The Smiley Smile Message Board

I apologize for this topic because this may be something discussed here before.  I'm still a fan that is still trying to figure this band out.  I know that statement is a bit of an oxymoron but I'm really really trying!  I've reached a couple dead-ends that I'm hoping some of you could clear up for me.  Please feel free to correct my info or elaborate on anything I have written.

I'm having great difficulty grasping the band's inner dynamic during the 1967-1976 time frame.  I'm reading just how tumultuous this time was for Brian and it's pretty clear that one of the reasons for his downturn was because of the rejection he faced from the band regarding the music he wanted them to record.  My issue:  if they were all so displeased with a lot of Brian's compositions from this period (Smile especially)...how/why did they continue to record such obscure albums that were continuously unnoticed by the general public?  Even after they took the reigns away from Brian, they in a way still followed his lead with the few songs he did contribute and the songs they began to write on their own.   If Mike was so obsessed with the "formula", why didn't he get his way and get an album of surf/car/Chuck Berry songs again?  You'd think after the success of "Do It Again"--a song that was clearly a call back to their old sound--the band would have written an entire album in same same style.  But they didn't.   By the way, surely Mike wasn't the only one resisting Brian? Were Carl and Al also being difficult?

Don't get me wrong I'm happy things ended up the way they did---I love all the post Pet Sounds albums---but it just doesn't add up in my head how timid the band was at first to to adopt Brian's vision yet they themselves continued to write obscure, un-chartable songs that were STILL not really following the previous winning "formula." The band rejected Brian's "Adult Child" yet  they had recorded an even strange album with "Love You."  I mean...what??  How does that make sense?    I mean, were they tricked into doing "Love You?"  Obviously not...I just don't get the decisions they've made in their long, confusing career. 

I'm sorry for the rambling here but I'm just trying to piece it all together.  I'm currently reading books and watching documentaries about the hard time the band gave Brian during this period--yet they themselves weren't doing any better of a job getting number one hits.  In a way, I guess it's just sad that they couldn't just give Brian back the creative power that was always his.  But then again, had they not taken control who knows if we would haven't gotten these amazing songs from Dennis and Carl during this period. 

Justin =  ???

It would probably take a week for one of the more initiated board members to answer this question fully...

However I would say that one reason is that after Smile was abandoned, Brian was still in charge. Hence they released Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends etc. At that point it was becoming more of a group thing but Mike was still certainly not the all powerful leader.

Mike and Al were not happy with Love You either. But they had to release something...

I think I'll find somewhere to hide in order to avoid the shrapnel this one will send flying!!!!  :o

I think it's safe to say in a situation like this that the simplest answer is usually the best. The band gave Brian some resistance, but I doubt his issues were all about that. Brian was in a bad place mentally. There were no hits, even when he stepped up to contribute more. So he retreated, year by year.

And it's not like anyone else in the band was qualified or prepared to take over. Brian was still mostly producing the records up until 20/20, even when they were credited to the group. Everyone had to learn how to write and produce and carry the band on their shoulders. And the ones who had the most talent (Dennis, Carl) were the least likely to want to go backward stylistically.

It makes no sense, so don't try to make sense of it.

I just go by my theory that Mike was unhappy with being replaced by VDP, Brian was mentally fragile and the rest of The Beach Boys never had a problem with smile to begin with.

Post smile balance was restored and they were all following Brian again, best they could.

Something to keep in mind is when you're inside a band, you don't always see things the way a fan does, or even understand the basis of your own band's appeal.  I know that's a hard concept to grasp if you're a fan on the outside.  So the perspective of the inside is a lot different.

I think there was probably a lot of head scratching about what exactly the Beach Boys represented and how to get that in tune with the times.  Ironically enough, circa 1970, Al probably had the most viable vision -- his folky take on the band was both reasonably in sync with the counterculture and he had the commercial smarts to make "Cottonfields" a worldwide hit.  Problem was Al was never a very prolific songwriter nor a power player in the band.  Carl finally emerged dominant  in '71 with Jack Rieley's backing, and they made some headway on the FM dial and with hipster perceptions of the band, but couldn't score a hit ("Sail On Sailor" came closest at #49, and even that was on its second go 'round in 1975) -- which is why when ENDLESS SUMMER came along, the balance of power shifted yet again.

Brian couldn't and wouldn't finish Smile, Beach Boys or not. He fumbled through it and the window of opportunity closed, and that was that.

Brian's goal for the Beach Boys after Smile, in my opinion, was just to cool out and make music without the hang-ups of competition that wore him down.

I think after Friends, Brian pulled back from the Beach Boys.

There's a common thread in anecdotes from Brian's friends at the time ... the common thread is that Dennis and Carl were supportive and Mike was not. Al and Bruce were likely not a strong influence. Mike is an 'alpha male' kind of person. These are just different personality types.

And Brian could deal with, and create sparks with, Mike in the early years. In the late 60s and early 70s, I suspect he began to see it as less inspiring and more of a drag. Nothing that would keep him from making music, but certainly at a point (when he claimed his real band was American Spring, for example), he felt alienated from the band dynamic and all the interpersonal stuff it entailed. He just wanted to do his thing without hassles.

And remember -- this was still a band that would literally throw away reams of their best mid-70s material to let Brian produce 15BO for them. So it's not like they ever stopped looking to him for guidance. (After the late 70s, early 80s meltdown, it was a different story.)

You edited out the most interesting part!  :)

ha! thanks, I decided to start a new thread just for that!:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16349.msg400864.html#msg400864

I'm a big fan of the 1967-73 period, but there isn't a Beach Boy era/album that I don't enjoy. However, while many fans appreciate the more simplistic, less dynamic production of Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends, and a smattering of 1967-73 BW songs, I sometimes wonder what Brian would've produced if he was still recording consistently and overwhelmingly with The Wrecking Crew.

