, pointing, horrible, warmed over nasal bleatings or well known ego issues.

o okay

wow, Pet Sounds wasn't available in the states around the time of that interview.

Did Landy really want a producer credit on Pet Sounds or did I read that wrong?

Landy has some kind of producer credit on the first copy of PS of my household.

what a criminal bastard. I have mixed feelings of appreciation for him for saving Brian's life and utter contempt for him pulling all his illicit sh*t and abusing his relationship with his patient.

I think any doctor could have done the former, given the levels of control over Brian's life Landy was given. Very few would have stooped to the latter.

I can't get a grasp on what Landy could have been thinking wanting a producer credit on Pet Sounds. I just... how.

I'm not sure about 'any doctor'.

Al has said that they all knew about Landy's personality and that he had to be dragged out of meetings when it was suggesting that they should re-employ him. But that Carl had run out of other options.

Not just ANY doctor, but then, Landy obviously played "hard to get" to be certain he got what he wanted the second time around. 
Worked, didn't it! 

The treatment of Brian was complex because he had gotten quite heavy and was polyaddicted. There was no conventional treatment program in 1983 Mental Health or Chemical Dependence Treatment that would have been able to help him. His resistance to change was extreme.In this sense, had Landy done 3 to 4 years of milieu therapy with him, and then continued on an outpatient basis afterward, we would be lionizing him as a genius instead of vilifying him. Chemical Dependence and Mental Health Inpatient Treatment was in its infancy them. A treatment theory grounding practice in a model for MH/CD treatment did not emerege until the mid 80s. I think the family did what they could do, but who knows? There were few if any MH/CD professionals doing long-term milieu therapy at the time Brian so desperately needed it.

and we have you peter to thank also in saving his life..................

Thanks for the insight, Peter! I don't have the experience to really look at Brian's treatments from a professional standpoint, which does bug me as obviously it's a huge factor.

A very interesting post.

So do you think Brian would have died if not for Landy treating him?

Ive pondered the question before.

If the alternative is 'Brian received no treatment at all', then yes - Brian would have killed himself with drink, coke, and pills. Like Hendrix or Janis, it would have been that one dose too many.

If you meant 'could someone else have treated Brian', I'd like to think someone else could - Peters post implies that those someone elses were rare in the 80's. What colours Landy's treatment is its totality. No other shrink on earth would have demanded writing credits.

When Carl talked about the song he wrote that didn't appear.  I heard it ended up on the Like A Brother album and it was Run Don't Walk

I haven't had a chance to read through this entire topic yet, but this is my impression of the most powerful person(s) in the Beach Boys organization from 62- today

1962-1963 (Murray Wilson with Nick Venet and Brian Wilson being 2nd and 3rd)
1963-64 (After Venet was fired, It was Murray Wilson with Brian pushing for more control
64-68 (Brian fired Murray and gained full control of the band with outer pressure from Capitol Records. Brian also respected opinions from the band, mostly Carl, and the wrecking crew)
68-71 (Brian's mental problems made him take a step back and this period was truly democratic. The group seemed to get along well enough to work together. With Al and Bruce having less say then the family members most likely)
71-73 (with the hiring of Jack Reiley, he gave more power to Carl to lead the band. Carl had already become the band director on stage, so it was natural that he became the producer in the studio. Reiley seemed to favor the Wilson camp, but I think Carl respected Mike and Al enough to keep them happy. Blondie and Ricky probably felt like outsiders, but they were respected by everyone enough to be involved as full time members. Carl was very good at being an inclusive leader of give and take with all parties involved.)
74-76 (Jack Reiley was gone, but Carl continued to be the band leader on stage. With the success of Endless Summer there was more pressure from the record company for Brian Wilson to lead the group again. I would say the most powerful force was the buying public pushing for more oldies. Even the band reluctantly began to play more oldies on stage.)
76-77 (Brian was back. Sort of. He was sort of pushed into the leadership position. But with the lack of success of Love You, and his backslide into drugs, and lack of desire to lead that quickly faded. And perhaps the Adult Child material was frowned on by certain band members)
77-78 (Two warring faction with Dennis and Carl on one side who pushed for more progressive music but also did drugs, while Mike and Al, the meditators, felt the future was in the past musically. Brian refused to take sides. Mike and Al were probably more disciplined at this time and gained control for one album, MIU )
78-80,83-88 (Carl cleaned up and Al began to side more with Carl. Bruce Johnston produced 2 albums and probably had some power. A period that was more democratic once again. Culture Club's producer was given the power as producer for the 85 album.)
80-83 (A period when Carl went solo, and Brian and Dennis were released for their drug and alcohol issues, Mike was probably in charge)
86-2011, 2013-present (Mike Love who worked with Terry Melcher for awhile and with the number one hit Kokomo gained power. Carl was still the band leader on stage, but his focus was more on Brian's health and keeping the families happy. After Carl died, Al was fired and Mike was even more in charge with his yes man Bruce Johnston after the Beach Boys voted for Mike to have the rights to tour under the name Beach Boys)
2012 (For one year, Mike took a slight step back, and Brian Wilson was given power in terms of recording. Mike was still in charge of the set list. But he wanted to be more involved in the song writing than he was so wanted to go back to things as they were.)

These are my thoughts, with some details thrown in.

After reading this lone post I quickly thought that it was missing just two things...
Firstly...Once Upon a time...



And FINALLY...And they all lived happily ever after.

The End.

Observing from different distances 69 to early 80's - sometimes nowhere around, sometimes up close.  The drug stuff is really overplayed.  Brian was heartbroken - drugs, when they happened - a symptom, not the problem.  He came to my and Eva's place for the great stereo equipment and a place to chill - and probably eat - in the late 70's.  What he did when he left, I don't know.  What I do know is that he still loved music, but didn't seem to know how to work with his band anymore.

I've always felt the Beach Boys should have taken a break as a band around 1977. I think it would have done a world of good. They didn't gain much staying together.  I am quite sure they would have gotten back together by their 20th anniversary but I think the individuals would have been better served. Maybe it would have helped Dennis? Brian? Carl? It couldn't be any worse. They never got to have the reunion album/tour. because they never left.

Oxymoronic thread title.  ::)

I think the problem with the group since the 1980s is that they don't have a leader. The "group" exists primarily as a corporate entity with no real vision.

Well said. 

From my point of view, they killed the BBs when they didn't allow Brian creative freedom to have a solo career or work with other artists in addition to the BBs in the late 60's.  They killed their group creative source while they pursued their own interests in addition to the BBs. Some did so rather well, but it did, in essence, kill the BBs. Still, they did did pretty well for several years after that and were a good band.  The name lived since the late 60's because it's about the money, as pretty much indicated in DonnyL's post.

Mike was always angling to be in charge, but the stage was always populated with people who had more talent. What he could do is point to the early success and attempt to apply that as a very thick sealing wax over the band and its image. He lobbied for it and pretty much outlasted the Wilsons (psychological attrition and two premature deaths) until he was in a position to "lead" his version of the band--a hyped-up apparition of the "good old days." He hasn't wavered from that position--or in his hand-wringing remarks about the perils of drugs--in close to a quarter-century...because there is no one who wants to go toe-to-toe with him about those details. There is too much pain and regret mixed into the success for Brian, and, as a truly sensitive soul, he just wants to have as much emotional comfort as he can experience given the traumas that his success has brought him. And woe to anyone who begrudges him that...

Let's recall that despite Brian's "issues," he's managed to be infinitely more productive creatively than Mike in the past thirty years, during a time when they were barely working together. Mike's indefatigable touring may have had a positive effect in keeping the band name somewhat in the public eye over those years, but if he hadn't done that, the Beach Boys' 50th tour would have still had a tremendous amount of cachet because it had Brian back in the middle of things, something that hadn't been the case since The Beach Boys Love You in 1977.

The BBs needed the $$ in the late 70s--at least Mike did. He even admits that he didn't get a grip on his lifestyle until much later, and it wasn't cemented for him until Jackie entered the picture. Mike needed that CBS deal as much, or more, than any of them--and that was probably the major reason they didn't break up then, even though it would have been much better for Dennis (and probably Brian and Carl as well--though Brian was still having a lot of push-pull about the situation then--late 70s--as I think Debbie could attest to).

All excellent points.

Also worth mentioning, and I'll probably be a bit all over the place here, in a more specific area, is the lucrative nature of touring. As much as folks like to romanticize touring, and how Mike to this day tours because "its the only way of life he knows" (and I'm not saying there's *nothing* to that argument), I'd say that every time the band hit a snag or a low point but usually *kept touring * ad nauseam, there was a pretty obvious reason: Money.

When was the last time that sales of a *new* album, and the resulting royalties, were a main and huge source of income for the band members? Probably some time in the 60s. Apart from one-shot or short-term record label advances (e.g. CBS in the late 70s), and one-shot deals like "Kokomo" and, *maybe*, some advance money from Capitol for albums like "Still Cruisin'" and "That's Why God Made the Radio", the main source or revenue has been, for most of their career, touring income and then royalties from the early-mid 60s oldies.

Why did they keep touring in 1977 despite such acrimony? Touring revenue (and CBS money). Why did they keep touring when Carl left in 1981? Touring money; they didn't care how bad the band sounded. They even said "f**k it" and played Sun City in late 1981 for crying out loud.

Supposedly, going back some years into the late 70s or early 80s, Carl had the idea that they should play less shows, to *not* tour all year, every year. Then, when they'd swing around to your area on tour every two or three years, they'd be able to play larger venues. Why didn't that idea ever win out? As mentioned above, psychological attrition on the part of Carl may have been a large factor. But I'm guessing, with even less songwriting royalty money rolling in for Carl than for Brian or Mike, Carl probably found touring a hugely lucrative area as well, still the one area where they were guaranteed a paycheck.

Further, how many of the band members took that HUGE wad of touring cash and dumped it into "passion projects"? How many solo albums or side projects did Mike or Carl or Al (or Bruce for that matter) take on after the early 80s?

As we move into the mid-late 90s, we see Mike actually moving for more control/power/revenue from the touring side of things. Stebbins and Marks note that Mike was edging Al out of the band and recruiting David Marks to replace *Al* (and thus removing a corporate member who got a main piece of the pie and replacing him with Marks, who would be salaried).