When Brian stopped the kind of sessions that dominated Summer Days (And Summer Nights), Pet Sounds, and SMiLE, everything seemed to change - the sound, the direction, and the hit records. In my opinion, things changed because of two main reasons. For a lot of the recording, Brian's home studio replaced Western, Sunset, Gold Star, Columbia, and others - and - more and more, the Beach Boys replaced The Wrecking Crew. We can speculate - and probably correctly - why they went with a home studio; as a fan I wish they hadn't. Compare the backing tracks from 1965-66 to 1967-73. Not that there wasn't anything brilliant post-SMiLE, but there was a lot less.

Additionally, and maybe one of the reasons why Brian wasn't conducting sessions like he did in 1964-66, was because of his increasing addiction to drugs. The drugs that once fueled his creativity on some of his prior recordings were now working against him, and producing conflicting results. I sometimes wonder if Brian lost his confidence and ability to concentrate to hold recording sessions like he used to. I don't know - but wonder - if he ever got frustrated with the home studio and longed for the "old days" with his friends, The Wrecking Crew. Knowing Brian, he wasn't gonna say anything. I realize times were different, but I wish Brian would've entered rehab in 1967 and gotten treatment. I think Justin's question about Brian's post-Pet Sounds vision would've been a lot different.

Keep in mind that their contract with Reprise in 1970 called for Brian as the lead composer, which he really wasn't, but there had to be Brian at the fore to keep the record contracts coming.

I agree though, as a fan who got introduced to the band with SMiLE, the story about Mike stopping SMiLE from ever happening just doesn't add up. If Mike thought SMiLE strayed too far from the "formula," how in the world would he agree to release Smiley Smile, which is by far a more advant garde/less commercial offering. I am convinced that many factors led to SMiLE's demise, including band resistance, but if I assign a "fault percentage" to Mike I'd give him 5-10% of the blame.

If you replace drugs with the words "mental illness," I agree with everything here.

IMO, drugs are a red herring in the Brian Wilson story. Blamed for everything but responsible for little of it (well, maybe some grooviness here and there). The prescription drugs of Landy, on the other hand ...

That's what I thought.  Their songwriting definitely reflected that fact.  Were there any instances of Carl or Dennis not supporting Brian?


I'm surprised Mike didn't influence Brian to write more simple Chuck Berry influenced tunes to try to recapture their old magic.  I'm glad they didn't obviously--but surprised that each post Pet Sounds album wasn't littered with at least one "Surfin' USA Part 2" type of song. 


Yes I wonder that as well and is definitely an angle related to my original post. Great post!


Yes exactly!  There's such a contradiction here, things aren't exactly lining up.  Were people overexaggerating Mike's unwillingness to be move forward?  It looked as though Mike wanted to keep moving forward (otherwise why would he record all those albums? Why would he perform new songs in concert?) it's just that he had his limits on how "out there" he wanted to go, musically.


In a way I think a part of me wonders why it took so long for the Mike Love era (The Beach Boys '85 and Still Cruisin, Summer in Paradise) to arrive?  Please don't misunderstand that I think it should have come earlier but after all the "missteps"(at least what the band perceived as missteps) in the 70's..it's unbelievable that they continued on with this identity crisis for another decade or so until they finally settled in the formulaic "fun in the sun" image.

It's easy from the perspective of 2013 to get hung up on "hits". In 1966, say, hits were almost all that mattered, after '69 or so, singles chart success meant very little -- the album was the basic unit. FM radio played album cuts, AM played singles, and many of the biggest rock acts didn't even bother releasing singles. So, 'Sail on Sailor' was a hit, a hit where it mattered -- on FM radio.  

1970 Mike was a hippie , if only an ersatz one. His ambition was to make "progressive" music, same as the rest of the band. Surf music and car songs were as dead as doo wop. Mike's interest in making retro music has been greatly exaggerated. That's more Brian's thing. Mike was always much more interested in staying current.

Now Brian -- I think he initially saw his career as following the Phil Spector paradigm. Using the Beach Boys as a stepping stone, then moving on in a few years to being a behind-the-scenes producer/writer/arranger for other acts. But by the late 60's, bands were producing and writing their own material -- Brian was stuck with the Beach Boys.

I agree that it would be sloppy to blame it all on the drugs.  Brian was/is a very fragile person: is it fair to say that the resistance he faced from the band regarding his new music and the poor performance of albums (like "Sunflower") pushed Brian more and more to drugs and seclusion?

I think that's true. Until 1974 came around and Mike decided that he would act like it was 1963 for the rest of his life.

Brian was enthusiastic about American Spring (as they were about working with him), and he was unable to fully produce their record, either, so it can't be all down to the band and whether they wanted to work with him or vice versa.

As for Mike wanting to act like it was 1963 when '74 rolled around, it had more than a little to do with the success of the "Endless Summer" oldies collection that went multi-platinum around that time and let the Beach Boys play large arenas and stadiums. I'm not sure the Beach Boys would ever have any other audience besides as an oldies act, wishful thinking of the hardcore fan base aside. I sometimes read comments about how the Beach Boys should regard themselves as the equal of McCartney and the Stones, but if they actually did that, they'd still be playing mostly oldies. Do the Stones and McCartney play much new material? Heck even Springsteen's audience mostly goes to hear "Born to Run."

 

I hate to say it, but I feel that part of that had to do with Dennis having passed away, and no longer being someone to voice an opposition to the band artistically grinding to a halt. I realize that (barring L.A. Light Album), most of the post-Holland records have a declining DW presence, but it just seems like his no longer being around helped make it easier for The Beach Boys '85 + Still Cruisin + Summer in Paradise to happen.  I mean, it's hard to imagine "Wipe Out' happening while Dennis was alive and actually part of the band.

And yes, I realize that he had less of a "voting" voice in the last few years of his life, especially due to his addictions...but with someone (DW) who would almost certainly raise opposition to the full-on total formulaic "fun in the sun" image permanently out of the picture, it just made things easier to happen the way they did. Mind you, I still have an affection for a number of BB tunes from the 80s/90s.

It also seems, IMO, that Carl (after his brother's passing) probably further gave in/gave up more into the formula than he had before (not that Carl's giving in mentality hadn't started pre '83, it just seemed to flower more after that)... maybe it was his way to keep things simpler and more peaceful after such a traumatic event. DW's passing probably helped dampen CW's artistic ambitions, or at least as far as if those ambitions came at the cost of further BB-band infighting. Again, just IMHO.

I understand what you're saying. But McCartney and the Stones weren't playing almost exclusively oldies until at least a decade later.

The Beach Boys just severely mismanaged their career. It started in a big way with the abandonment of Smile. I could go on and on with how they screwed up from 1967 onward but the explanation would get long. It set them up to be almost forced to embrace the "oldies act" thing. But even with that being the case, they still could have attempted to diversify and capitalize on their renewed popularityin the mid-70s. They didn't and by the 80s were a parody of themselves. And the mismanagement of their legacy continues to this day, represented by the horrible end to the brilliant 50th anniversary tour.

I don't know if Mike really wanted to lead the band creatively for much of this time. Brian had led creatively in the 60s, and Carl was the de facto musical director in the 70s. I think Mike saw his role as conceptual (coming up with lyrics and ideas for hit songs) and as a front man. But by the early 80s, you have all three Wilsons self-destructing onstage. It's an ugly, ugly time following an ugly spell in the late 70s.

So Mike realizes around then, I think, that it's really up to him. And Carl, once back in the band, realizes that maybe he shouldn't try to destroy himself to keep Brian's ambitions alive when a fractured Brian is being slowly reassembled by Dr. Landy. Dennis is dead. What are the other options for the band? They went Mike's route when they were truly out of ideas and no Wilson could save them.

As for Brian, the band's history ultimately became too much to bear. Too much of a hassle. Even though he was a mentally ill man in his 60s, once the BBs were out of the picture and Carl was gone, Brian was suddenly able to be more productive. I don't think that's an accident. I don't think that's by chance or merely the prodding of Melinda. He could only do what he wanted to do when he didn't have to wrangle with a band.

Eventually, when the remaining members of group reunited, there was no question of who was calling the shots in the studio (who produced and wrote and sang most of the leads on the record, regardless of the shape of his voice?) and onstage (whose band was there?).

Brian wants to be in charge, but he doesn't want to have to fight for it.

I agree, it was bad. Breaking up/taking a break was probably a better option at this time, though.

For sane people, yes.

Haha. Good point again.

I just want to address that specific 1974-75 period for a second. This is an (incomplete, albeit selective) list of No. 1 songs from 1974-75:

1974:
"You're Sixteen" - Ringo Starr
"Season's In The Sun" - Terry Jacks
"Sunshine On My Shoulders" - John Denver
"The Loco-Motion" - Grand Funk
"The Streak" - Ray Stevens
"You're Having My Baby" - Paul Anka
"Whatever Gets You Thru The Night" - John Lennon
"I Can Help" - Billy Swan

1975:
"Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" - Elton John
"Please Mr. Postman" - The Carpenters
"He Don't Love You (Like I Love You)" - Tony Orlando & dawn
"My Eyes Adored You" - Frankie Valli
"Before The Next Teardrop Falls" - Freddy Fender
"Love Will Keep Us Together" - Captain & Tennille
"Listen To What The Man Said" - Wings
"Rhinestone Cowboy" - Glen Campbell

So, what's the point? ;D I'm not sure they - The Beach Boys - felt that they were "going back" or not being hip or taking a back seat to the current crop of artists and songs that were popular. During that particular time frame, the U.S. was just getting out of Vietnam, getting over Nixon, and experiencing "happy" days again, literally. You had the popularity of American Graffiti, the TV shows Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley, and the impending bicentennial. Fun is in, it's no sin! It was hip to cruise in your car again, to like old time rock & roll, to have long hair and a beard but NOT be a hippie.

The Beach Boys were perfect for that time. Perfect. They could be themselves and still be cool. I mean, look at some of the hit songs they were competing against. They didn't have to force anything. They didn't need a SMiLE to compete. "Beach Boyish" music was still better than most. They were the real deal. The "hip" music of that day was disco music (which was coming) and glitter/glam rock. It wasn't Surf's Up, Carl & The Passions, or Holland-like.

Of course by 1977 all of that would change, or start to change. That's another topic for another thread. But, in my opinion, and as someone who lived through that period, The Beach Boys going back or going retro or giving up what they built in 1970-73 was not seen as a bad thing. I know that's what most fans wanted and, if the group didn't really believe it or weren't really behind it, boy, they sure fooled the public for a few years.

Great points. I don't really have a problem with them embracing their past in 1974. It was definitely the right time for it. I just wish they wouldn't have perpetuated it for the rest of their careers. It would be nice if they more diversified hit material to fall back on. And by the late 70s and early 80s they were clearly just trying to imitate themselves in the 60s.

I have no issue with 1974. Just the mantra that came after.

Great assessment and on the money. Music fans steered their course. There are no two ways about it. I think anyone who lived through that era understands why things unfolded as they did.

For all the talk of how 74-76 were key years, I think the 77-80 era was a more decisive turning point for the band. Just when the New Wave was returning to 63-66 music for inspiration, the Beach Boys decided, post Love You, to throw in their lot with MOR light rock.

But, as you say, another topic, another thread...