If anyone ever wonders what the fudge happened between Al and Mike, I think Mike wanting to produce BB shows with his own company was probably *the* thing that finally broke those two up, with Al on the losing end and marginalized. It think that was the main thing between them, not Al complaining about cheerleaders, or yelling about losing a cheerleader babysitter (see Mike's book), or Al trying to book a "Pet Sounds" tour with Peter Cetera, or whatever else is mentioned from time to time.

And speaking of Peter Cetera, look at his exit from "Chicago" in 1985. As he tells it, he told the band he wanted some time off, some time to do a solo album, before going back for another "Chicago" tour. They said no. They forced out their main songwriter and lead vocalist because, among surely a myriad of reasons, they'd lose out on a year or two of touring revenue while Cetera "took time off." They were actually having more success (e.g. "You're the Inspiration") than the BBs were having in the late 70s or most of the 80s in terms of recordings, but they still probably saw touring as the main source or revenue and took the risk of ditching Cetera and getting a generic replacement and going right back out on the road.

Other bands of this general era have done similar things. While interpersonal issues no doubt are usually also at play, you have other bands like Styx ditching the main vocalist/songwriter because he couldn't immediately do a tour. Steve Perry got ditched from Journey because he had a hip problem and couldn't tour (again, there are surely other reasons involved in these cases; but there's a pattern of not being willing to give an already frayed relationship some "cooling off" time, and instead ditching the "problem" member and going right back out on the road).

I'm not even saying that in all of these cases the "money grab" to tour should be frowned upon. In many cases, it's the one and only main source or income for band members. A lot of these bands had members that sniffed or drank or gambled all of their original money away and had to keep touring.

Re: Touring.

A point I brought up in one of the Jim Hirsch interview follow-ups that I don't think ever got followed up...

The claim has been made for years that Mike has wanted to get Brian into a room with a piano to write songs, just the two of them banging out some new hits like 1963. If that happens, then, we'll have, you know, world peace.

But the conundrum is a simple one: Songwriting is a process, followed by producing and recording an album of those songs, as everyone knows. If Mike is on the road for - what is it up to? Close to 200 shows each year, with travel days in between and some "down time" wherever that can be put in - Where is there time left to write and record new material? Where has there been time to write and record new material? In the last 4 years, Mike has toured constantly, Brian has toured. Even when Mike was re-recording a "new" Christmas song, he had to duck into Q Division in Somerville, MA and link to Lloyd in a studio in California versus holding a session "like the old days". If he weren't booking so many shows, maybe there would be more time to devote to recording and writing "new" material.

But, as the saying goes, you can't have it both ways. If looking to repeat the process of the mid 60's is the one Golden Ticket to getting the band really humming again, that won't happen playing over 2/3rds of the year on tour, each and every year.

Red herring answer - The room and piano and Brian Wilson sitting behind that piano in that room, and all the "folks" keeping that from happening (according to Mike) being the great missing link to all of it. Nothing truly new in terms of songwriting has come from Mike for several decades minus whatever was on the 2012 reunion album, to where something new Mike's fans could buy was actually released on an album or a single. Could it be the choice was made to tour incessantly versus taking a few months off for a solid session of writing and producing a record versus doing a drive-in for a day or two when they needed a rush release to meet the holiday deadline?

I didn't go into it because it got hashed out in a lot of detail in a previous thread about the years following Kokomo, but in my opinion a lot of this discussion comes back to the years surrounding "Kokomo". The band, sans Brian's direct involvement, had a #1 record on a hit movie soundtrack, a popular video on MTV, and renewed interest from Capitol who didn't have interest in "new" Beach Boys original material for years. The band simply could not capitalize on that success, and instead of something legit Capitol got a compilation album with previously released material surrounding an official Capitol release of the Kokomo track called "Still Cruisin", and the album Mike delivered as the follow-up had to be shopped to a practically unknown label and sank like a stone instead of delivering the goods as a legit way to ride the wave of renewed interest in the band.

I've also mentioned my own personal experiences of going to the Beach Boys section in record shops like Tower and elsewhere in the early 90's, and seeing copy after copy of Still Cruisin and Summer In Paradise sitting in the same bins as the Pet Sounds CD reissue and at various times the two-fers and later the single CD album reissues. The reissues would sell and be gone from the bins - SIP and the compilations sat there unsold until they hit the cutout bins, where they remained unsold there too.

It was Jekyll and Hyde for the name "The Beach Boys" during this time. There was a renewed buzz in the so-called "underground" or alternative music circles who were discovering or rediscovering the classics and promoting them in interviews, cover versions, etc...and the band itself was doing SIP and the cheerleader/beach ball/palm tree tours as if there was no recognition of the buzz surrounding their music from the 60's, particularly Pet Sounds/Smile era.

The Don Was documentary was underground too, but I saw it covered and raved about in the 'Zines of that time. That jumped on the buzz that was going on, and it delivered the goods for those fans. It was Jekyll and Hyde yet again - Which Beach Boys were people buying or even seeking out in 1994-95? The touring band playing Kokomo and SIP with the dancers and palm trees on stage, or the band that did Pet Sounds and all those glorious tracks on the '93 box set?

The leadership seemed to be confused as to what was going on and how to jump on it.