Smiley Smile, Wild Honey, Friends - each one a completely different album from the one before and each one a bigger flop than the last. If anyone of those 3 had been a hit I think the band would have carried on in that direction. I think Brian took their failures particularly hard. I also think he was much less bummed about junking Smile as he was the failure of the following three records. In fact I think without others pushing him to do so Brian would have never made another album after 1968. He still had the talent for another few years but the drive just wasn't there anymore. Sunflower must have been seen as a fresh start on many levels but it's lack of sales killed his confidence in his abilties and his percieved relevance in the post 60's music scene.

Yes, clack, in my opinion, the choices that were made in the 1977-1980 period were as important as the choices that were made in 1974-76.

I never had a problem with the change in the set list in 1974-75 and the decision to record an oldies album (which 15 Big Ones was originally going to be). First, the set list wasn't entirely oldies; there was still a sprinkling of more "artistic" songs and recent songs thrown in there. But, as far as 15 Big Ones was concerned, it coulda been a contender, it coulda been someone, instead of a bum...Seriously, if done right, there was nothing wrong with taking one album - one album! - and recording a cool album of rock & roll oldies, especially by a group who had a track record of mastering them like The Beach Boys did. Other artists attempted similar albums - Bob Dylan and John Lennon to name two. Plus, they were still in an era of churning out an album per year, so they could've moved on and transitioned into something entirely different if they chose to.

Taking that year or two or three (1974-76) didn't blow everything to hell. They came out of 15 Big Ones wounded, staggered, and scarred, but they were still very popular, in demand, and could've STILL made the artistic statement that the "other" fans and critics longed for. To me, THAT'S when they blew it. But, man, it would take pages to discuss that. Drugs, alcohol, mental illness, and more drugs...

Why pour your heart and soul into making new music if it's reception at best is polite, scattered applause and at worst results in some idiot yelling out for Barabra Ann? Eventually you're going to think 'f*** it', give the people what they want, pick up a fat paycheck and go home. I think the band (including Mike) held out from becoming a touring jukebox much longer than some people want to give them credit for.

Absolutely correct. That is exactly what happened.

There's always a tendency to say "think of what Brian could have done if he'd just had the full support of the group", and it's valid, but the impression I get is that the boys would have been thrilled for Brian just to keep on contributing or leading like he had in the 67/68 period and would have happily gone along with any leadership he'd shown, regardless of whether they were 'flops' commercially.  It seems like all the way through late '77 they thought a Brian in charge was their first, best hope.

I mean, one imagines Brian had the full support of American Spring, but he still couldn't finish their album.

Of course they threw in the towel just as that sea change was taking place - I guess Capitol can be blamed for that, forcing their hand with Endless Summer.

But at least they didn't mix their metaphors, as I'm doing....

Everyone involved is and was an asshole!

End of story.

It's Only Rock N Roll (But I Like It)

This makes sense to me and I agree with you. With Dennis gone, it's obvious now why the band went in the direction they did.  It's hard to see Carl "give up"--he seems like a very strong pesonality but I guess his plate was full with other things.



Great posts--thank you!

Thanks for the replies everyone.   What prompted me to put this thread up was my reaction after reading a passage from Carlin's "Catch a Wave" during the description of that 1967 rehearsal tape with Mike's infamous rant. I had forgotten about this passage so it struck a chord with me after re-reading it:

"In every recording group's career there comes that moment when you realize you have a nuclear bomb on your hands. Right now Brian Wilson leader of the Beach Boys is about to unleash his nuclear power and sing for you the song that went all the way to forty!" Mike Love quips as his band rehearses the song "Heroes & Villains.....It topped the chars at about forty, and the next week it just zoomed right off to us well about 250.  Right now, it's lurking at about 10,000 on this year's top 10,000!  Come on in here and sing!  Wail your buns off!"

I read that and immediately felt protective of Brian (even though he apparently laughed along with Mike) and wanted to defend him.  Okay Mike...you wanna rag on the song? Fine but why don't you go and try to do better? 

But Mike never did, did he (not until "Kokomo" really)?.  Nor did it look like he really, really tried to do so.  That's what interested me.  Why didn't/couldn't he?  What prevented him from doing so?  Was it a passive aggressive move to wail on Brian but never really act on it? 

Thanks to this thread I have a better understanding of the situation as I see now that Mike wasn't in the position to really turn the tide--at least not during this period.  It looked like Mike was a passenger in the car with the rest of the guys---going along where the band was going.  Carl and Dennis were still very strong forces in the band.

But again, I ask:  was there anyone else in the band as critical of Brian as Mike was?  It's often mentioned that during this period that the "group" was often weirded out by the material Brian wrote.--"Group"  implying there was more than one person.  Who besides Mike would challenge Brian?  Or is that just the PC way of saying that Mike was unhappy with it--without naming names? 

Again, I'm sorry if this tedious for some but I'm just trying to get a clearer picture of the situation.  I also hope this isn't coming off as a Mike-bashing thread because I certainly am not participating in a vengeful way or trying to bring him down.  These are the facts--as it happened, after all.

Brian wrote that "rant." :)

The idea of "Brian versus the band" after Pet Sounds is pretty overblown and wasn't a real issue, at least not on a consistent basis. Even "Brian versus Mike" is greatly exaggerated, and at least until '74, Mike was not the regressive, un-artistic person he's made out to be - he was growing just as everyone else in the band was. These guys probably would have followed Brian off of a cliff for most of their careers and indeed probably would have preferred Brian keep up the pace he did until 1969 or so while contributing a bit themselves.

There were occasions when one or two members disagreed with Brian on something (it was never Brian versus the band as people like David Leaf or Carlin would like you to believe), but, y'know, that's being in a band.

Edit: clack's post below mine gets it right, too. No one could have kept up the pace Brian did from '61 to '67. It was Brian's decision to back off, it had nothing to do with him being consistently rejected. If anything, it was the opposite - once he withdrew and stopped being the "leader" after Friends, the guys kept wanting him to contribute more.

What period exactly are you referring to? During the making of SMiLE the group may have been weirded out, but that was because Brian was flying by the seat of his pants with no real idea of how to get to his destination (that is, a finished album).

Rock music 1967-69 was supposed to be "weird". Mike was hanging out in India with Donovan, the Beatles, and the Maharishi. He knew as well as anyone that the Beach Boys had to update their music and their subject matter.

There was never any anti-Brian revolt. Brian just got burned out from writing/producing/arranging 25 tracks a year, and cut down to 3 or 4, relying on the rest of the guys to pick up the slack.

I want to add three points to this conversation:
1. Adult Child was submitted to and rejected by Warner Brothers. If they had accepted it, it would have come out, and there would have been three late 70s Brian dominated albums, instead of two.
2. Carl and Dennis did not want 15 Big Ones released as it was, and they were outvoted, three to two. My understanding is that this is not a metaphorical situation - there was a literal vote, and they lost. For good reason, Dennis and Carl wanted their own and Brian's excellent material on a more polished album, instead of the rough covers that came out.
3. People seem to seriously underestimate the seriousness of Brian's mental illness in the 60s, in my opinion. Yes, he managed to live a normal life into the early 70s, but during the Smile period he was hearing voices, suffering serious paranoia, and manic up and depressive down periods. These kinds of symptoms, and especially the voices, which Brian still struggles with to this day, to my understanding, can make just day to day life incredibly difficult. Without any kind of proper treatment, it's amazing how together Brian held it for so long, in my opinion.

Agree 100%

Excellent, excellent post. Thanks for putting that time period into perspective. Very cool.

There's a real difference between Leaf and Carlin. Peter's book acknowledges a lot more of the complexity and depth of Brian's situation.

And I don't think you can just say the band wasn't resistant to Brian. Not when you have someone like Marilyn talking in IJWMFTT about how beaten down Brian felt by the rest of the guys. He was a sensitive person, and they were certainly not thrilled with things like the Fairy Tale on Holland. Till I Die didn't get a great reaction either. When you're ill and producing stuff of that caliber, being insulted by the other guys, or treated like you're kind of mentally deficient must have been deeply, profoundly difficult.

All that being said, if Brian had been well, I think the story would have been different. He would be resilient enough to handle any friction (as he did during the 60s). But he wasn't. So the same kind of behavior from the guys (along with the desperation of no longer having hit singles or albums) elicited a different response.

Yeah, well, the stuff he said on the Brian Wilson: Songwriter documentaries was a lot of the same fantastic/exaggerated crap. I was a little disappointed.


It's annoying how it's always "The Beach Boys versus Brian Wilson" though when that generally just was not true. The only solid, documented examples I can think of are as follows:

Mike not liking the lyrics to "Hang On To Your Ego" (but still singing them and actually offering to sing the entire song himself)
Mike questioned the lyrics to "Cabin Essence" and other Smile songs (but still singing them)
Bruce found doing the animal noises for "Barnyard" degrading (but still doing it)
Mike and/or Carl telling Brian they would not work on the "Old Man River" sections anymore
Carl and/or other members thinking "Mount Vernon And Fairway" was not appropriate for Holland (but then basically including it anyway)
Mike (or most likely Mike) calling "Til I Die" a "downer" (but still singing on it)
The rejection of the Adult Child album on some level (the details aren't entirely clear)

Meanwhile, amid the "The Beach Boys were regressive aside from Brian" crap, it's never mentioned how Dennis was Brian's biggest cheerleader during the Pet Sounds and Smile sessions, Carl would enthusiastically tell Al that Brian was doing incredible things and encouraging Al to visit during instrumental tracking sessions, the recordings of Mike occasionally going apeshit listening to Brian play songs from Love You, Bruce repeatedly praising Brian's more sophisticated material and asking "Why would you ever question Brian Wilson?", Dennis saying Brian is the Beach Boys, Mike praising Pet Sounds and condemning Capitol for under-promoting it as early as 1969, Mike, Al, Carl and Bruce speaking very fondly of the majority of the material mentioned above, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's just way, way too simplistic and glosses over so many details. Yes, there were lots of conflicts, and yes, I'm sure these guys were less than nice about some of their criticism toward one another on occasion, but the conflict didn't all center around Brian. Again, you're in a band, you're gonna have conflict. A lot of conflict. I'm tired of the notion of "the rest of the band wanted surf and sun songs" or "Mike wanted surf and sun songs" when their output from  has fucking zero evidence to the band wanting to regress and stick to some "formula" that worked for them in the early 60s.

Even when the sole nod to the past, "Do It Again", did better on the charts than anything else of theirs in recent years, they didn't stick with it and keep repeating themselves, they moved forward. There was commercial ambition or at least awareness, but not to the detriment of the real art that was happening, and there had always been commercial ambition from the very beginning - that goes for Pet Sounds and Smile, too.

Brian evolved, Mike evolved, Al evolved, Bruce was always Bruce, Dennis and Carl really evolved. You listen to the 67-74 material and it's progressive, it's real art, it's not retread or regression.

I don't think it's ever been a matter of the other guys being either resistant to Brian or not, but rather, what being resistant to Brian actually meant once you're not just talking to people who are obviously biased to Brian (for very human and understandable reasons). It's allowing shading to be applied to "being resistant to Brian" and dropping the notion that to be resistant to Brian in any way was tantamount to abuse no matter what....

Well I didn't say it was tantamount to abuse no matter what. So there's that.

I'm also not sure why one would assume that a musician's ex-wife would be biased toward him. Especially when he offered drugs to your kids.

As for runnersdialzero's point, I'm not sure what that his handy "documented examples" list really proves, one way or another. Yeah, that's what we know about. That's what people told the press about. But more happened than that if you were living it.