They seemed scared of a "BW is back" part two even though Brian was freed from Landy and recieving proper care at UCLA. The paley demos were the way to the next BBs album.

When the band was still riding the Kokomo wave in '89/'90, there were articles and interviews that had a sense of "we didn't need Brian" to score a hit with Kokomo. The problem is, they never followed up. When Brian did re-enter the picture even if it was only having him appear on the set of Baywatch, they went with "Summer Of Love" as the song to promote to an international TV audience watching Baywatch. The various fumbles and errors of the "leadership" during this time is on full display.

Did the Paley demos never go anywhere with the band in part because they were not written in a room with Brian and Mike?

Brian and Mike were writing songs together during that time. A lot of songs and song ideas, according to Don Was who helped bring the two back together and was involved in producing the sessions surrounding that time. Brian asked Don to reach out to the Beach Boys about getting together to work after he got free and clear of Landy, and Don did, and they did. One account of some of what happened in the time after that can be read in the Carlin book. Ultimately what didn't happen can be seen on YouTube with events like the Baywatch appearance.

Didn't Don ask for a serious song and get baywatch nights back? ;D

That's what he said happened in an interview from that time! Even that one never panned out, and with the buzz among fans like me who wanted to hear what they had cooked up in this new collaboration (whether it was Baywatch Nights or not), instead we got Mike rapping "it's a love thing" on the beach as Brian stood there and Stamos played electronic drums in the sand.

Brian's face at Mike's prancing is epic!

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/baywatch_zpsv2bczwd9.jpg)

There was an interview with Carl posted here a couple years ago where he talked about the Still Cruisin' album; IIRC, Capitol only wanted 2 or 3 new songs, the group gave them 5. That was the compromise. But I agree that somebody really blew it in not getting a new studio album out in the wake of Kokomo's success. By the time Summer in Paradise came out in 92, all that momentum was gone. Something else no one ever mentions: the cover art for Still Cruisin' was poor. There was nothing there that would jump out at fans to say "hey, there's a new Beach Boys album...sort of". The only good thing I can say about SIP is the artwork was very eye catching.

Capitol's order was 3 "hit singles", not just new songs. The band obviously failed to deliver. Capitol bailed. Here is the original article from when the iron was red hot...

Thanks GF for my new profile picture!

Album cover idea for the next greatest hits repackage?

And there you have the reason Brian said 'I don't write songs that way now'.

I know this has been mentioned in the past with the Problem Child music video, but is it a coincidence that Carl started wearing dark glasses all the time (perhaps out of embarrassment) right at the same time that the band's music started getting reallllly sketchy? Probably just a coincidence, but one can wonder.

Brian's facial expression reaction describes my thoughts on the mid and late 90s BB.

 Classic.

You can't have hit singles without good promotion. Capitol did next to nothing to promote the singles from the album. I remember going to Tower Records looking for Still Cruisin', and all they had was the cassette single. No vinyl. The song was getting a lot of play on the local A/C, but none of CHR or top 40 stations played it. Ditto for Somewhere Near Japan. It probably didn't help, though, that the album came out so long after Kokomo had peaked. If the guys had had it together in 1988/89, there would have been a new single out just as Kokomo was heading down the charts. Maybe they didn't have anything new ready, but they could have dusted off or remixed an older track - California Dreamin', Rock 'N' Roll to the Rescue, It's Gettin' Late - and put it out as a single.

Vinyl as a preferred format was already on its way out in Summer/Fall 1989, even for new hit singles. I remember when the first batch of Beatles UK reissue CD's came out, Please Please Me and the lot, big promotions, large Beatles posters and displays in the stores for the CD campaign - There was a guy in Sam Goody in line in front of me, King Of Prussia mall, giving the cashier an earful because there was no vinyl of the Please Please Me album, only CD. He wanted vinyl, lol. That was just the way the business was, vinyl was getting phased out and it shifted to CD and cassette.

So I personally don't recall when a single like "Still Cruisin" was new that there was much available overall, not just this single, in terms of new singles being released on 45rpm as the primary format. It was CD, cassette, and those hideous "cassette singles" - that's the business, not lack of promotions.

Capitol made a video for the song too, which wasn't cheap - If the public didn't get into it, the video wouldn't get much airplay, so it's not like they left the song hanging with no video to push it.

And that may be one of the deeper keys too: Kokomo had a major hit movie Cocktail behind its promotion, along with a video with Tom Cruise and scenes from that movie. It was also driven by the Cocktail soundtrack, which was also a huge seller that spun off another unlikely smash hit from that time, "Don't Worry Be Happy" by Bobby McFerrin. That song had been a minor charting song, but with that movie and soundtrack it became a smash. Did Bobby McFerrin ever have another pop radio smash hit that charted anywhere close to that song? No. Nor did the Beach Boys for that matter after Kokomo.

Lot more to discuss on that, but I wanted to chime in about the promotions and the lack of vinyl: As I remember it, that was around the time when vinyl in general was getting phased out, and Capitol did make a video for the Still Cruisin single, it just didn't click with the same audience who put Kokomo onto the top-10 charts.

The band not striking with another hit in 1989 was surely a confluence of events.

A big part of it may just be that, at that moment in time, "Kokomo" was just a fluke; an anomaly. Catchy song at a precise moment in time where it was able to be a hit (and even then, it wasn't like the hit-to-end-all-hits; didn't it stay at #1 for only a single week?).