And as for people praising stuff retroactively, so what? That's easy to do. Yes, even three years later.

EDIT: And I don't believe it was Brian and the four assholes. That's ridiculous to anyone who has a working knowledge of the band's history. But I also think you can't ignore the fact that there was friction from the guys, and that Brian felt beaten down. Everyone had a hard time and was let down by everyone else. I think it's far too easy to say that because the dominant historical narrative is wrong, the opposite belief must therefore be true. It ain't that simple.

I think in Brian's case, it's easy to assume why...... Plus, I don't think Marylin divorced Brian because she hated his guts, and he was batshit insane when he offered his kids drugs. I think she fully grasped the nuance.

And no, you never said resisting Brian was tantamount to abuse. I was referring to Carlin's book. More balanced than Leaf, for sure, but I still stand by my opinion.

The main point of the post was that the idea of Brian wanting to write avant garde soundscapes about wanting to blow his head off (which the band didn't allow him to record, of course) versus the entire rest of the band off somewhere recording "Funner, Funner, Funner" and strictly following "the formula" while having some agenda against Brian doesn't add up at all when you bother to actually listen to the 67-74 albums. I'm not sure why this myth continues to exist in the way it does. I'm not gonna say there was zero conflict or that Mike didn't indeed probably hold Brian back on at least a couple occasions, but again, the story that's told (and being talked about in this thread to some extent) is so simplistic and glosses over so many important details.

I think it's because people feel bad for Brian, and why not? They feel bad for Brian for a whole lot of years there and it's very easy to want to pinpoint some ground zero for when he might have turned down the spiral which lasted several years (and even this spiral is overblown)..... The narrative of Brian being resisted so harshly by his band-mates is high drama and hard to shake off. It's kind of like just slumping your shoulders and going "OK, yeah, I guess it was really just Lee Oswald who shot JFK all on his own. Not much entertainment value in that. A grand conspiracy is much more juicy.... Why preferring a narrative where guys who's voices we love and who as a live band have kicked ass all over the planet for 50 years spreading the word of BDW are the bastards who crippled the great Brian Wilson over a more realistic and shaded viewpoint is a mystery to me, but I think I can get it to an extent.... I think the better question should be: what would have likely happened if Brian had just said in 1967 "I don't care what any of you guys think, I'm doing this! Don't question me, and show up to sing when I need you"! ..... Who in the Beach Boys would have stood up to that? Grumbling is one thing, but who would have taken actual steps to toppling Brian's authority?

In my opinion, I agree that, despite having a musical genius in your group, it is normal or expected to occasionally have disagreements over individual songs, direction, and projects. Brian was near perfect, but he wasn't always perfect. ;D

Of course we will never know the extent or exactly how many times the guys had "differences" with Brian. But, if I was a betting man, I would bet that they went along with Brian - without questioning him - about 99% of the time, and only 1% of the time did Brian meet resistance.

If Brian did meet resistance and was affected by it, he certainly didn't show it, or, it wasn't reflected in the songs he was writing. Despite the love on this board and some critical acclaim for the Friends album, I often wonder how much the group wanted to go in that direction - a very short, "soft", mellow album - in 1968; the follow-up album, 20/20, rocked a lot more. Did the guys really long for a song about "sleeping", complete with snoring vocals. I wonder what they thought about "Sail Plane Song". Brian then wrote songs about a bird speaking French, about a formula/solution offered to his dog, about a dying tree, about himself dying, about a masseuse, and about a transistor radio complete with pied piper. Then there was the Christmas song with the weird spoken vocal, recorded and released too close to Christmas.

The point isn't that those songs weren't brilliant, because they were. The point is that Brian Wilson recorded ANYTHING HE DAMN WELL PLEASED AND THE BEACH BOYS WERE RIGHT THERE NEXT TO HIM SINGING THEIR ASSES OFF. If Brian was met with so much resistance that affected him so negatively, it certainly left him undaunted. Obviously, the guys had to accept that the days of Today, Summer Days (And Summer Nights), and Pet Sounds were over. But how could they ever imagine that Brian would write songs with the subject matter listed above? But he did. So I find it hard to say that he "gave in" or did what the guys wanted him to do. That came in 1976.

Here's a question: how would the story differ if The Beach Boys had just been Brian producing/singing everything in the very first days and then just hiring guys/putting together a touring unit who were not his friends, neighbors, brothers, cousin? Would he have encountered more or less "resistance" and or guys quitting, being fired etc etc?

The place to be self-indulgent and do what you want, when you're in a band, is to go outside the band and have a solo career. Brian didn't do that, so he's as much to blame as the band. No one was stopping him. He was not the same person due to mental illness. He was seriously paranoid and that may have made him overly-sensitive to criticism and incapable of stepping away from the band even on a temporary basis. Also, the fact that his one attempt at a solo career, releasing "Caroline, No" under his own name and having it fail, may have made him lack confidence. Not to mention the fact he had no hits when producing other artists, other than his work with Jan and Dean (produced by Jan). I don't believe that it was Murry's fault for that, either. Brian hardcores blame everyone but Brian for his failure to separate from the Beach Boys, but it was combination of Brian's choices (and the fact he was hampered by serious mental illness, which some of his hardcore fans also deny) and his lack of success in the marketplace on his own, other than his collaboration with Jan and Dean, that made the situation what it was. Otherwise, he could have tried for a solo career way back in the '60s. It wouldn't have necessarily meant the end of the Beach Boys, either, because if he had been healthy, he could have done both a solo career and the Beach Boys.

I think this is why the BBs and BW are so fascinating once you learn their story and delve into their history. They're just so damned human.

Fight from your hearts!

Marylin knew what Brian told her in the bedroom. I'm certain that Brian felt beaten by the guys at some points. But it's not the TRUTH of the situation. I won't say that he was a paranoid madman who creted those band conflicts in his head. There was conflict.

But I wasn't there. And I guess Marylin wasn't as well most of the time, at least in the home studio.

Thank you for this post. You are 100% correct. And focusing on Mike for a moment, it makes NO SENSE that he is to blame for the demise of Smile because he didn't want "f--k with the formula". Well, if he was so powerful and had so much influence so as to derail the entire project, how the hell was Smiley Smile put out, one of the trippiest albums of all time? And if he was so powerful and influential why didn't they go back to the surf, sun and car themes on their subsquent late 60s early 70s albums (other than do it again)?

It doesn't make sense to draw any other conclusion about what happened to Brian Wilson than this one: Brian Wilson is responsible for his own demise. PERIOD. I love the man and he is a genius. But HE is responsible for everything that has happened to him. If you want to blame someone, then blame Murray for being a terrible father.

Capitol were desperate for a product and they had just scrapped months of work. They had to do something quickly. Also, $5,000 worth of hash might have clouded Mike's commercial instincts somewhat. 

Then they cut 12 songs about girls!

No s--t! :)

I always thought it was too bad that they didn't utilize BRI more for side projects. Brian could have pursued his more artistic projects there, while reserving the more commercial efforts for Capitol. Of course, that assumes that Brian was healthy enough to follow through on those projects, and I'm not sure he really was.

I'm guessing the money just wasn't there by the late 60's for The Beach Boys to invest in other artists, they were very cash strapped at the time.

Bizarre scenario - imagine if the guys had signed Charles Manson back in the day and he went on to become a success, I wonder how that story would have played out?

The issue, IMO, is one of ornateness and outside influences. The BBs had less of an issue with Brian creating nutty things as long as they were the ones doing it with him, not the likes of VDP and his pals at the time. And despite the oddness of SS, it is stripped of ornate orchestration and in-your-face studio tricks.

That being said, SS is indeed all the proof one needs that the BBs were less crazily opposed to Smile than popular myth would have one believe.

The whole surf/hot rod music scene was a fad, killed off by the British Invasion. The Beach Boys themselves had moved on -- mainly to love songs (lyrics by Mike) -- by the summer of 1964. But still there is the peculiar idea out there that Mike, or the band as a whole, or Capitol, pressured Brian in '66 or '67 to return to making surf or car songs. No one -- not Mike, not the band, not the record company, and certainly not the record buying public  -- wanted another "Surfing USA" in 1966. "Help Me, Rhonda" maybe -- but 'Good Vibrations' put an end to that.

Also, there's a general impression that the immediate post-1966 years was some sort of commercial/popular disaster for the band. On the contrary, they made a successful transition into the counterculture/hippie/progressive music era -- successful because they survived, unlike most of their contemporaries. True, the Beatles, the Stones, and the Who flourished, and the Kinks and the Byrds, like the Beach Boys, did well enough to carry on touring and making records, but most of even the hottest bands -- the Dave Clark Five, Herman's Hermits, the Monkees, the Animals, etc. -- threw in the towel and broke up, dropped by their record companies.

Yup exactly!  That's exactly why I felt there was such contradiction in the Beach Boys story.  I was spoon fed this information but it just wasn't adding up in my head (as you could follow in my previous posts in this thread).  If they were really so stuck with the fun in the sun stuff...how in the world did they release albums like Smiley Smile or Holland?  Why is it that this story is still being perpetuated?  I'm just now watching the Brian Wilson Songwriter DVDs and finished the 1962-1969 set and it goes onto to remind us AGAIN how the band was difficult with Brian's new music (um, but they still sang and recorded them). It's kind of confusing to follow one narrative that isn't so biased one way or the other.


That's exactly what I'm learning in this thread.  The truth apparently lies somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.   

Well, yeah. Everyone should fail so spectacularly that, 50 years later, they are still selling out concerts.

I also question the assumption that Endless Summer automatically doomed their chances to go beyond being an oldies act. Endless Summer brought them back to public awareness. They were a hot item again. Some of their new singles after that charted, so I don't think the public was dead set against new Beach Boys material.  I think the lack of success in going forward is down to a fractured band dynamic and lack of cohesive creative/business direction. They needed a game plan to get them positioned correctly.  But, since the crowds were mainly there for the classics and they really didn't know how to tap into the nostalgic wave but still bring in the new material, they took the path of least resistance.

Brian seemed to take a fleeting charge at following up Endless Summer with songs like "california feeling, Good Timin, and Its ok"

Yes, but I wish I/we/they/you(?) didn't view it as such a negative. It was still art. It was still timeless. It was still beautiful. It was still honest Brian Wilson and honest Beach Boys. There was nothing wrong with "going there" for that moment in time - the Endless Summer/Spirit Of America/15 Big Ones years 1974-76. That wasn't going to hurt or kill their career. The decisions and poor execution after that period (post-1976) did much more damage.

Several folks might still be alive, at least......  :'(

The best side project(s) that could've been pursued would've been Brian Wilson solo albums. In some ways, it seemed like a no-brainer. Brian could've recorded all of his eclectic, personal, "arty" songs and released them under his name. Then he could've given/recorded all of his "Beach Boy-ish" songs to the group. Then we could've gotten ALL of Brian's creativity and ideas out there - SMiLE, a 1970-71 solo album, etc.

Of course there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, but just think it they could've pulled it off! The Beach Boys could never agree on that, and, as you mentioned, after 1968 Brian might not have been up to it.

I just don't see how Brian's "arty" stuff didn't fit with everyone else's. Even Smile doesn't strike me as being too "far out" from a lot of the stuff they did in the late 60s or early 70s that most or all of the band was on board with. We know Mike and Carl contributed a lot to the creation and completion of "Cool, Cool Water", for instance.