Also, maybe the public felt the "Still Cruisin'" material wasn't as good. Even I would have to admit, that as "catchy" singles go, "Kokomo" is easily better than the song "Still Cruisin'." I like "Somewhere Near Japan" more, but that "type" of Beach Boys sound (as Mike would say in concert, a mix of Mams and the Papas, Fleetwood Mac, etc.) maybe would have struck more a chord a few years later, in the mid 90s, and with less of an "80s" sound to it. Also, the single mix of "Somewhere Near Japan" is strangely more limp for some reason, dropping the punchier sound of the drums, as if they were trying to downplay the "power pop", "Fleetwood Mac-esque" sound of the song and make it more of an "AC" track.

The band was also pretty late to the party in trying to ride the coattails of "Kokomo." If they had struck with a quickie album before the end of 1988, perhaps that would have worked.

I think any BB album from this time, especially one that was going to be at all rushed, was always going to be a Frankenstein mess that was all over the place. Unless they had outsourced to a hot producer and recorded everything from scratch, it was always going to be a mess of old soundtrack songs, solo Brian rejects, and a few new songs with no discernible "style" to all of them collectively (are we going retro with "Still Cruisin'", or Jimmy Buffet style with "Island Girl", or are we trying to go a little more rock/pop with "Somewhere Near Japan"?).  

I think "Make It Big" is a nice enough little song, but it already sounded dated in 1989. "Wipe Out" was a failed novelty track, despite getting traction in the UK for some reason. "In My Car" sounded completely out of place, and sounds like kinda what it is, which was a Brian solo album outtake.

The fact that the album still went gold is probably a miracle rather than a failure. Even the '85 album had a more unified sound.

I'm not sure what Capitol was angling at in 1989 in signing them. The Capitol exec in that article sounds like he actually wants *quality* material from the band and not just a quickie cash-in on "Kokomo", yet I would imagine a cash-in on "Kokomo" is why Capitol signed them.

I've always been fascinated that Mike said in contemporary interviews that the album was watered down, but he felt it was the *new* songs watering the soundtrack "concept" down, rather than old previously released tracks watering down the simple concept of a *new* album of *new* material.

The type of song "Still Cruisin" was versus Kokomo was another point I was going to raise as well, strip away for a moment the fact that Kokomo got a major push from a box-office hit movie, Tom Cruise, and a video with all those elements being pushed to promote the movie with the song in tow:

Kokomo as a song may have had more appeal to the audience who drove it to the top of the charts. Whatever opinions of the song are in retrospect, it was a new sound that fit well on MTV and pop radio and the song itself had a universal theme in the words and the concept overall - Fun and sex on the beach with booze flowing on an island paradise.

Was there any, and I mean any "nostalgia" or retro feel to that song? I say a firm "no". It was new. There was nothing in that song that longed for the days of the malt shop or "Oldies But Goodies".

Now move ahead to the follow up "Still Cruisin". Again, no Tom Cruise or Cocktail to boost it, but the band (Mike? Capitol? both/all?) went nostalgia again.

"we're still cruisin, baby, after all these years..." Yeah, but Mike...those people who were cruisin with you and the car songs back in the 60's were in their 40's when that song came out.

Not the same audience, not at all the same demographic listening to pop/top-40 radio in 1989, watching "Dance Party USA" after school, and watching MTV to drive these hits.

I agree and have said before that the Cocktail film drove Kokomo's success - But I also think it was a genuinely new sound for the Beach Boys with a song that had universal appeal beyond the expected demographic, sure as hell beyond the "oldies but goodies" crowd who were in their 40's and early 50's in 1989.

The nostalgia route didn't work, it wasn't the same demographic as those who were into Kokomo.

And the song itself wasn't as good. The main hook was lifted from Dick & DeeDee's "The Mountain's High" and the lyrics are clumsy.

If there was a formula to concoct a hit single, Mike would have learned it ages ago. There may not have been anything in the new songs that was as immediately catchy as Kokomo, but if they had put something out as a followup while Kokomo was riding down the charts, I don't see how they could have missed making the top 40. Timing is everything in "the biz", and the Beach Boys blew it by waiting so long to put out a followup. I think a re-issued "California Dreamin" could have done well, it didn't get all that much airplay in 1986 except at AC radio. The overall production sound of "California Dreamin" is similar to "Kokomo", right down to the tempo, the drum sound, and the sax solo. I don't see how they could have missed with that one, even without a movie tie-in. And i'm sure it didn't help cd/cassette sales to have an album cover that wasn't instantly recognizable as "The Beach Boys". The first time I saw it, I kinda just went "what?" Then I figured out, "oh, it's the front of a car", yeah, pretty bland, pretty generic. A generic group shot would have been better than that - everybody knew what the guys looked like in the late 80's, and clothing styles aside, they looked a lot better than some of their contemporaries.

What about "Good Vibrations '88" featuring that same wailing sax (replacing the outdated theremin sound), and done in the classic "Florida Keys" tropical style of "Kokomo"?

Now we're talking! Don't forget replacing the jewelry percussion break under the organ with a conga solo so Stamos has a spotlight during the live shows where he can jam out.

Good god I can hear that cheesefest in my head and it's awfui....yet so believable.

It got so bad that even the most wild parody of musical ideas could very well have been considered by Mike fishing for a smash hit.

Donny: It would probably be an EWI and not even a real sax...

He needs "SAXual Healing"...

I thought the Kokomo video was the prime example of Mike miming a fake sax part on TV, but lo and behold there he was a few years earlier on Solid Gold pretending to play the sax solo on "California Dreamin".

The man was addicted to sax, what else can be said...

He's a sax machine.

I wonder how many Kokomo BB's fans were disappointed when they saw the band in concert and Mike didn't play the sax? And Bruce didn't play the bass?

I wonder who's idea the fake sax thing was for Mike to be playing in the video? Director? Mike?

In an alternate universe, imagine if Mike cared enough to take lessons and really get good with the instrument, and actually performed that sax solo on the Kokomo recording? And separately, imagine Mike's Shut Down sax "solo" performed on Kokomo?

Mike played a fake plastic sax live during Kokomo while a backing band member really played the solo!

Fake Beach Boys, fake sax. Makes perfect sense to me.  :-D

IIRC, Mike also 'plays' the sax for the videos of Problem Child and Hot Fun in the Summertime.

I have no problem with most of the 80's/90's BB's tracks, I grew up hearing that kind of production sound on the radio 24/7, so it doesn't bother me as much as it does some of the purists. But those videos! Apart from Getcha Back and California Dreamin' and Somewhere Near Japan, they're embarrassingly bad!

"Mike's leadership of the band" is worth approximately an ounce of horse piss.

If Mike's leadership of the band is so terrible, then maybe Brian, Al, and the estates of Dennis and Carl should revoke his license.

What do you mean "if"?  ???

IMO they definitely should. It's a tough call, and it is good that the music is being kept alive in live performance by the touring band, but the minuses outweigh the pluses, again IMO. The ongoing cheapening of the brand is sad to behold (no classic rock band worth its salt would ever tour under their original name when the other surviving original members are willing to join them for at least part of their touring itinerary, as Al and Brian probably would). The 25% of revenues that Brian receives from live shows will probably make the issue a non-starter though.

no-way, please i gotta see this!!!!

What's the value of a such tour if it's just a daily job without anything to propose or promote? this goes with Bruce comments in the interview above, they became what he didn't want the band to become, as of 2017, it's not even a matter of a good brand, it's a cheap on going dragging fair, thoughtless, they're playin' Pisces? who in the world wants to hear that? it's hurtin' the name more than anything, add to that the endless redondant compilations (but that's Capitol, they've always been cancer when it comes to that, they'll sell anything)

There's a reason the C50 was a such success..

Saddly with how that ended, as long Mike Love's alive i don't see any option to that, he thinks it's his band for sure.

I won't argue the uselessness of Pisces Brother. 

But, having seen two Mike and Bruce shows over the past couple years, I can say that the band puts on a terrific show, sometimes playing over 40 songs, including several classics that don't find themselves in Brian's setlist (ie. Kiss Me Baby, Wendy, When I Grow Up, Catch a Wave, etc). 

By attending shows by both bands in 2015 & 2016, I think I've heard over 80 different great songs.......and Pisces Brother. 

No Wilsons, no Beach Boys. Ever. myKe and Br00th with their band of strangers are the most watered down, overexposed act in the business.

Don't forget Al. :3d

Those songs may not be in Brian's setlist at the moment, but Brian has performed every one of those songs over the course of his solo touring years, and not simply as one-shot deals. "Wendy" was a semi-regular in the setlist pre-C50, as was "When I Grow Up, "Catch a Wave" was done several times just last year. "Kiss Me Baby' was a regular in Brian's first few years of touring, but hasn't been heard from in some time apart from C50.

The other thing is that, economically, it doesn't break the bank to see both groups.  I bought 2nd row tickets for a BW and BB show within three months of each other last year, and spent less than $150. 

While the reunion will always be the ultimate for me, we're in a very unique time in Beach Boys history where there are TWO high quality touring bands performing almost completely different shows, and I don't just mean the setlist. Both shows have their positive and negatives but both shows are primarily positives and as KDS said, it's affordable. I've been a Beach Boy fan for about ten years now, and from what I've seen and heard live (and countless hours on youtube), The Beach Boys touring band (C50 excluded) sounds the best it has in 2017 than since the early 70's.

Maybe one group should be billed as Mike Love's Beach Boys; the other could be Brian Wilson's Beach Boys. Mike has one legit BB on board with him, Bruce (although he doesn't do much other than clap and adjust his mic stand). Brian has Al, who still sings great, and Blondie. Which one is more legit? Well, with one band, you have the guy who was the frontman for the group through most of their history, and sang lead on a lot of the hits; and the guy that replaced Brian in the touring band. With the other, you have the guy who wrote the majority of songs played live by both outfits, sang lead on some of the hits; and Al sang lead on a few of the hits, too.

As has been documented here with a fair degree of regularity over the past year or so...and this will not come as much of a surprise to 'some'...I am actually not much of a mike 'love' fan.  I think he's bad for the 'name'...the 'brand'.

THAT said... ... ...