That's not saying zomg what a bunch of weirdos, it's more that these guys were all about on the same page. Maybe very different spots on that page, maybe a page or two off, but always pretty close.

A Brian solo career at that point would've been redundant, to me. Even the 88 album has me scratching my head, although I'm sure that was at Landy's insistence. I don't know if Brian even had entire albums of material he considered worthwhile and finished back in the late 60s or early 70s.

Just the story about Redwood and Time To Get Alone will tell you that at that time I don't think The Beach Boys really knew the difference between Brian's artsy music and Beach Boys-type music.

Don't think they cared.

I'm very, very glad the guys got "Time To Get Alone" and "Darlin'". The Redwood version of "Get Alone" is nowhere near as good as any mix of the Beach Boys version.

I quite agree. Just saying that the guys didn't see a difference with Brian's music. Everything he wrote was free game to become a Beach Boys song.

This is just something I quickly threw together, a collection of songs that, for some reason or another, didn't make the cut for Beach Boys' albums. I think it would've made a great Brian Wilson solo album. It's what I was talking about above, kind of "out-there" BW songs, maybe songs that would've gotten frowns and quizzicle looks from the Beach Boys. Fine, you don't have to release them, I (Brian) will. I do agree with you guys; it never could have happened. But I wish it would've. It's fun to fantasize:

Brian Wilson - My Solution (1971) Produced by Brian Wilson

Side A

1. Games Two Can Play
2. My Solution
3. I Just Got My Pay
4. When Girls Get Together
5. H.E.L.P. Is On The Way
6. Sail Plane Song

Side B

1. Been Way Too Long
2. Awake
3. We're Together Again
4. A Day In The Life Of A Tree
5. Til I Die
6. Old Man River

That's why I think it was a missed opportunity. Apparently Brian felt the "boys" didn't like to take on some of his efforts.  "Til I Die," comes to mind.  Brian apparently worried about the "downer" content enough that he wrote alternate lyrics.  Yes, I know they did record it. Yes, I know it was on the album. But, if there had been an alternate outlet for those kinds of things, Brian could have gone ahead and poured himself into whatever similar ideas struck him, without worrying about the band's or Capitol's take on them. Ditto for rest of the guys. Anything that didn't "fit" with the Beach Boys could have been developed as a personal side project without any conflict from the others. It could have been a bit of a creative safe haven for each member of the band.

 SJS...Swap Til I Die and OMR, and you got yourself a deal.

I agree. Look at my fantasy BW solo album above. SOMEBODY didn't want those songs on a Beach Boys' album.

Deal! :police:

There you go! Nice Brian Wilson solo project there, on fantasy Brother Records.

I don't think the band bullying Brian was the reason the likes of "Games Two Can Play" or "I Just Got My Pay" weren't released.

Also, "Awake" was for the Spring project. I don't think Brian even wrote it, at least not the basis of it.

You're right. Like I said it was just something that I put together quickly. But I'll bet you could come up with a 1970-71 solo album of BW-composed songs that didn't appear on Sunflower or Surf's Up - and/or might've gotten some resistance.

You can bet that besides any members having issues, Jack or Reprise would have.

But the conflicting views/aesthetics/tastes/styles, etc. within a band is often what makes a band most interesting. I think that had Brian, Dennis, and Carl done solo albums by taking all their own respective material that wasn't quite "Beach Boys music," you'd end up with less exciting Beach Boys albums (because you're cutting out the drama, tension and diversity), and possibly dull solo albums because they'd all be distilled down to a single personality. I've felt strongly that the various styles and approaches within the band was always one of their biggest strengths. Personally, i find bands that are always on the same page tend to be boring.

Re: the sheriff's hypothetical track list for a solo BW album in '71: Who sings the backing vocals? Backing vocal arrangements are at the core of how Brian has always written music. I don't think that would have changed, and i shudder at the thought of him eschewing backing vocals because he's recording a "solo" album and doesn't have the group. So then, what, does he do all the parts himself? That's a step down in musical quality compared to having the group. Does he hire session singers? I can't imagine him having gone that route or it turning out too successfully if he had decided to try that. So does the group do the parts anyway, as a favor or as hired guns? What then is the point? It's the Beach Boys on record but under the name of their leader. Why not drop the pretense and just put it out under The Beach Boys? And here we are again. Who knows, maybe Brian himself didn't want those songs released. All i know is that i'm arguing about the possibilities of a band's direction...42 years ago  :-\

Without Brian = not the Beach Boys.  Just Al.  Mike.  Denny.  Carl.  And Bruce.  Each one had talents.  During the 1967 - 1976 period that you mentioned, we got to see some of those talents.  Some good moments and some pretty great ones.  The best ones usually involved Brian.  Not always.  But usually.

As for the formula -- It's possible they may have stopped believing in it themselves.  But again, SANS-BRIAN, they were "a cork in the ocean."  Brian knew the formula... and its secret ingredient(s).  I don't think it was as easy as it sounded.

Do It Again was Brian and Mike, doing it again per Mike's insistence that they "do it again, like we used to."  And, sho'nuff it worked.

But again, Brian needed to be dragged to it.  Without Brian, "the formula" resulted in stuff like Summer In Paradise and Kokomo, which needed about 20 assistants, a human brain, 1.21 Jigawatts and a Navajo Medicine Man to even get that.   :p

Without Brian, "the formula" also resulted in Carl & The Passions, Holland, LA, POB, and many a song on previous albums. These guys were professional singers/musicians/songwriters, Brian or no Brian.... They were never as lost as endlessly perpetuated legend would have it.

Yeah, they did some awesome stuff without Brian... but it was not "the formula" that Justin was wondering why they weren't using.

Yes, the formula was most certainly f***ed with!

That, we can agree on  >:D