They, in spite of HIM...still honour the music and serve up a very entertaining show.  That said...I will never attend one of their performances again.  I'm not knowingly dropping another dime into his pocket again.

I have to be honest about the 'job' the unit who travel with 'the name' collectively do.  I offer him NONE of the credit though.  W/O Scott...they used to be deplorably awful.  [a trrue reflection of Mr. Used-up 'talent'.]  They are worth the price of admission.  The songs... ... ...even more so.  [when done well.  and they're done well]
                    
HE  just 'does it'  for the wrong reasons.  ::)

I agree, my resentment towards the Lovester isn't anything like yours...I admire his showmanship and vocal abilities, but the reason for the touring band's high quality performances comes from Scott Totten and his ability to lead other stellar musicians such as John Cowsill & Brian Eichenberg...Tim Bonhomme does an acceptable job and sure, Foskett's musicianship is way better than Christian Love's...but his ego is a close second only to Mike's. And then Bruce, while seemingly trivial with the incessant clapping and stand-adjusting, is more important in the harmony stack than most people realize, and that's often what his keyboard is for- check points for pitches, not so much keyboard parts.

Well put, and I gotta say that was a good point about the keyboard....never thought to look at it like this.

I hate the dude for his voice but know so little about him, what has come off so egocentric from him?

I had the opportunity to meet and talk with Fosket at a solo house performance a few years ago in NJ. I found him to be a bit aloof, self centered, and just really "into himself".....seemed to me like he thought he was a big star....bigger star than he was. He wasn't rude or anything.....at least not to me....but there was an air about him that he carried. I must say, I didn't care for him.

As Howie Edelson once succinctly put it, Scott Totten literally saved Mike's reputation. He's the reason Mike's band didn't fall into the abyss of doing rote performances of "Duke of Earl" and all of that. Mike's band has for a number of years now put on a solid, professional show. It's frankly several of the guys *around* Mike that do that more than Mike himself.

And *that's* where it's difficult to really say the band sounds better than anything since the early 70s. First of all, I'd say the "real" Beach Boys sounded great into the mid-late 70s, and sometimes sounded great even after that. But more importantly, there's something integral about having as many original voices and people on stage as possible. If you went to a Beach Boys show in, say, 1980, then maybe Dennis might have been kind of wasted, and Brian might be kind of spaced. But Dennis still would put a lot of gusto into playing the drums, and the harmony stack even in the 80s *and* 90s sounded like "The Beach Boys", whereas Mike's band does not. It sounds good, but it's a very anonymous, excellent tribute band kind of sound. Even Bruce was more prominent in the stack in the 80s and 90s, and of course you had Carl and Al which were key to that mid-range part of the harmonies.

I've also never been a big fan of the "but there are TWO bands out there, TWO is better than ONE!" sort of argument. I get it, and I'm fine with that attitude as a sort of "making the best out of a bad situation", but there's really nothing inherently good about having multiple bands out there. I suppose if you'd experienced your entire fandom in the era of only having a "licensed" Beach Boys out there, and an era of two or three bands out there, then a splintered band touring separately is the norm I guess.

But fans who lived through an era where there was at some point *a* Beach Boys, just one, and then lived through an era in the late 90s when Mike himself A) didn't want to have Al in the band anymore, resulting in Al being s**tcanned, and B) didn't appear to like the idea of *multiple* touring bands "out there", with the end result being Al marginalized and his "Family & Friends" band (who was blowing Mike's band off the stage, who were giving Brian's band a run for its money, and basically served as a template for what Totten did with Mike's band a number of years later) essentially run out of town and off the touring circuit, fans who lived through all of that may not so easily just be all thumbs up about the state of the remnants of this band.

And all of that is not even broaching the C50 topic.

On the separate topic of affordability, I wouldn't particularly argue that seeing the two tours is immensely affordable, especially if you typically go with a second person, and especially if you're not interested in settling for the worst seats in a venue. Also, different regions/markets charge different amounts. In some cases, my Brian tickets have cost *much* more than other venues on the same tour.

I can safely say my C50 tickets cost less than the combination of a Brian and Mike ticket, and C50 yielded a better show. Plus, you got David Marks to boot.

That's the basic vibe I've gotten off of him after many years, and this goes back to before he left Brian's band and moved to Mike's.

If anything, I found his post-Brian interview in 2014 where he talked about the stress of the job kind of weird, because I always got the sense he was *totally* into being the guy you usually had to get through to talk to Brian. Not that any job, and certainly *that* job, wouldn't have some stress attached, and stress that would build up over years and years potentially. But I typically got the sense that he got off on being the guy any fan *or* musician *or* celebrity might well have to go through to get to Brian, just in a literal logistical sense.

I've also heard of some very slightly odd fan encounters. Nothing heinous (as mentioned above, never any rudeness per se), but definitely an ego thing. I recall one odd report in the early 2000s of Foskett being at a small fan gathering and pulling out what he claimed was a rare Brian cut nobody had heard, and I guess everybody found it too awkward to point out that he was playing "California Feelin'", which had already been released. At this gathering, he allegedly also claimed that in 1998, *all three* touring factions (meaning Brian, Mike, and Al) had asked him to join their bands.

I can probably safely say this years later; I remember talking to the famous Bob Hanes some years back and he talked about a period of time in the early-mid 2000s where Foskett was vying for, in Mr. Hanes's words, being "King of Brian", not meaning controlling Brian or anything, but rather being the main guy attached to Brian.

The characterization I've heard from many regarding the ego issue is also interesting because there is that interview Foskett gave in the 90s (after leaving the touring BBs, but before joining Brian's band) where he talked about his dismissal from the touring band in 1990 and that he admitted he had a serious ego problem that led to his demise at that time.

I'm still impressed with Dennis performance on the "Good Timin" Knebworth show, i thought he stole the show, his drums on Surfin' USA oh my !!!


Yeeaaahh this sounds way too true to what i've suspected to see just from the idea i get on footages, like how the dude got involved in Pet Sounds live, SMiLE recreation in studio and live, the 50 anniversary albm and touring (where his shinning spot was right next to Brians piano, and let alone how he's the first one steppin' in to introduce the whole og band) and other examples i'm probably skippin' at the top of my head.

That alone is enough for a man to think he's the sh*t and above everyone else, too important for anything less than that, so i can't say i'm surprised by these stories..

Which all ultimatly makes me sad, as in Matt Jardine could and should have filled all these all along, a much humble guy who's related and with a much natural falsetto (Jeff seriously creeps me out sometimes i gotta say, he comes off like a robot doll or something)

Thanks for being so generous and sharing these :)

Yes, my experiences parallel those already mentioned too. I first encountered Foskett on C50 where he chewed out Scott Totten over the new lyrics to "Isn't it Time" that they were rehearsing. I don't remember the specifics but either his sheet was wrong or Brian's screen was wrong...I don't remember. It was actually Mike Love who diffused the moment joking that this was cutting into the fan's meet and greet time which got a rise out of the VIP group.  :lol during which, he Foskett hovering over the photo process the whole time, standing just close enough to the group to not be in the photos but still have a presence. He was the only band member that was there...he was just to the left out of the photo frame, and Mary Ann Jardine was next to Al on the right, just out of frame.

I saw him once with Brian, AL & David on the Jeff Beck tour...he seemed torn between captaining the ship that is Brian's piano and following Beck around the stage when they were out together.  :lol

I've seen him three times now with Mike and Bruce...some memorable anecdotes include a time at the American Music Theatre in Lancaster where he refused to sign a woman's ticket on the edge of the stage after the show so she proceeded to scream "ASSHOLE" at him repeatedly. For a little context, that was the same show that Bruce personally took my C50 meet and greet photo from me, bent down to greet me at the edge of the stage and ask who I wanted to sign it (since he already had) and took it all the way across the stage to have David Marks sign it for me (Mike also intercepted it and signed AGAIN). Then, I called out to the Lovester who bent down pulled the setlist off the stage and handed it to me......but Foskett couldn't be bothered to sign one woman's ticket while all three original members were going out of their way for fans like myself.

Then at the Lyric Opera House in Baltimore last year, they played on his 60th birthday and brought out a great big cake and had pictures on the screen of him and Paul McCartney at the Grammy awards in 2012 while the band played a bit of "Birthday". He was totally beaming in the moment, as he rightfully should, but I couldn't help but wonder if any other band member would get that treatment? And it always bugs me when he wears sunglasses inside...which he does quite a lot. In fact, anyone that wears sunglasses inside bothers me quite a lot.

 :lol  :lol  :lol Somehow that's the best part of the whole anecdote, hilarious, i wouldn't expect any less from Mike Love.


The other day while looking around on Youtube to see their recent shows and what song was played i saw the similar event for Scott's birthday, however while happily surprised he soon refocused and stay professional looking at the band to keep the show going.

That's nice to hear about Totten  :)

...and yes, Mike signed a second "Love Mike Love" right over Brian...

(https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208825899502265&set=a.3059836412364.2134975.1157018660&type=3&theater)

It could be worse. How about a photo of Sean Connery signed by Roger Moore?

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3138/2878577349_87e7bb7f5f.jpg)

At least your signatures are legit, unlike those copies of "Made In USA" floating around with Dennis signatures.  :lol

I wish I took a photo, but my father purchased a Brian Epstein autograph via an auction.  It was Brian Epstein's autograph, on Brian Epstein's obituary (not in the description).  The auction company refunded the money with very little fuss. 

This begs the off-topic question... what are the weirdest combinations of signatures on BB albums? In their lifetimes, did all members of The BBs sign at least one copy of every album? (Not that we can know for sure, but we can speculate). Has Dave ever been handed a copy of Keepin The Summer Alive to sign? Did Brian ever get handed a copy of Looking Back With Love to sign? (Brian did produce one track on it). How about Mike signing a copy of Pacific Ocean Blue for his lyrical contribution?

I know of some awkward fan stories of trying to politely see that, say, Blondie *doesn't* sign a copy of "Pet Sounds" during the VIP procession before Brian gigs.

In the opposite direction, someone had a story of asking Scott Totten to sign a copy of PS, and he initially demurred and had to be convinced that it was okay and that the person asking for it understood that he wasn't on it. I'd hesitate (and maybe refuse) if I were him, not only because it's kind of weird, but because years later with no context someone could easily say "what a jerk, he signed that classic album that he's not even on!"